Given a person who knows nothing about medicine, then might sell them on leech bleeding. Given a person who knows nothing about technical work, might sell the

Given a person who knows nothing about medicine, then might sell them on leech bleeding. Given a person who knows nothing about technical work, might sell them on the OP. Bet if take five interviewers and have each of them read the OP and apply it to interviewing 100 people and compare the results, will find (1) validity, the interview results will on average be a poor predictor of anything important and (2) reliability, the interview results will scatter with huge standard deviation. That is, it's throwing darts where the scatter is huge and the center of the scatter is far off the center of the target. Uh, didn't see where there was some good double blind tests of the OP for such reliability and validity. Uh, the OP was big on analysis -- good, now have them tell us about their 7 devices and reliability and validity, that is social science 101. Let me just guess, from reality and common sense, what is going on with the OP: The whole OP is essentially just plausibility psycho-babble that HR interviewers would like to entertain. It's aimed at HR. The OP is yet more evidence that under no circumstances should anyone in HR have a substantive interview with an important candidate for anything important. Instead, HR should smile, be nice, offer water, coffee, tea, soda, smile, be nice, give directions to the rest rooms, help with the interview schedule and the organization chart, hand over the benefits packet, smile, be nice, help with the travel and lodging arrangements, help with expense reimbursements, smile, be nice, etc. E.g., the OP wants to ignore school work but wants to emphasize ability with, what was it, analysis? Okay, I can understand why an HR humanities major would get confused here, but a good solution is to look for majors in math, physics, electronic engineering. The OP wants to give as a test of ability with analysis something with Excel. Upchuck: I avoid Excel because it is nearly always way beneath me -- I use much more powerful tools. Excel will do Lagrangian relaxation, the fast Fourier transform, Wiener filtering, least squares, multi-variate spline interpolation, L. Breiman's random forests or even CART, stochastic optimal control, solve some differential equations? I don't think so. I don't waste time with Excel. That's like testing a cardiac surgeon on cleaning bedpans. "Top Performers"? Right, maybe for toilet cleaning. Even then they'd be at risk of mixing the Muriatic stuff with the Drano stuff -- don't do that! HR tries again, fumbles with the ball, drops the ball, trips over the ball, falls on the ball, loses the ball, is face down in the mud. HR: Smile and be nice.