[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Author Index (this month)][Thread Index (this month)][Top of Archive]

Re: Profile

Subject: Re: Profile
From: Peter <pnewman1 -at- optonline -dot- net>
To: Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:24:40 -0500

Bruce Byfield wrote:


Almost all this testing is a scam. It gives an aura of science to the decision-
making process, and nothing more. So far as I know, there is no objective evidence (that is, any study done by someone who isn't promoting the use of these tests) that shows that any such testing results in more suitable hires than unaided decision-making. In some cases, the success isn't even significantly hirer than you would get by random-chance.

I think they provide a very useful function. If a new hire doesn't work out, a hiring manager can always claim reliance on a faulty test, mandated from above.

Personally, I think that people have every right to object to being measured by such rubber rulers.

In a prior lifetime I objected to taking one of those tests even if it meant not being hired. It turned out that they were looking for someone who would not be afraid of the personal consequences if they had to make a hard decision. I accepted their offer. I don't recommend this approach for everybody, for every situation.

--
Peter

Sisyphus had it easy




References:
re: Profile: From: Rachael Lininger
re: Profile: From: Bruce Byfield

Previous by Author: Re: texas tech university online graduate program/experience
Next by Author: RE: Multiple undo --- XML editors
Previous by Thread: Re: Profile
Next by Thread: Re: Myers-Briggs (WAS Profile)

[Top of Archive] | [Author Index (this month)] | [Thread Index (this month)]

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads