Good luck. Hope you get the job!

frankv:

frednz:

So you can spend many years and many thousands of dollars getting a qualification, but when you go for a job interview, employers like this one are determined to carry out their own irrelevant tests on how you can solve some pathetic arithmetical questions. So, in addition to the things that really matter, you need to practice seeing patterns in sets of numbers, because like anything, the more you practice something the better you get. So, what would happen if a potential employee refused to do these tests, should an employer say this person is unsuitable, even if highly qualified academically for the job?

Qualifications in IT have a half-life of 10 years or less, so my 40-years-ago 4-year BSc(Hons) in Comp Sc is at best worth 1/16 of what it was when new, so equivalent to less than 3 months training. And, whilst it got me to the employable stage, and I've used bits of that degree on and off over those 40 years, I learnt more about programming in my first year of work than all those 4 years. (OTOH, I saw a job ad for COBOL programmers the other day).

And job interviews themselves have been shown to be very poor predictors of how well a person does in the job. So some kind of objective psychometric test is possibly (if it's in the right domain) a useful improvement on just a job interview. In my case, for example, it shows an inability to remember 5th form algebra, which might (or might not) be relevant to the job.

Refusal to do the test might show a relevant anti-authoritarian attitude, or insufficient desperation in needing a job. Or it might show the ability to think outside the box, since for some employers solving the maths problem isn't the only way to get the job.

Conversely, doing all the practice to be able to do these irrelevant exercises quickly perhaps shows determination, and a willingness to follow instructions.

 

In my SO workplace (govt) they rely heavily on psychometrics for senior appointments over the past couple of years (since change of CEO).

It's not working out too well.  There's a problem in that if candidates check the right boxes and meet the desired psychometric parameters, then they're all "qualified" - so then what do you do?  Interview by panel is somewhat stilted as they have to standardise the interview process, lest someone complains that they didn't get a fair go (and this happens frequently - especially with internal applicants).  Unsuccessful applicants want to know why they didn't get the job.  "We didn't like you" isn't the appropriate response (even though probably true most times). 

One thing is apparent though, the successful candidates last just long enough so the external consultant gets their hefty full commission.  They've employed a succession of highly competent idiots who can't function in their jobs because eventually everybody hates them.  It takes a while and some retrospective investigation and "the grapevine" to figure out that they left their previous jobs for the same reason - and that should have been done before they even got to the interview stage - but proper reference checking gets relegated to lower priority, because some people really really trust psychometrics.

As for the concept that people who have similar psychometric profiles should get on and be a good fit in the workplace, introspective analysis makes me think that's really bizarre - I'd hate to work with someone like me.

frednz:

frankv:

 

Getting back to how to do these tests:

 

 

 

Calculate a constant value to add to the first number that gives the first answer. Use the constant in the second pattern... if it works (it probably won't), do the same in the third pattern and you're done.

 

 

 

If it doesn't work, try the same, but multiply instead of add.

 

 

 

If that doesn't work, try an add plus multiply (your first two attempts will give you a rough idea of probable values).

 

 

 

If that doesn't work, try the above with squares of one or both of the original numbers.

 

 

 

Or you could try doing it by solving simultaneous equations:

 

 

 

aA + bB +c = C

 

 

 

aD + bE + c = F

 

 

 

where A,B,C,D,E,F are values given, and a,b,c are unknowns. Probably you can assume the unknowns are integers. maybe even positive integers.

 

 

 

Subtract equation 1 from equation 2:

 

 

 

a(A-D) + b(B-E) = (C-F)

 

 

 

(Can't remember the rest of the process, sorry).

 

 

 

 

 

So you can spend many years and many thousands of dollars getting a qualification, but when you go for a job interview, employers like this one are determined to carry out their own irrelevant tests on how you can solve some pathetic arithmetical questions. So, in addition to the things that really matter, you need to practice seeing patterns in sets of numbers, because like anything, the more you practice something the better you get. So, what would happen if a potential employee refused to do these tests, should an employer say this person is unsuitable, even if highly qualified academically for the job?

