Discussion
Had an interesting experience interviewing today.
Candidate didn't want to do IQ test - even though it was stated as part of IV process, as they thought it could be discriminatory (I can sdee the rejection letter they are getting going to generate us a world of pain, on paper the candidate seemed fine but as soon as met in person you knew they were "that type").
But as an aside, myself and other interviewers were then talking about the IQ tests and our respective scores - being judgemental people with 130+ do OK in this role, which is IQ intensive, EQ doesn't matter so much.
We three interviewers were 134, 138 (me) and 151 on their IV tests. I'd done a few online tests prior to IV and generally got between 128 and 144, just tried two online ones this evening and got 131 and 142.
What is the range we get.
Candidate didn't want to do IQ test - even though it was stated as part of IV process, as they thought it could be discriminatory (I can sdee the rejection letter they are getting going to generate us a world of pain, on paper the candidate seemed fine but as soon as met in person you knew they were "that type").
But as an aside, myself and other interviewers were then talking about the IQ tests and our respective scores - being judgemental people with 130+ do OK in this role, which is IQ intensive, EQ doesn't matter so much.
We three interviewers were 134, 138 (me) and 151 on their IV tests. I'd done a few online tests prior to IV and generally got between 128 and 144, just tried two online ones this evening and got 131 and 142.
What is the range we get.
There is a fairly long literature covering the issues with IQ tests - there’s quite a lot of variation by age and country of origin that doesn’t appear to be correlated with ‘intelligence’. The real problem I suppose is that intelligence isn’t like horsepower, it can’t be reduced to one number.
Unless the job you are hiring for is literally to sit and fill in IQ tests all day, there are probably better ways to select the right employees.
Unless the job you are hiring for is literally to sit and fill in IQ tests all day, there are probably better ways to select the right employees.
I just looked at an IQ test and this was the first question:
"Part 1 - Memory
When you click on the next button below, you will find 20 different symbols with an assigned number under each symbol. Study them carefully and concentrate. Try to remember the assigned number that belongs with each symbol. Do not expect to remember them all.
After 30 seconds the symbols will disappear and will appear again in a different order. Write the correct assigned number in the blank spaces below each symbol. You will have 30 seconds to do this also.
NOTE! You must memorize what number belongs to each symbol because the symbols will not appear in the same sequence again."
I have awful memory so that's a confidence killer to kick things off!
"Part 1 - Memory
When you click on the next button below, you will find 20 different symbols with an assigned number under each symbol. Study them carefully and concentrate. Try to remember the assigned number that belongs with each symbol. Do not expect to remember them all.
After 30 seconds the symbols will disappear and will appear again in a different order. Write the correct assigned number in the blank spaces below each symbol. You will have 30 seconds to do this also.
NOTE! You must memorize what number belongs to each symbol because the symbols will not appear in the same sequence again."
I have awful memory so that's a confidence killer to kick things off!
NickCQ said:
Unless the job you are hiring for is literally to sit and fill in IQ tests all day
That sort of pretty much is the job. A group of around 50 or so people we have are basically give the problems no one else in the company can solve by their knowledge, experience, training, by following recognised international standards, copying other work, reverse engineering working designs etc etc. So at the start of the week they're given a load of challenges, pretty much written by engineers so they do come across a bit IQ'y, (Get square peg in round hole but must match patterns a, b, c in that order) hence why we've for 20 + years used IQ as a good measure for this department. They even daubed above the door "The UK's Lockheed Skunkworks" so they self portray themselves as a bunch of Professor Heinz type egghead inventors. Engineers go back at the end of the week to find out the answers produced / absence of said brainboxes as they've disappeared off in a prototype of one of their designs. We do truely believe one guy is trying to invent a time machine, solely to annoy the administrator so each time she fills his timesheet in for him, as he never does, he can go back in time and blank it again. That is the sort of person we are after. The less social skills the better as they tend to stay at work longer in their own time. I don't think they make our company much money per se, but they get the company a lot of Kudos with the limited Client market, I think for £6m they realised £00sm revenue one year for a client when fixing that which was considered truly broken and had never been fixed elsewhere before.
Wouldn't work for marketing I suspect and IQ would definitely not fit in with our "APM by the book" project management regiment or the database numbers driven operational managers.
Thesprucegoose said:
seems very short sighted to dismiss a candidates for not taking a test. i guess hr aren't involved as it sounds very dodgy the methodology of candidate assessment.
HR interview / background screening info submitted etc had already happened, candidate was brought into room to do IQ test with us and discuss their methods. That is when they refused, despite it being a pre-requisite on the job advert to undertake this test!FFS if employment law is now saying that we have to give numpties an equal chance then the world can just go fart up it's own ass.
