Reply to: Pre-interview tests...

[Old Greg]

I've used these sorts of tests a few times myself. The point is not to prove that you are better or worse than the next guy, or even to prove that you are good enough to do the job, it's to filter out the people who really haven't got a clue. For example we had one guy, PhD and everything, scored 4% in an online multiple choice java test, which is considerably worse than you would expect if he was guessing randomly. I and everyone else on the team managed over 90%. The end result is that he didn't get invited for interview, which saved both of us from wasting our time.

I also filters out the bad tempered grumpy pants who are going to throw a hissy fit when the coffee machine breaks down.

[NickFitz]

Did a test for a gig last year; it was purely technical questions sent over to me, including a small coding challenge (seriously small - about twenty lines to write). Took about 30 minutes of my time, and allowed them to save themselves the trouble of interviewing idiots (and would have saved me the trouble of going over there if it turned out I was an idiot). Then much of the interview involved going over my answers in detail so I could make it clear that I hadn't just Googled stuff but actually knew what I was doing.

All in all it meant they were able to offer me the gig on the spot, starting the next day, so it was really a great timesaver and a win all round.

[doodab]

I've used these sorts of tests a few times myself. The point is not to prove that you are better or worse than the next guy, or even to prove that you are good enough to do the job, it's to filter out the people who really haven't got a clue. For example we had one guy, PhD and everything, scored 4% in an online multiple choice java test, which is considerably worse than you would expect if he was guessing randomly. I and everyone else on the team managed over 90%. The end result is that he didn't get invited for interview, which saved both of us from wasting our time.

[Gentile]

What you should have said, Oscar, is "I'll be happy to sit an assessment, provided you pay for my time if I 'pass', whether or not the contract goes ahead". See how keen they are to show you some good faith. If it's going to be amateur hour, you might as well get paid for having your time wasted if you do your bit and they fail to do theirs.

[MyUserName]

I have done a couple of pre interview tests, Brainbench (96%) and, for this contract, a logic based one (100%). I actually like them because I have a good head for tests and some of my competitors do not so it gets rid of them before they can become real competition.

However, in every interview I have been in for the passed couple of years I have been given a test. It is either a 'what is wrong with this code' test, a 'write this code' test or, once, a presentation on how to respond to a client situation (that was for a perm role).

I do not really consider them to be that different. The client wants to make sure I am as good as I look on my cv so a pre interview test helps remove time wasters. I do not think it is a big deal.

[oscarose]

afraid not

it was done online on some 3rd parties testing website

[Gentile]

Prior to interview at BarCap a few years ago I was asked to do a BrainBench test for coding and also for databases.

How did that go? At Barclays Capital it's important for our database administrators to know all about Capital.

Q1. What is the Capital of England?

A - New York
B - London
C - Johannesburg
D - I will happily keep quiet about any evidence of Libor rate fixing that comes across my desk

[jmo21]

ah, the old plumber v contractor analogy being brought out again.

While a bad plumber can cause a disaster as someone mentioned, plumbing a bathroom is a much more easily learned and repeatable skill than software development.
(I'm no plumber, I certainly don't have those skills, but I doubt it would take long to learn)

If a client wants to do an online test ahead of a face to face, then I do not mind, I'll get on with it.

Can they be easily googled along with, of course they can.

Does this mean the client aren't very good? Maybe.

Is that the type of place where I could make a difference and get extensions? Possibly.

Could it indicate a tulip place to work? It certainly could, but then I've had normal interviews, got the role, and it turned out to be a tulip place to work.

[d000hg]

Lots of companies would want to test the person out, if it's genuinely for that reason I have no problem especially on developer/technical roles.

[Robinho]

I prefer them to interviews tbh.

[Scrag Meister]

Prior to interview at BarCap a few years ago I was asked to do a BrainBench test for coding and also for databases.

No issue get on with it.

Somewhat easier than a technical interview, did it online in half an hour or so and then got asked in for a face to face interview.

No use cutting off your nose to spite your face, sounds like that pride came and the contract fell away.

If the job wasn't really of that much interest, ok, but if it was you should really take your head out of your @r5e.

