Reply to: Agent asking the candidate to appear for Online Test

[BamBam]

It is no wonder that they complain that they cannot find people!!!!!

FFS

Yep, totally agree!

For a start, surely £250-300 for a Central London contract is only going to get you relatively inexperienced developers!?! Would be interested to hear what "Another Dodgy Agent" thinks about C#/SQL rates in general, being an agent and privy to general market information.

Secondly, 2 written tests? Even Microsoft's own MCPs aren't written, and they're professional qualifications!! And as I said in my previous post, is the quality of the written test going to be good enough anyway? Who writes them? Who marks them (being a "written" test, it's not as straight-forward as seeing if they selected answer B, etc)?

Thirdly, shouldn't they be doing a phone interview first? After all, why should someone go through a test first if they're likely to be rejected because their personality doesn't suit, or whatever?

I think agents should be responsible here and feed back this kind of information to the clients - maybe they'd be doing something to earn their money, then!

[HairyArsedBloke]

One recruitment Agency called over phone and explained the C# SQL Developer - Recruitment process as follows:

(1) Two tests to be written, one each for SQL and C#
(2) If you score more than their benchmark, then you will have to go through a telephonic interview.
(3) If you pass the telephonic interview, you will be invited for a one day trial onsite wherein you will be given some code to be written. If you pass this trial, you will be hired.

Rate about £250-300/day at Central London based on experience.

Whether you are 5 years experienced or 10 years experienced, the same process.

It is no wonder that they complain that they cannot find people!!!!!

FFS

[Another Dodgy Agent]

It's very, very unlikely to be the agent asking for tests, in my experience it's always been the clients HR team and their standard approach to hiring staff.

Yep! Usually thrown to the agents to deal with as part of "value added" to the client. Trust me, we don't like tests any more than you guys!

[Cowboy Bob]

I once, reluctantly, took a tech test for an agency. The test insisted I use IE as a browser so I fired up VMWare. It then installed some stupid ActiveX component that maximised the window and didn't allow alt-tab or anything like that - probably to stop cheating. How I laughed as I got 100% by Googling the answers on the host OS whilst filling out the test on the VM.

I did come clean to the agent later and told him that this proves that these tests are just a waste of time. He was a bit pissed off, but then I got the gig in the end anyway.

[Ashwin2007]

Another case:

One recruitment Agency called over phone and explained the C# SQL Developer - Recruitment process as follows:

(1) Two tests to be written, one each for SQL and C#
(2) If you score more than their benchmark, then you will have to go through a telephonic interview.
(3) If you pass the telephonic interview, you will be invited for a one day trial onsite wherein you will be given some code to be written. If you pass this trial, you will be hired.

Rate about £250-300/day at Central London based on experience.

Whether you are 5 years experienced or 10 years experienced, the same process.

[BamBam]

I too find these tests frustrating for a number of reasons:

1) Often, these tests are WRITTEN (all MS tests I've heard of are on computers). Now, I've been using computers for nearly 2 decades now and can type very quickly but couldn't even jot down a shopping list on paper without it looking like a doctor's prescription! After my last written test, even the interviewer (who was a developer) said that he could barely write on paper any more either!!?!
2) These tests are often badly prepared (more about theory than practice), and have little reflection on how well you do the job, so they can't really tell the interviewer much about your skills on the job (how many people rely on intellisense here?).
3) Great exam-takers don't necessarily make good real-world developers! On one of my contracts, we once had a great laugh when we compared the quality of the work of those that had MCADs and MCSDs against those that didn't. It was comical that an MCSD wrote a complex stored proc that would time out whenever it was run, yet look well under a second to run after I'd rewritten it!

It seems that a lot of clients are not adopting tests, but I just wish they took more time to prepare them properly. There was one company that prepared a proper, real-world development test with several bugs to fix and some functionality to add. I wish we saw more of this kind of test, if the trend is to test every candidate.

But, at the end of the day, I agree with those that think clients should pay more attention to the contents on a CV and approach the relevant references to confirm the claims.

[cojak]

I don't really have a problem with skills test - I create them...

