3 ms·

> I mean, I feel confident that “receiving a medal for bravery” is better than “poisoning the town’s water supply” or “torturing a person,” but yeah, the idea o

> I mean, I feel confident that “receiving a medal for bravery” is better than “poisoning the town’s water supply” or “torturing a person,” but yeah, the idea of using this to hire people is absurd. I sympathize with the author's confusion, but then, we have no idea how that question was actually processed nor the intent behind it, so we're only left with a one sided outrage. IMHO absurd questions can totally be part of an interview, as long as you get something valuable out of it and it doesn't hurt/offend/make a fool of the candidate. As a thought exercise, they're postulating for a copyright position, if the next step was to have them rewrite the question in a decent way I'd see this a valid first step.

ohmyiv 2y ago
>they're postulating for a copyright position The article starts with: >I’m trying to change fields from copywriting freelancer to something in the admin assistance sphere. But either way, these questions are iffy at best. Does this really tell you something about the person applying? What about people who game systems like this? How do you weed them out? I went to a career building workshop and the instructor gave us ways to get around tests like this and those automated resume readers. Did the person applying really think the question through? Who's morals are they using for the "correct" repsonse? What if the person applying has no opinion on prostitution and ranked it higher than most but the HR person/AI/automated system doesn't agree? Who's right? Does this really matter for an admin assistant job? There's too much subjectivity in a question and response for this. >and it doesn't hurt/offend/make a fool of the candidate. People get hurt/offended over stuff like ethics all the time. There's no "proper" answer for that question, so it's about guaranteed that someone will get hurt/offended/feel like a fool, especially if it's for an interview. Just like the MB test, things like this shouldn't be used for employment. Skill tests, sure, but not ethics "tests". I will say, maybe for higher-level jobs they _might_ have some kind of bearing. But for the vast majority of jobs, like an admin assistant, it really doesn't help. Unless you're trying to limit your app pool, but even then, it would be better to increase requirements than to use some pseudoscience.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  > Who's morals are they using for the "correct" response?[...]There's too much subjectivity in a question and response for this. Except we don't even know if the question was about morals, if there is a "correct" answer. In particular, as it's an online form there's a myriad of things that can be gained from this that aren't directly related to the content (from the top of my head, how long it takes the candidate to answer, how much back and forth happens etc). Coupled with follow up questions, this could tell a lot about how the person comes to a decision, does it incrementally or not, deals confusing situations etc. I mean, that's basically what we do in our field with whiteboard sessions. Throw a potentially random question and work with the candidate to see how they handle it. PS: > it's about guaranteed that someone will get hurt/offended/feel like a fool Taking your correction on them applying for an admin related role, if they're offended by seemingly absurd question, I think they'll have a hard time dealing with many of the checklists they'll have to fill in their role. Otherwise if a candidate isn't comfortable with a test or question I'd expect them to discuss it with the interviewer. If that exchange can't happen, the relationship is already in a bad place and I see that application as dead (whoever's fault it is). Imagine entering salary discussion when you can't even ask what an interview question is about.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > sure, but not ethics "tests" I mean there are legitimate ethics questions, people that work with children should value children and people that are judges should respect the law. But they don’t get asked ‘is prostitution worse than cancer”, this is an idiots idea of an ethics question

ohmyiv 2y ago

>they're postulating for a copyright position The article starts with: >I’m trying to change fields from copywriting freelancer to something in the admin assistance sphere. But either way, these questions are iffy at best. Does this really tell you something about the person applying? What about people who game systems like this? How do you weed them out? I went to a career building workshop and the instructor gave us ways to get around tests like this and those automated resume readers. Did the person applying really think the question through? Who's morals are they using for the "correct" repsonse? What if the person applying has no opinion on prostitution and ranked it higher than most but the HR person/AI/automated system doesn't agree? Who's right? Does this really matter for an admin assistant job? There's too much subjectivity in a question and response for this. >and it doesn't hurt/offend/make a fool of the candidate. People get hurt/offended over stuff like ethics all the time. There's no "proper" answer for that question, so it's about guaranteed that someone will get hurt/offended/feel like a fool, especially if it's for an interview. Just like the MB test, things like this shouldn't be used for employment. Skill tests, sure, but not ethics "tests". I will say, maybe for higher-level jobs they _might_ have some kind of bearing. But for the vast majority of jobs, like an admin assistant, it really doesn't help. Unless you're trying to limit your app pool, but even then, it would be better to increase requirements than to use some pseudoscience.

makeitdouble 2y ago
> Who's morals are they using for the "correct" response?[...]There's too much subjectivity in a question and response for this. Except we don't even know if the question was about morals, if there is a "correct" answer. In particular, as it's an online form there's a myriad of things that can be gained from this that aren't directly related to the content (from the top of my head, how long it takes the candidate to answer, how much back and forth happens etc). Coupled with follow up questions, this could tell a lot about how the person comes to a decision, does it incrementally or not, deals confusing situations etc. I mean, that's basically what we do in our field with whiteboard sessions. Throw a potentially random question and work with the candidate to see how they handle it. PS: > it's about guaranteed that someone will get hurt/offended/feel like a fool Taking your correction on them applying for an admin related role, if they're offended by seemingly absurd question, I think they'll have a hard time dealing with many of the checklists they'll have to fill in their role. Otherwise if a candidate isn't comfortable with a test or question I'd expect them to discuss it with the interviewer. If that exchange can't happen, the relationship is already in a bad place and I see that application as dead (whoever's fault it is). Imagine entering salary discussion when you can't even ask what an interview question is about.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> sure, but not ethics "tests" I mean there are legitimate ethics questions, people that work with children should value children and people that are judges should respect the law. But they don’t get asked ‘is prostitution worse than cancer”, this is an idiots idea of an ethics question