[MintyBloke]

The best companies I have worked at have been the ones where I was brought in for face-to-face questioning or to pair with one of their developers for a couple of hours (yes really), sometimes after a telephone technical screening. It wasn't a coincidence that these companies had the best developers.

Any bob can pass an online test but that doesn't mean they can write good code.

You were right to refuse. Online technical tests for experienced developers are an 'interview smell' akin to a code smell indicating deeper problems, and such companies are to be avoided unless you really need the work.

[Fandango]

Exactly - was it you who cost me 300 miles worth of juice?

afraid not

it was done online on some 3rd parties testing website

[BolshieBastard]

I've been talking to a 'recruitment agency' about a role and all the holes seemed to fit. She then insisted I take a standard 'database' test provided by the end client. I told her, "I don't do low-grade permie tests as these are for employees". The conversation didn't go too well afterwards. She called me very unprofessional and became very aggressive indeed and I refused my 20+ year career to be judged by an irrelevant, 'school boy' test. She ended up hanging up on me

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Start looking for another role!?

Seriously, I had this with an 'educational' supplier near Stockport. They wanted me to take a friggin spelling and grammar test before an interview. I refused point blank as it wasnt part of the service I was providing.

Clueless fockers.

[Gentile]

I've been talking to a 'recruitment agency' about a role and all the holes seemed to fit. She then insisted I take a standard 'database' test provided by the end client. I told her, "I don't do low-grade permie tests as these are for employees". The conversation didn't go too well afterwards. She called me very unprofessional and became very aggressive indeed and I refused my 20+ year career to be judged by an irrelevant, 'school boy' test. She ended up hanging up on me

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Don't worry about it is my advice, Oscar. I'm all for playing the game, letting my brain and not my ego into the driving seat during negotiations, and dealing with the odd bit of necessary bureaucracy to get a gig. However, there's a big difference between being flexible and bending over backwards with no co-operation or added value coming the other way.

The two times I've been asked to do a pre-engagement test were: once, for a permie post (where I was asked to an online test before they'd even interview me), and another time for a contract gig where I was asked to do the test after the interview as a final step before being offered the gig. With the permie/before-interview one I got 98% on the test, and after wasting my time that was when they decided to tell me they could only offer me £5k less than what I was already making where I was. With the contract gig, I put in a similarly-stellar performance, only to find that the contract when offered contained lots of one-sided clauses that the agency refused to negotiate on (such as they could get rid of me at any point in the three-month gig, but I couldn't give them notice). I said thankyou but no, and the poor sod that did end up taking it was only there for 6 weeks.

Bottom line, we all know these things are a waste of time, and show bad faith to boot. Agencies seem to use them for one reason: because they assume that having invested some of you're time, you're less likely to object should what they have to offer after the fact be less than desirable to you. Additionally, I've invariably found that when people use these tests, it's an indicator only that the client/agency doesn't know how to do your job themselves, but for some reason is nonetheless misguided enough to believe they are qualified to assess people that do have the skills they lack. Online multiple-choice questionnaires in particular seem to make some non-technical people feel like they're engaging in meaningful assessment, when in reality such tests are usually profoundly irrelevant to the skills that have actually been asked for (hands up, for example, if you've ever been asked to answer questions on Javascript rather than the Java test you were expecting?, or Visual Basic rather than VB.Net?). These 'tests' are frequently no more pertinent to the skill that's ostensibly meant to be under the microscope than those pseudo-psychology quizzes published in tabloid magazines that inform you what your personality is like based on whether you've answered "mostly Cs" or not.

If a ClientCo wants me to demonstrate my skills, I'm happy to do so. The best ones I've found tend to get you to sit at an actual computer loaded with all of the tools you'll have on the job and write a short piece of code that solves an abstract problem that takes no more than 20 minutes to code, then you discuss your solution and approach with one of their bobs that actually does know what she/he is talking about. The worse approaches I've seen go on a sliding scale from attempting to assess people by using whiteboards and talking to bobs that don't code, to, right at the bottom of the scale, asking someone they've never even met to fill in a meaningless online questionnaire that the ClientCo/agency doesn't even understand themselves.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one if I were you. It sounds like the agency revealed their true face when you called their bluff by getting angry about it, rather than just treating your position more professionally.