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: Interview & testing From:"Eric L. Dunn" <edunn -at- TRANSPORT -dot- BOMBARDIER -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:26:17 -0500
"Rickard, Peg" <Peg -dot- Rickard -at- US -dot- DATEX-OHMEDA -dot- COM> wrote:
>>I agree - Testing is a waste of time. Your silly test could hinder
>>from hiring a potentially brilliant employee simply because that person
>>be one who suffers from "test taking syndrome" or had a bad day. Testing
>>not a true measurement of a people's ability.
>>What can you really tell from a test? It may tell you if they can edit or
>>organize information, but it cannot tell you how they blend in with a
>>persevere when no one returns proofs, gain the respect of engineers and
>>co-workers or are motivated to grow and learn new things.
I agree whole heartedly with those that say a test is not the be all and
end all of determining which is the best candidate. But neither is anything
that has ever been listed in discussions similar to this one. It's the over
all package that sells. If a candidate lacks in one area, they may make up
for numerous times in another.
To say testing is a waste of time though goes too far. By the same logic I
could should holes through the idea of asking for a portfolio and
portfolios are useless. Who really wrote the samples in there? Did that 5
page perfectly written text/procedure get written in one pass with no
edits, or in weeks with several edits and input from a number of other
One of the things you often see on job descriptions is: "Works well under
pressure." What better way to judge it than a test? How will the candidate
react to having to produce a procedure for a previously unknown function
shortly before deadline? Will they get cracking and produce something
useful or will the freeze up with "test taking syndrome'?
An effective test can, in a relatively decent time, give you a gauge of a
candidates; grammar, spelling, thought process/logic, organisation, and
performance under a deadline.
This info along with a portfolio, references, and a gauge of their
personality will give you the best view of the package.
Think about how a candidate who refuses to take a test would be viewed by
an employer. If you won't do the test, what assignments will you refuse if
I hire you?
Eric L. Dunn