Written Technical test after interview?

[va_lucky]

Originally Posted by Mr_Geek

It's like asking Lebron James to come prove he can dunk when applying for a new team!

I am glad someone understands.

[va_lucky]

Originally Posted by Smooth23

They dont have time to have encountered it before, fielding 25 job offers a day and all.

I never said 25 offers a day. I said 25 phone calls per day. The vast majority of it does not result in fruition. Still, I am pretty busy and my time is valuable.

Recruiter in broken English: "Do you move to HAKARAKISTAKISTAKISTAN FOR JOB NOW?...."

Me: "No"

Recruiter: CLICK

[Heidi60]

This thread reminds me of how much the tax payers paid for that ACA web failure. The people they hired were not qualified so it took a massive rework and additional tax payer dollars to correct some of the problems. Employers don't have tax payer dollars to throw away so they are usining good common sense to protect themselves from unqualified candidates.

[SchellBelle]

I had to do a written "pop quiz" with no calculator for a lab technician job recently and it was full of math problems that I haven't seen since elementary school (dividing/multiplying fractions) or things I was never actually taught (decimals written in words). I correctly answered half of the problems, and showed the problem set up for the rest. This wasn't a company thing, just that one project manager in the team. I understand testing that I know how to do the problem, but I wouldn't dare do 4 place decimal division by hand on the job, and I felt like she insulted my engineering degree. (Although a symptom of most engineers is forgetting your simple math and doing it all in excel.)

[va_lucky]

I know that I got the majority of the questions right, but it turns out I didn't get the job. I think the recruiter's brother in Kosijaikitanistakitan took my answers and got the job personally. Thanks to whoever gave me the rep on that one!

Oh well, the next person who pre-screens me after an interview can go pound sand.

[jimazee]

Originally Posted by va_lucky

I know that I got the majority of the questions right, but it turns out I didn't get the job. I think the recruiter's brother in Kosijaikitanistakitan took my answers and got the job personally. Thanks to whoever gave me the rep on that one!

Oh well, the next person who pre-screens me after an interview can go pound sand.

Sorry to hear that you didn't get the job.

One other thought is that the 'test' was only one of a few inputs they based the selection on. It would be 'fair' if they told you that 90+ or whatever was required to be hired. I doubt they had such a specific standard set (but could have I suppose). If this test was the pass/fail for hiring they wasted a lot of your (and their) time and it seems dull.

BTW, I can see where this type of testing is more important in 'project' related hiring (to be laid off later) where vertical skills are needed 'right soon' (fix the leaky dyke) vs. a career situation where close 'knowledge' is OK and the employee shows they can learn/grow in the field and assumedly brings other skills that are useful over years.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein

Every company gets to set its own rules and processes.

If it was/is so important (pass/fail or ranking) it seems 'fairer' to conduct the test before long interviews etc. (maybe using a 30-60 minute 'short version') to screen out those who won't qualify. This is how I recall it being done in similar situations years ago. If the candidate 'passed' the short test, (and other screening related criteria), they were brought to the office for a longer test and interviewed by multiple hiring managers. Collectively this was used to select/offer the successful candidates. The interviewees were reimbursed for travel and lodging etc.

Not that that matters to you now. Advice: the next time, ask how the will select early.

[va_lucky]

Originally Posted by jimazee

Sorry to hear that you didn't get the job.

One other thought is that the 'test' was only one of a few inputs they based the selection on. It would be 'fair' if they told you that 90+ or whatever was required to be hired. I doubt they had such a specific standard set (but could have I suppose). If this test was the pass/fail for hiring they wasted a lot of your (and their) time and it seems dull.

BTW, I can see where this type of testing is more important in 'project' related hiring (to be laid off later) where vertical skills are needed 'right soon' (fix the leaky dyke) vs. a career situation where close 'knowledge' is OK and the employee shows they can learn/grow in the field and assumedly brings other skills that are useful over years.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein

Every company gets to set its own rules and processes.

If it was/is so important (pass/fail or ranking) it seems 'fairer' to conduct the test before long interviews etc. (maybe using a 30-60 minute 'short version') to screen out those who won't qualify. This is how I recall it being done in similar situations years ago. If the candidate 'passed' the short test, (and other screening related criteria), they were brought to the office for a longer test and interviewed by multiple hiring managers. Collectively this was used to select/offer the successful candidates. The interviewees were reimbursed for travel and lodging etc.

Not that that matters to you now. Advice: the next time, ask how the will select early.

Thanks, your advice is sound. The recruiter probably would not have been able to tell me in plain English what the process would have been up front. This is just the way that it is. Oh well, I am still working and making money, I just have to do a long commute to get there.