Tests & Interviews - Pointers to inside IR35?

[NewWorld123]

In most cases, CV is submitted for obtaining contract.
Tests taken by the contractor. CV discussed during interview.

Question:

If you appear for tests and interviews, are you automatically putting yourself inside IR35?

[cojak]

Contracts and working practices do IR35 make. Anything before signing doesn't count.

I have nothing against skills tests (for technical roles) or behaviour interviews for PM/consultant roles. My only (strong) gripe is for personality tests which in my experience are a lazy substitute for proper recruitment and are mostly inaccurate.

[Jubber]

My only (strong) gripe is for personality tests which in my experience are a lazy substitute for proper recruitment and are mostly inaccurate.

Jeez - I haven't got one to test.

[BolshieBastard]

Tests are for permies. Qualifications are for contract professionals.

[cojak]

Qualifications do not prove that you can do the job, only that you have the potential to do it. Any clever arse can get them.

Qualifications get you the interview - experience gets you the job.

[NotAllThere]

When SAP started doing certification in the late 90s, it was a really help to hiring managers. If a candidate had certification, their CV went into the bin - it showed that they were unlikely to have had much practical experience.

I certainly couldn't care less if a candidate had a PhD or no O-levels.

Qualifications are nothing. Experience and ability are everything - for these, well constructed tests can be invaluable.

Of course, the above may be total carp if you're in a different sector to me.

[thunderlizard]

They're not a pointer in themselves, but they could be a small sign of trouble ahead. If they're paying too much attention to your personal CV and your personal abilities, it suggests that won't want to allow you much control over who performs the work - they'll expect it to be you.

[thunderlizard]

Of course, the above may be total carp if you're in a different sector to me.

Well, I'm glad I'm in a different sector from you. This idea you can EITHER have experience OR qualifications is a strange one. I had a few years of programming experience before I got my first programming certs and I think I'd got pretty good in those years. I did the certs because I had some free time between contracts (remember 2001?) and to learn a few extra bits and bobs, and because they might help in a tie-break situation. & I don't recall anybody coming along and removing my previous experience with some kind of brain-hoover*.






*but, I suppose, I wouldn't...

[BolshieBastard]

Qualifications do not prove that you can do the job, only that you have the potential to do it. Any clever arse can get them.

Qualifications get you the interview - experience gets you the job.

My point is qualifications prove you have achieved an industry standard whether than be MS engineer, ISTQB etc, etc. They are industry recognised and despite what some may think, are not a piece of p iss to pass.

I expect the qualification to get me to the top of the list for interview, then, its down to me to prove my experience. A test doesnt add or give any benefit except allow the the question setter to show what an arse he \ she is.

[Turion]

Qualifications may be important for permie placements because they are likely to be checked, as are references.

For contractors, quals mean nothing as we can put anything we like. Like references, they never get checked. Your skills, CV, interview technique and on the job performance are what count.