It is similar to the ridiculous process of making an employee you have had working for you for years "interview for the job" when you do a restructure.

What is the point? You have had years to get to know the individual and their work. Why waste their time and yours when you should already know whether they will fit the new role?

gehenna:

 

It didn't help that the psychologist and I didn't gel since he could only talk in rugby metaphors, and when I told him I have a sizeable disdain for rugby he didn't know how to relay info to me after that lol

 

Shrink, I want to kill! Kill! KILL!

Fred99:

 

, because some people really really trust psychometrics.

 

I had this discussion with a coworker a week or so ago. He had done his degree in Psychology, amongst other things. And he said he had done a paper called something like "Qualitative Analyis" which was all about how you can't trust any psych test... they're all biased.

Fred99: Oops, I'm sorry about that, I didn't read the entire thread and jumped to a conclusion that nobody considered that.  Please don't read too much into that as a reflection of my suitability as a candidate for the job as proof-reader for Stuff. 

Dear applicant

Your inattention, along with the use of double-spacing after a period, is commendable. Unfortunately your grammar and spelling is not considered appropriately low enough for us to be able to offer you a position at this time.

Regards
Stuff

at least HR didn't send you this https://www.therakyatpost.com/2019/11/08/msian-shares-job-description-included-allowing-boss-to-casually-touch/

Seems unlikely to be legitimate.

gehenna:

 

Seems unlikely to be legitimate.

 

All the people I know called sgfrtgf are devious perverts, so it could be true.

premiumtouring:

 

Good luck. Hope you get the job!

 

Thanks, I'm still waiting to hear!!! Starting to feel that I might not have it, as if they wanted me, they've had time to get back to me, but who knows, they could be busy. They got back to me quickly after an 'informal chat', and then after a 'formal interview' as well. 

I don't feel I did too badly on the test. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. By the time I did it, I had learned to recognize quite a few different forms of logic, apart maybe, from the pattern tests, which I didn't think would be too bad, but with having to make quick decisions it could have been worse than it felt.

I hate that it looks like it boils down to a psychometric test, I got on very well with the person that would be my manager and his manager, I liked them and felt that they liked me. I really don't think psychometric tests show what you are capable of / how hard you work....

I'm not happy in my current job and drive 36k to work, this job would be less than 4k, and from what they said about it, I would love it.

All I can do is wait!

BlinkyBill:

 

gehenna: As an employer these kinds of tests aren't my main decision making factor, but they are still useful depending on the role you're going for. They give me more context about some things that may not be immediately apparent in your CV or interview.

You should embrace the process, if the employer is using this testing then they want to be sure you're right for the role. Not only for them but also for your own sanity. Being in the wrong role is very difficult for all parties.

Knowing they do this in their recruitment process means they likely also have robust process and policies in other areas of how the business works, and that can only be a good thing.

 

I 100% disagree with this. Psychometric testing is a long way from best practice because it in no way indicates how well someone will do performing job functions. Many many enlightened employers are removing the requirement to do this sort of crap testing. 

 

my feeling is out-of-date HR ‘professionals’ are the only ones still persisting with this sort of thing.

 

I think there is value in what Gehenna said. No one is expected to get them all correct. One person may get some correct but only complete 8 out of 20 questions. Another may get less or more correct but did complete the test. Time Management. Its just one factor but they dont want employees who has difficulty managing time.

Fred99:

 

gehenna:

 

Seems unlikely to be legitimate.

 

 

All the people I know called sgfrtgf are devious perverts, so it could be true.

 

ok i had not had coffee when i read that ... lol

frednz: ... their sheer enthusiasm and positive attitude, even to the extent of offering to work for a month or so with no pay. ...

Call me middle-aged and grumpy, but I don't think I'd hire someone who offers to work for free.  Simply because to me it comes across as desperation (and maybe it is) and it also seems they undermine their own value.  If someone is capable of the work and they expend their time they deserve, and should demand, to get paid.

 (For context, my view above is in regard to people offering themselves for a free trial period.  I'm all for volunteer work for good causes or, say, a high-school student spending a few hours after school with a tradie to get work experience.)