It's the personality tests* that I object to..

*And don't let them try to tell you with the bultulipe that they're not tests but 'profiles' - anything that stops you from getting the job is a test at the end of the day....

[pmeswani]

I think sometimes the problem is companies have been had by contractors who have *ahem* slightly over exagerated their skills on their CV's in the past.

The only way to know whether someone truely has the skills for any job is to actually test them.

You should be able to pass the test if you are what you say you are.

I do agree about what the slashdot article said about being profesionals but - well not all contractors are are they.

This is often the case. Athough a quick call to a referee (or a reference customer) should rectify that problem. If they refuse to give a reference, then a test should be performed.

[original PM]

I think sometimes the problem is companies have been had by contractors who have *ahem* slightly over exagerated their skills on their CV's in the past.

The only way to know whether someone truely has the skills for any job is to actually test them.

You should be able to pass the test if you are what you say you are.

I do agree about what the slashdot article said about being profesionals but - well not all contractors are are they.

[pmeswani]

Disagree. I'm not a permie, my CV speaks for itself and the client can contact any of my past clients for a reference.

I won't take tests of any kind. If it kills the chance of the gig then so be it. I've never been without work when I wanted it so it's no skin off my nose.

Not directly relevant to this post... but may be worth considering...

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no.../09/15/0210235

[ratewhore]

A contractor shouldn't be afraid of taking tests:

If you refuse the test you won't get the role.

If you take the test and 'fail' as such then you won't get the role.

If you take the test and 'pass' you'll be considered.

What have you got to lose? Are you too busy watching day time TV to sit a test for 1/2 hour?

Disagree. I'm not a permie, my CV speaks for itself and the client can contact any of my past clients for a reference.

I won't take tests of any kind. If it kills the chance of the gig then so be it. I've never been without work when I wanted it so it's no skin off my nose.

[swamp]

A contractor shouldn't be afraid of taking tests:

If you refuse the test you won't get the role.

If you take the test and 'fail' as such then you won't get the role.

If you take the test and 'pass' you'll be considered.

What have you got to lose? Are you too busy watching day time TV to sit a test for 1/2 hour?

[Sausage Surprise]

Ironic as it may sound, I would still do the test, just to go through the motions. I have little to prove in terms of what I can offer in terms of technical knowledge. If I don't know it...then I don't know it. If I show the ability to learn and gain knowledge then I will express that. If the company is looking for total geeks with no personality, then I am not their chosen candidate. I often get the jobs based on how I come across as opposed to tests alone.

Totally agree with that - my cv outlines my qualifications and experience. If they don't like me after a few weeks then they can end the contract - simple.

[pmeswani]

I agree pmeswani.

I recently took an online test, and repeated the same within the day.
Some areas the first test has shown (in the result) has "stengths" got reversed in the second test. When I repeated again, the results came again differently. Each time the assessment in individual areas is different. Overall score remained more or less the same, though.

Ironic as it may sound, I would still do the test, just to go through the motions. I have little to prove in terms of what I can offer in terms of technical knowledge. If I don't know it...then I don't know it. If I show the ability to learn and gain knowledge then I will express that. If the company is looking for total geeks with no personality, then I am not their chosen candidate. I often get the jobs based on how I come across as opposed to tests alone.

[cojak]

I was asked to take an online skills assessment for a gig, I called the agent when I found it also contained personality assessment questions and politely declined the gig.

As I said in another thread I don't mind taking a simple tech test (although that's not relevant for me these days) but I won't do personality tests for a contract gig.

What Tyke said with bells on...

This is an HR initiative for permies - I'd dump the contract rather that do one of those tossy things for a contract - they can dump me after a week if they don't think I'm a good 'fit'.

(ISEB = Information Systems Examination Board; ISTQB = International Software Testing Qualifications Board)

Actually this a fundamental reason why I'll not go back to Permiedom again. I fundamentally disagree witht he effectiveness of finding the best person for the job with these tests. - and that's from an HR perspective...

It's lazy and takes the responsibility of effective recruitment away from sub-standard HR staff.