in reply to Re^6: Some reflections on the Brainbench Perl Test
in thread Some reflections on the Brainbench Perl Test

Pre-supposing a prospective employee as incompetent, because of their lack of exposure to XP and/or their inability to score highly on an "agility test", is capriciousness bordering on discrimination.

I generally prefer your responses when they have at least a tenuous connection to what I write, and especially when you don't put words in my mouth.

  • Comment on Re^7: Some reflections on the Brainbench Perl Test

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Some reflections on the Brainbench Perl Test
by Zen (Deacon) on Dec 15, 2008 at 19:15 UTC
    I disagree with a fair share of open-ended questions of browseruk's, but in this case, I like his point. Finding a set of favorable questions and making checkmarks beside them isn't difficult. A similar case can be made for SATs, IQ tests, and so on. If you were to judge parrot on a different exam, perhaps one on meeting development goals and deadlines, timely releases, and so on, would you pass? And if you didn't, does that mean your team is terrible or that I chose an unflattering metric?

    Point being, judging competence is a tricky beast, and subject to the whims of the test writer and the company or person(s) endorsing it.
[reply]
Re^8: Some reflections on the Brainbench Perl Test
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 15, 2008 at 19:45 UTC

    And I prefer your responses when they consider the whole response, not dismiss by selective reading.

    I wasn't putting "words in your mouth", nor suggesting that you would base your judgement soley upon the statistic--but it does happen.

    I remember a situation a few years ago where I had submitted my CV for a post that was almost the exact twin of the role I was just finishing. I never heard anything. Then a month after I had taken another position, the company rang me asking about my availability. It turned out that the pre-vetting of CVs had been done by the human resources department--counting keyword matches. There were two of the 12 acronyms on the job description that failed to appear on my CV, and it was rejected at that stage.

    When the interviews had been conducted and no suitable candidates found, the department manager had asked to see any rejected CVs and was astounded to find mine had been rejected. (His words.) The two missing acronyms were internal-use-only systems that no one from outside the company could ever have had experience of. Essentially boiler plate requirements added to all job descriptions by the HR bods. Most of the accepted CVs had been submitted through agencies aware of this, and they had added them to their submitted CVs. Mine was sent direct. The department manager was very angry, as I was already committed to my new post.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Meditations