3 ms·

Hypothetical situation. Let's say you're an experienced developer. You have an impressive work record, open source contributions, and ace the technical intervi

Hypothetical situation. Let's say you're an experienced developer. You have an impressive work record, open source contributions, and ace the technical interviews. Then your potential employer asks you to take an IQ test. Legality aside (and it may be framed as a "general aptitude test" or somesuch), this may be very insulting to some people, who feel their contributions and achievements should stand on their own without bullshit tests. It signals to them "we don't care what you've done, and you can prove you can do, or your years of experience or education, you getting the job depends on an arbitrary test we're going to throw at you". You're not going to be treated as an individual, but rather a set of points on a score sheet. Now you may be right or wrong as to whether these tests are indicative of ability, but for a lot of applicants they would be a red flag.

EliRivers 11y ago
In my opinion, what you've done there is create a straw man. The original assertion was that an IQ test is a reason to run. What you've done is turn that into something else entirely, where it quite clearly is a bad sign. I believe that your hypothetical situation isn't addressing the original simple assertion. The original assertion was not "If you've done very well at a series of interviews and proved your ability already, and then they want to give you an IQ test, run."
- zeemonkee3 11y ago
  So your argument is that IQ tests are only good in lieu of experience/proven ability?
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    My argument is that you presented an invalid straw man argument.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  How about "you get an IQ test instead of a series of interviews and a chance to prove your ability"
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  So what's an example of a situation where an IQ test would not be a bad sign?
paulhodge 11y ago
Open source contributions aren't as useful for a hiring decision as you imply. Did the candidate spend several days working on a small change? Does the candidate only do quality work when it's something that is personally interesting to them? If yes to either of those then they might still be a bad hire. Don't get me wrong, I love to see open source work, it is a plus and it definitely helps paint the picture of what the candidate is passionate about. But just having impressive open source work alone is not enough to make the technical interview unnecessary. > and ace the technical interviews If there's an IQ test after they ace the technical interviews, then that's a really weird order to do the interview, but I don't think that's the situation that the above comments were talking about.
- zeemonkee3 11y ago
  > Did the candidate spend several days working on a small change? Open source is usually a free time pursuit, so quite possibly they did spend several days on a small change because they had better things to do. Or the small change was the result of several days of tracking down a difficult bug. My point was however that whether or not IQ tests are effective, making experienced developers sit through them (or indeed junior developers who may have verifiable academic or other accomplishments) could be seen as insulting or degrading. If your goal is not to unnecessarily piss off good candidates who may then bad-mouth you to their friends or bring up the issue on Glassdoor, then IQ tests - even discarding the legal implications - are perhaps not such a great idea.

EliRivers 11y ago

In my opinion, what you've done there is create a straw man. The original assertion was that an IQ test is a reason to run. What you've done is turn that into something else entirely, where it quite clearly is a bad sign. I believe that your hypothetical situation isn't addressing the original simple assertion. The original assertion was not "If you've done very well at a series of interviews and proved your ability already, and then they want to give you an IQ test, run."

zeemonkee3 11y ago
So your argument is that IQ tests are only good in lieu of experience/proven ability?
- EliRivers 11y ago
  My argument is that you presented an invalid straw man argument.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
How about "you get an IQ test instead of a series of interviews and a chance to prove your ability"
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
So what's an example of a situation where an IQ test would not be a bad sign?

paulhodge 11y ago

Open source contributions aren't as useful for a hiring decision as you imply. Did the candidate spend several days working on a small change? Does the candidate only do quality work when it's something that is personally interesting to them? If yes to either of those then they might still be a bad hire. Don't get me wrong, I love to see open source work, it is a plus and it definitely helps paint the picture of what the candidate is passionate about. But just having impressive open source work alone is not enough to make the technical interview unnecessary. > and ace the technical interviews If there's an IQ test after they ace the technical interviews, then that's a really weird order to do the interview, but I don't think that's the situation that the above comments were talking about.

zeemonkee3 11y ago
> Did the candidate spend several days working on a small change? Open source is usually a free time pursuit, so quite possibly they did spend several days on a small change because they had better things to do. Or the small change was the result of several days of tracking down a difficult bug. My point was however that whether or not IQ tests are effective, making experienced developers sit through them (or indeed junior developers who may have verifiable academic or other accomplishments) could be seen as insulting or degrading. If your goal is not to unnecessarily piss off good candidates who may then bad-mouth you to their friends or bring up the issue on Glassdoor, then IQ tests - even discarding the legal implications - are perhaps not such a great idea.