Mind you, our HR have been known to call you into a room, offer you two envelopes, one with your leaving settlement, one with a good reference and you can take them and leave or be fired and leave. Some would say dodgy, others would say sound business practise where all parties know where they stand. Same with whenever we have the 3-5 yr redundancy round, the "agreed process" with the unions pretty much always gets rid of all the deadwood we wanted to leave and coasters, but does unfortunately catch 5% people we would rather have had stay.
StanleyT said:
Had an interesting experience interviewing today.
Candidate didn't want to do IQ test - even though it was stated as part of IV process, as they thought it could be discriminatory (I can sdee the rejection letter they are getting going to generate us a world of pain, on paper the candidate seemed fine but as soon as met in person you knew they were "that type").
But as an aside, myself and other interviewers were then talking about the IQ tests and our respective scores - being judgemental people with 130+ do OK in this role, which is IQ intensive, EQ doesn't matter so much.
We three interviewers were 134, 138 (me) and 151 on their IV tests. I'd done a few online tests prior to IV and generally got between 128 and 144, just tried two online ones this evening and got 131 and 142.
What is the range we get.
Is your last sentence some kind of IQ test that I automatically fail by wondering what the fCandidate didn't want to do IQ test - even though it was stated as part of IV process, as they thought it could be discriminatory (I can sdee the rejection letter they are getting going to generate us a world of pain, on paper the candidate seemed fine but as soon as met in person you knew they were "that type").
But as an aside, myself and other interviewers were then talking about the IQ tests and our respective scores - being judgemental people with 130+ do OK in this role, which is IQ intensive, EQ doesn't matter so much.
We three interviewers were 134, 138 (me) and 151 on their IV tests. I'd done a few online tests prior to IV and generally got between 128 and 144, just tried two online ones this evening and got 131 and 142.
What is the range we get.
k it means? An IQ test seems like an absurd way to score someone for a job - it makes no account for any of the soft skills that are important, even for the nerdiest of jobs.
In addition, pure intelligence is largely meaningless - is a measurement of what you have, not how you can apply it. Like a measurement of how large a muscle is, vs how much it could lift.
Why not give them an *actual* problem to solve that might represent the job?
This comes across like I'm saying "book smarts beats street smarts" but that's not the point I'm making at all.
EDIT - I wouldn't refuse one in a job interview, although if I was given the big spiel about "The UK's Lockheed Skunkworks" and was then presented with some crappy test nicked off the internet vs a proper one I might have a problem.
In addition, pure intelligence is largely meaningless - is a measurement of what you have, not how you can apply it. Like a measurement of how large a muscle is, vs how much it could lift.
Why not give them an *actual* problem to solve that might represent the job?
This comes across like I'm saying "book smarts beats street smarts" but that's not the point I'm making at all.
EDIT - I wouldn't refuse one in a job interview, although if I was given the big spiel about "The UK's Lockheed Skunkworks" and was then presented with some crappy test nicked off the internet vs a proper one I might have a problem.
Jakg said:
An IQ test seems like an absurd way to score someone for a job - it makes no account for any of the soft skills that are important, even for the nerdiest of jobs.
In addition, pure intelligence is largely meaningless - is a measurement of what you have, not how you can apply it. Like a measurement of how large a muscle is, vs how much it could lift.
Why not give them an *actual* problem to solve that might represent the job?
This comes across like I'm saying "book smarts beats street smarts" but that's not the point I'm making at all.
It isn't the only test so isn't how we entirely score someone for the job, though in this case the candidate got a zero and a bye-bye thanks for calling and their train fare from petty cash. In addition, pure intelligence is largely meaningless - is a measurement of what you have, not how you can apply it. Like a measurement of how large a muscle is, vs how much it could lift.
Why not give them an *actual* problem to solve that might represent the job?
This comes across like I'm saying "book smarts beats street smarts" but that's not the point I'm making at all.
1) HR general interview.
2) Background screening.
3) Qualifications.
4) Tech phone I/V.
5) Online Bourdon Tests.
6) Final hurdle, turn up with passport / DL / Copies of degrees, 1 interview and then and IQ test and then a free form presentation.
Just that this test, perhaps coincidentally and causality more than causation has always been the one that people who did well on fit in and do well at work whilst those that were lower don't fit in, do well and end up leaving. And for some reason, this candidate decided to deselect themselves from the recruitment process by refusing to do even though they'd known months in advance (their screening takes 3-6 months sometimes) which costs us as a company and the candidate must have put in 20hrs of their own time so it is a serious investment. Anyway, their loss. Next candidate scored 147, so Pot Black!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the Pocket as Alan Partridge would say. (Though for discrimination reasons, we couldn't say that!).
StanleyT said:
What is the range we get.
Surely with an IQ at 130+ you should be able to ascertain that yourself given the figures in your OP...PS, when I was a child I learnt very rapidly not to discuss IQs, I must confess I presumed anyone with a decent IQ learnt that lesson quickly.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff