On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:04:36PM -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > but I still think such a test can be a good starting point for a talk.
> 
> That's how it's meant to be used, in addition to being the most objective 
> measure of candidate's ability. Along with a real-time, hands-on solving of 
> a problem (sort of like what Joel suggests).
> 
> > just don't treat the answers as if it were an exam.
> 
> Of course not. Most of the time, there's no gray area: the candidate either 
> passes with flying colors, or cannot solve the Ohm's law problem.
> 
> We have a similar test for our shipping/receiving position. I interviewed 
> two candidates in August, both with great resumes and both passed the phone 
> screen. The first candidate had a 4.0 GPA in high school, and was 
> maintaining a 4.0 GPA in college. He spent an hour on four simple problems, 
> and answered "four boxes" to the last question:
> 
> "There are two boxes: Box 1 (20x10x10) and Box 2 (30x10x5). Which box is 
> bigger? How many 5x2x1 boxes can you fit in the bigger box?"

Ouch!

> 
> Candidate #1 also couldn't convert pounds to kilograms (given the conversion 
> factor).

Double ouch!

> 
> The second candidate correctly solved all four in about 7 minutes (I assume 
> he could not believe how simple the test was, and spent a couple of minutes 
> verifying his work). He also brought his own pencil and calculator, even 
> though he didn't know about the test.
> 
> Guess who got the job. 

Duh.

As usually it illustrates those who memorize and those who understand. I'll
take a flexible problem solver anytime over a bank of facts. Of course I
prefer both when possible. ;-)

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist