5 ms·

Well, that's literally what US colleges have been doing for decades. Basically outsourced IQ tests (since IQ tests during the hiring process are illegal). High

by tomp 4y ago

Well, that's literally what US colleges have been doing for decades. Basically outsourced IQ tests (since IQ tests during the hiring process are illegal). High time someone else got in on the action.

eru 4y ago
IQ tests aren't all that illegal. (And you can approximate them pretty well with other tests, like coding tests etc.) What you can't check for in a short interview is conformity and tenacity. You can however check for that via college.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
IQ tests during hiring are illegal if that IQ test has a disparate impact against a protected class. (It turns out they pretty much all do, even those specifically designed not to, like Raven's Progressive Matrices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices) A "totally not an IQ test" IQ test is safer, particularly if it is bespoke, because new/obscure tests are less likely to have been studied, and consequently, any forbidden trends in test outcomes are less likely to be discovered.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > IQ tests during hiring are illegal if that IQ test has a disparate impact against a protected class. Are you sure about that? That seems unreasonable and everything that I can find in 5 minutes of Googling suggests that they are legal-but-restricted, to cases where the skill/aptitude being tested is relevant to the job being hired for. (You couldn't use an IQ test to hire a fry cook, as an example.)
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Hiring practices which discriminate based on attributes that would otherwise be illegal to consider may be permitted if those attributes are Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ.) For instance, blind people can't be bus drivers. IQ tests are verboten after Griggs v. Duke Power Co. As far as I'm aware, claiming a BFOQ exemption to this will fail, or at best, is unproven. IQ tests discriminate by race (even if unintentionally) and BFOQ exemptions don't apply to racial discrimination. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      EEOC policy page: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-selection-procedures https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-sele... The use of tests and other selection procedures can be a very effective means of determining which applicants or employees are most qualified for a particular job. However, use of these tools can violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if an employer intentionally uses them to discriminate based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age (40 or older). Use of tests and other selection procedures can also violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if they disproportionately exclude people in a particular group by race, sex, or another covered basis, unless the employer can justify the test or procedure under the law. That is not a categorical exclusion. Department of Labor Employers' Guide to Good Practice (2000, 29 years after Griggs): http://assessmentresources.pbworks.com/f/empTestAsse.pdf http://assessmentresources.pbworks.com/f/empTestAsse.pdf Similar language: One of the basic principles of the Uniform Guidelines is that it is unlawful to use a test or selection procedure that creates adverse impact, unless justified. Adverse impact occurs when there is a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that work to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group.
      - lmkg 4y ago
        Your understanding is technically correct but missing some nuance which is the heart of the matter. It's true the use of an IQ test can be justified. The important thing is that the use of an IQ test must be justified. Due to the Supreme Court ruling, IQ tests are assumed to have a disparate impact. They are by default assumed to be discriminatory unless proven otherwise. A company must either prove the lack of disparate impact, or demonstrate a plausible connection to work performance (beyond "smart = good"). Most hiring practices are default OK, and a claim of discrimination must be proven in court. This hiring practice has already been decided in court, so it is default not-OK and must be defended. That difference is significant.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        Indeed. They must be justified; they are not "verboten" as GP claimed.
- verisimilitudes 4y ago
  How could that be, if we be all the same?
- steve76 4y ago
throwaway4993 4y ago
Huh? What are you referring to? Students? Faculty? I've been both and haven't seen this ever. Or are you trying to claim that the SAT and GRE are IQ tests?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  The SAT and the GRE are IQ tests. They have the same psychometric characteristics and reveal the same information about testees. They correlate with IQ tests at the same level that different IQ tests correlate with each other. Results from IQ tests explain very large amounts of the variance in SAT and GRE scores, and vice versa. This is not a strictly necessary state of affairs - if large numbers of people who knew nothing about chemistry started taking the chemistry GRE, the strongest signal provided by the chemistry GRE would switch from "IQ" to "whether or not the person has ever studied chemistry". But (1) the test would remain an IQ test once you ignored the very low scores of people who had no reason to take the test; and (2) in reality, people who have never studied chemistry don't take the chemistry GRE.

