Campaign To Scrap Ridiculous Competency Tests

WhiteHorse

Truegho wrote: »

I am thinking about organising a campaign to get the government to scrap these ridiculous online competency questionnaires ...

They are actually psychological tests. Another example of trendy Marxist psychobabble.

I queried this lunacy and was told at a civil service interview that actual qualifications 'were not important'. Yes, really.

In fact, a lot of the application forms for government jobs downplay the applicants qualifications in favour of this sort of profiling.

Peoples lives and billions of pounds of public money in the hands of a bunch of social inadequates.

Terrific.

They are politically reliable, but not actually able to read and write very well.

WhiteHorse

Proc wrote: »

If you do have this level of understanding, then you're going to realise you don't need to cheat it anyway.

Not really.

I understand the agenda behind these tests and can fill them in accordingly, yet consider them to be utter bullsh*t.

There are no right or wrong answers within these tests ...

Try replying that you will refuse to carry out instructions that you know or suspect to be illegal, and see how far you get.

'Not a team player' ...

Roobarb_73

Truegho wrote: »

But that's not the point. A lot of applicants may score the requisite marks in these online tests, but when they come to do the job, they often flounder. And anyway, I'll bet many people just go by guesswork when filling in their answers, thus not really giving an accurate picture of their real strengths and skills.

It should go by work experience, and not some stupid online sift thest.

I don't have a huge amount of knowledge of how these questionnaires work, but my understanding is if that you fill them in with the answers you think they'll want to hear, you'll likely be picked up as not filling it in honestly - sometimes they ask the same
question in different way, and if people aren't filling it in honestly, they will usually trip themselves up

I guess employers don't have the time to recruit in the "old fashioned" way from scratch, and they have to use some kind of sifting mechanism at the outset?

teabelly

These tests are fairly easy to cheat. As they ask the same question in a different way then you have to be consistent in your answers! It's easier with ones where you can see all the questions at once as you can then go back and make sure they are the right answers. Generally they will be looking for someone that can be a team player but is able to work on their own with no personality extremes. Not hard to fake really.

What you have to remember is how you answered the test and how those answers will be checked upon in an interview.

In the long run it is easier to be honest as who wants to work somewhere where you constantly have to pretend you are something you are not to fit in. It's tiring and stressful and rarely worth it.

stuckinmyflat

whatever happened to sending in you CV and a covering letter

WhiteHorse

MrCEO wrote: »

As an employer I would demand the right to use any method I want to test my candidates and not one chosen by sub-standard candidates in order they might deceive me.

It depends on what you want from the tests, doesn't it?

If you a running a business, you want someone who is efficient, has a good record and attitude, and suitable qualifications. You will look at their CV and conduct a personal interview.

If on the other hand, you have a political agenda (or are perhaps running a crooked business), you will want someone who is pliable. You won't have much interest in qualifications, merely wanting to know if they are your 'type'.

Consider the old phrase much used by the establishment - 'A safe pair of hands', meaning someone who is probably a numbskull, but is reliable and will toe the party line.

bristol_pilot

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I queried this lunacy and was told at a civil service interview that actual qualifications 'were not important'. Yes, really.

In fact, a lot of the application forms for government jobs downplay the applicants qualifications in favour of this sort of profiling.

Peoples lives and billions of pounds of public money in the hands of a bunch of social inadequates.

Terrific.

They are politically reliable, but not actually able to read and write very well.

This sums up why there are so many useless people in the civil service and why government services are so poor. You will not find many companies in the private sector using personality profiles alone for selection. There is no substitute for well-qualified people with a demonstrated track record of acheivement - the 'right personality' is no substitute, but it is cheaper which is what I suspect is behind the government's preference to recruit, shall we say, not the best people.

If you were going into hospital to have an operation, do you prefer (a) the surgeon with 6 medical degrees and 20 years experience or (b) someone who passed an online personality test?

However, the OP's campaign will come to nothing. The civil service prefers 'b' as it's cheaper.

wuckfit

I agree, in fact many of these tests have no accreditation either.
I did one test that had a number of questions each with 4 possible answers. I had to chose one I was MOST like and one I was LEAST like.
However the four adjectives listed were ridiculously grouped. for example one group of four might be "happy, courageous, thoughtful, generous"
Suffice to say, if you want to know why bus drivers are such a miserable lot of red-light jumping roadhogs, look no further as one major bus company uses one such test for employee screening.

Oldernotwiser

bristol_pilot wrote: »

This sums up why there are so many useless people in the civil service and why government services are so poor. You will not find many companies in the private sector using personality profiles alone for selection. There is no substitute for well-qualified people with a demonstrated track record of acheivement - the 'right personality' is no substitute, but it is cheaper which is what I suspect is behind the government's preference to recruit, shall we say, not the best people.

If you were going into hospital to have an operation, do you prefer (a) the surgeon with 6 medical degrees and 20 years experience or (b) someone who passed an online personality test?

However, the OP's campaign will come to nothing. The civil service prefers 'b' as it's cheaper.

You won't find public sector jobs being profiles alone for selection - they are a useful weeding out tool at an early stage.

patman99

I know of one firm where one of the employees is married to a manager at Tesco. Whenever another employees spouse wanted a job at Tescos, the employee whose spouse was a Tesco manager used to bring them a form with all the correct boxes pre-ticked.
Needless to say, all the applicants were accepted.

My b-in-l used to work as a contractor at B&Q. When a job with B&Q came up, the manager told him he would need to pass a phone-based test. He was told to answer every question with 'c'.