Chris Smolinski wrote:
> >This is completely off topic, but may I ask how you came to that 
> >conclusion?
>>I'm an engineer and a manager, and I've interviewed close to 100 people 
>>over
>>our 7 years in business, using interview questions and tests that we
>>ourselves put together. And yes, many of the questions came from the books
>>I've read, on hiring and management.
>
> One company I worked for, we had a test that we gave to prospective
> engineering and technician candidates. It contained mostly "basic"
> material. I still remember one of the questions, it concerned diodes.
> It had several figures, each containing a diode and resistor, and a
> sine wave input, you had to draw the output. Really basic stuff. But
> you'd be amazed how many people didn't know the correct answers. We
> found that it was an excellent way to filter out duds.

Same here. A while back, I posted an old electronic technician test here, 
and many people commented that it was "too easy". However, out of all the 
applicants that we administered the test to, only one candidate got 100%.

If someone cannot apply Ohm's law to a resistor network, it is a good 
indicator that they will not understand more complex circuits. Moreover, we 
found that people who spent more time on the test, generally did poorer than 
the ones who finished it quickly.

Tests are a great supplement to interview questions. Some people can breeze 
through the interview, only to fail the test.

Vitaliy 

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