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.
Subject:RE: Editing and writing tests for jobs From:"Jane Carnall" <jane -dot- carnall -at- digitalbridges -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 16 May 2002 17:55:35 +0100
Chris Grant has to question something I said, though:
> (The one-on-one personal interview has been
> established to be no better than random choice, I seem to
> remember reading in some book on interview technique.)
I get the point, but how can this actually be true? "No better than" random
selection? So if I sit down with someone and ask them what they've done,
what their skills are, and what they'd do in certain situations, that's no
better than me opening up the phone book and turning it to a page and
calling that person up? It just makes no sense. :)
I'll see if I can find that book on interview technique. What I remember was
a series of assessments of people chosen for jobs, one set of X people
because they had been chosen by a one-on-one interview, one set by picking
at random X application forms from those sent in. The supervisors and
managers of the people selected were not told how the people had been
selected. Apparently both groups had about the same ratio of successes,
failures, and the mediocre.
But in response to Maggie Secara's comment - I've only had two job offers
that came via interviews with tests, and in both cases I turned the offer
down for the same reason - the location was awful, I had a better job offer
somewhere nicer! I'm fairly sure that's coincidence, though... <g>
Jane Carnall
The writers all stand around a cauldron chanting and occasionally tossing in
a small tester. Unless stated otherwise, these opinions are mine, and mine
alone. Apologies for the long additional sig: it is added automatically and
outwith my control.
E-mail is an informal method of communication and may be subject to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment for which Digital Bridges Ltd will accept no liability. Therefore, it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information contained on e-mail without obtaining written confirmation.
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check out RoboDemo for tutorials! It makes creating full-motion software
demonstrations and other onscreen support materials easy and intuitive.
Need RoboHelp? Save $100 on RoboHelp Office in May with our mail-in rebate.
Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by May 15. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
