TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
The biggest problem I would have to testing is the time it takes.
One of the posts today had some stat of a writing test requiring 3 to 5 pages.
If we follow the JoAnn Hackos' model of 4-hours per page (or some such, my book
is at home) yikes! It would take all day long.
Are you really gonna let some poor technical writer wanna-be slug sit in your
office for a day writing up a treatise on a stapler? Phoo!
Some tech writer interviewer's must have a lot of time on their hands.
I interviewed a bunch of technical writers one time, and Bob knows, if I had
each write something 2 or more pages long, I would go out of my creepy mind.
Let's see: Interview, write 3 pages for test, pee in a cup, submit blood sample,
submit to a credit check, hand over photos of your cats, have a retina scan,
> From: Jim_McAward -at- ademco -dot- com
> I use testing as a rule-out, not as a qualitative means of determining
> who gets the job. I am sure that, given your resume and prior
> responsibilities, you'd do plenty well - and because I test everyone,
> I would test you, too.
> I'll bet we could make it worth your while enough to stoop down to
> writing about a pencil sharpener... after all, they got me to pee in a
> cup to get this job, and I vowed I *never* would ;-)