by tomp 4y ago

Well, that's literally what US colleges have been doing for decades. Basically outsourced IQ tests (since IQ tests during the hiring process are illegal). High time someone else got in on the action.

eru 4y ago

IQ tests aren't all that illegal. (And you can approximate them pretty well with other tests, like coding tests etc.) What you can't check for in a short interview is conformity and tenacity. You can however check for that via college.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

IQ tests during hiring are illegal if that IQ test has a disparate impact against a protected class. (It turns out they pretty much all do, even those specifically designed not to, like Raven's Progressive Matrices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices) A "totally not an IQ test" IQ test is safer, particularly if it is bespoke, because new/obscure tests are less likely to have been studied, and consequently, any forbidden trends in test outcomes are less likely to be discovered.

sokoloff 4y ago
> IQ tests during hiring are illegal if that IQ test has a disparate impact against a protected class. Are you sure about that? That seems unreasonable and everything that I can find in 5 minutes of Googling suggests that they are legal-but-restricted, to cases where the skill/aptitude being tested is relevant to the job being hired for. (You couldn't use an IQ test to hire a fry cook, as an example.)
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Hiring practices which discriminate based on attributes that would otherwise be illegal to consider may be permitted if those attributes are Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ.) For instance, blind people can't be bus drivers. IQ tests are verboten after Griggs v. Duke Power Co. As far as I'm aware, claiming a BFOQ exemption to this will fail, or at best, is unproven. IQ tests discriminate by race (even if unintentionally) and BFOQ exemptions don't apply to racial discrimination. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    EEOC policy page: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-selection-procedures https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-sele... The use of tests and other selection procedures can be a very effective means of determining which applicants or employees are most qualified for a particular job. However, use of these tools can violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if an employer intentionally uses them to discriminate based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age (40 or older). Use of tests and other selection procedures can also violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if they disproportionately exclude people in a particular group by race, sex, or another covered basis, unless the employer can justify the test or procedure under the law. That is not a categorical exclusion. Department of Labor Employers' Guide to Good Practice (2000, 29 years after Griggs): http://assessmentresources.pbworks.com/f/empTestAsse.pdf http://assessmentresources.pbworks.com/f/empTestAsse.pdf Similar language: One of the basic principles of the Uniform Guidelines is that it is unlawful to use a test or selection procedure that creates adverse impact, unless justified. Adverse impact occurs when there is a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that work to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group.
    - lmkg 4y ago
      Your understanding is technically correct but missing some nuance which is the heart of the matter. It's true the use of an IQ test can be justified. The important thing is that the use of an IQ test must be justified. Due to the Supreme Court ruling, IQ tests are assumed to have a disparate impact. They are by default assumed to be discriminatory unless proven otherwise. A company must either prove the lack of disparate impact, or demonstrate a plausible connection to work performance (beyond "smart = good"). Most hiring practices are default OK, and a claim of discrimination must be proven in court. This hiring practice has already been decided in court, so it is default not-OK and must be defended. That difference is significant.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Indeed. They must be justified; they are not "verboten" as GP claimed.
verisimilitudes 4y ago
How could that be, if we be all the same?
steve76 4y ago

throwaway4993 4y ago

Huh? What are you referring to? Students? Faculty? I've been both and haven't seen this ever. Or are you trying to claim that the SAT and GRE are IQ tests?

thaumasiotes 4y ago
The SAT and the GRE are IQ tests. They have the same psychometric characteristics and reveal the same information about testees. They correlate with IQ tests at the same level that different IQ tests correlate with each other. Results from IQ tests explain very large amounts of the variance in SAT and GRE scores, and vice versa. This is not a strictly necessary state of affairs - if large numbers of people who knew nothing about chemistry started taking the chemistry GRE, the strongest signal provided by the chemistry GRE would switch from "IQ" to "whether or not the person has ever studied chemistry". But (1) the test would remain an IQ test once you ignored the very low scores of people who had no reason to take the test; and (2) in reality, people who have never studied chemistry don't take the chemistry GRE.