Re: Summary of Testing Disc.--afterthought

[John Gear <catalyst -at- PACIFIER -dot- COM>]

>Most writers, however, hate the idea of tests, and generally find the process
>degrading, insulting, and ultimately inconclusive. Many writers, in fact, say
>they refuse to take such tests.

I think it would be more accurate to conclude that some of the writers
responding to this thread disliked *overt* tests and that some of them
refuse to take same.

But, as Sue Gallagher's perceptive and thoughtful list of interview
questions shows, there's a test going on.  It's just one in which only one
side knows which conversation is "testable" and which is just
conversation/getting-to-know-you.

The folks responding against overt testing express a preference for a system
in which they prosper--not a surprising result.  Most people hired through
the interview/writing sample process find it to be a pretty fair and decent
process for finding the right people for the job ... after all, they were
hired!  ;^)

>Another whole group brought up legal issues around testing. The consensus
>here is that these tests, unless developed under strict scientific scrutiny,
>would not hold up in a court of law, and possilby subject the employer to
>legal action.

This is, IMHO, a red herring dragged across the trail.  We no longer
threaten each other with the "evil eye" -- we say "lawyer!"

Under our legal system, companies can (and do) require urinalysis exams,
with the "right" to random exams down the road; entire agencies exist to run
down derogatory information on candidates, including whether or not they've
*ever* filed a claim for workplace injury compensation or treatment.  (Can
you say carpal tunnel, eyestrain, or lower-back problems?  I knew you could!)

Just about the only people who argue that it's "easy" to "have a company for
lunch" over hiring practices are bottom-fishing lawyers trying to drum up
business---everyone else saying this is using it like an incantation, hoping
it will work.  It is *not* easy in any state to take a company to court over
hiring practices.  Nor would the result be swift.  Nor would you be likely
to want to work there when you were through, if you won.  And if the British
rule is adopted ("loser pays") as many industry groups fervently desire,
taking a company to court means betting your entire life's earnings against
the odds of a company, represented by lawyers specializing in such cases,
not being able to convince *one* juror in twelve that a hiring practice was
*not* unfair.

Now let's discuss the "insult" of an overt writing test.

P.S.:  Points well taken from all who had lengthy tests sprung on them and
who suffered tests running into the hours etc. etc.  Of course, long,
wandering interviews going nowhere are just as wasteful of our time, and are
probably as common.  It's not the idea of a test that's necessarily flawed
in those cases, it's the company using it.  I only *wish* that my last firm
had been that way during the hiring process--since, *except* for the hiring
process, that is pretty much how they treated people.  In some ways you were
blessed to experience a hiring process that accurately reflected the value
the company placed on treating people as having any inherent worth and
dignity.  It gave you some real valuable information.

John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of
selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless." -- Sinclair Lewis