Interview questions as reasonable adjustment

spectrum21

I find this idea of an unfair advantage a strange one. Even with interview questions it would still not make it a level playing field for me. I still be would at a disadvantage even with the questions. It would not make it more likely for me to get a job over a neurotypical person, they would still have the upper hand but it would lessen the gap but not get rid of it. The idea that making certain adjustments puts non-disabled people at an advantage underestimates the difficulties and disadvantages that disabled people have.

Comms69

spectrum21 said:

I find this idea of an unfair advantage a strange one. Even with interview questions it would still not make it a level playing field for me. I still be would at a disadvantage even with the questions. It would not make it more likely for me to get a job over a neurotypical person, they would still have the upper hand but it would lessen the gap but not get rid of it. The idea that making certain adjustments puts non-disabled people at an advantage underestimates the difficulties and disadvantages that disabled people have.

That's because you're looking at it from a subjective point of view.

[Deleted User]

unforeseen said:

_shel said:

 I have epilepsy and associated cognitive problems. I always get interview questions in advance, usually local authority jobs. Never been questioned or denied as unfair advantage. 
 How is it unfair when I am at a disadvantage without it. 

Because with it you have an unfair advantage, not a level playing field. 
My experience of LA and public body interviews is that they err heavily on the side of tailoring for disabilities to prevent them being accused of discriminating. This does put those who do not identify as disabled at a disadvantage

The obvious way to get a proper level playing field would be for all candidates to receive the questions prior to interview. 

 I have no idea if other candidates also got the questions, perhaps they did. Though without this adjustment I am at a clear disadvantage which law requires employers to remove. 

spectrum21

Comms69 said:

spectrum21 said:

I find this idea of an unfair advantage a strange one. Even with interview questions it would still not make it a level playing field for me. I still be would at a disadvantage even with the questions. It would not make it more likely for me to get a job over a neurotypical person, they would still have the upper hand but it would lessen the gap but not get rid of it. The idea that making certain adjustments puts non-disabled people at an advantage underestimates the difficulties and disadvantages that disabled people have.

That's because you're looking at it from a subjective point of view.

If it makes a level playing field then isn't that the idea of reasonable adjustments. I'm interested in hearing why it's an unfair advantage, it has been said by several posters but with no further explanation as to why? Is it based on a subjective point of view or an understanding of certain medical conditions or disabilities? If I was given questions beforehand then apparently this gives me an advantage, I would be interested in knowing why that is?

Comms69

_shel said:

unforeseen said:

_shel said:

 I have epilepsy and associated cognitive problems. I always get interview questions in advance, usually local authority jobs. Never been questioned or denied as unfair advantage. 
 How is it unfair when I am at a disadvantage without it. 

Because with it you have an unfair advantage, not a level playing field. 
My experience of LA and public body interviews is that they err heavily on the side of tailoring for disabilities to prevent them being accused of discriminating. This does put those who do not identify as disabled at a disadvantage

The obvious way to get a proper level playing field would be for all candidates to receive the questions prior to interview. 

 I have no idea if other candidates also got the questions, perhaps they did. Though without this adjustment I am at a clear disadvantage which law requires employers to remove. 

Only if reasonable. I could argue anyone not born / educated here is at a disadvantage if the interview is done in English. The adjustment must be reasonable, not  everything possible to 'level' the playing field

strawb_shortcake

I've had interviews where they have thrown some complete curve balls in that really put me on the back foot. I'm not sure it would be fair for someone to recieve the questions before hand to allow them to prepare. Just because someone is neuro typical does not mean that they find interviews easy. 
At work we are given broad headings of what the questions will focus on. 
I think a more reasonable adjustment would be additional time to allow you to go through your notes. 
My next interview is this week, as it will be done by Skype and not video enabled, I can feel more confident about having notes and prompts in front of me, whereas I'd never take these into an interview as I know some interviewers look down on this approach.

Comms69

spectrum21 said:

Comms69 said:

spectrum21 said:

I find this idea of an unfair advantage a strange one. Even with interview questions it would still not make it a level playing field for me. I still be would at a disadvantage even with the questions. It would not make it more likely for me to get a job over a neurotypical person, they would still have the upper hand but it would lessen the gap but not get rid of it. The idea that making certain adjustments puts non-disabled people at an advantage underestimates the difficulties and disadvantages that disabled people have.

That's because you're looking at it from a subjective point of view.

If it makes a level playing field then isn't that the idea of reasonable adjustments. I'm interested in hearing why it's an unfair advantage, it has been said by several posters but with no further explanation as to why? Is it based on a subjective point of view or an understanding of certain medical conditions or disabilities? If I was given questions beforehand then apparently this gives me an advantage, I would be interested in knowing why that is?

Because you are not testing the same aspects of criteria.

Unknown questions test comprehension, ability to perform under changing dynamics and ability to think on your feet. The content of your answer is largely irrelevant in many way. 

I don't need an understanding of medical conditions as the question is regarding employment. You would have an unfair advantage the same way if you were given your exam papers two days before taking them... Which strangely is not seen as reasonable 

[Deleted User]

In many organisations I’ve held jobs they wouldn’t be able to provide upfront questions because they could change for each candidate, they may be asked based around your CV, asked on the back of another answer or maybe something they decide to ask that one particular candidate. So I suppose they could of give them up front but they would be subject to change. 

theoretica

Being allowed extra time on a test is a long established adjustment.  So being given extra time on the interview by having the questions a bit in advance in a waiting room would seem to be very much along those lines. 

Comms69

theoretica said:

Being allowed extra time on a test is a long established adjustment.  So being given extra time on the interview by having the questions a bit in advance in a waiting room would seem to be very much along those lines. 

It's not though really. Because you're allowed extra time during the test, not beforehand. 

A reasonable adjustment would be allowing someone more time to consider their answer without negatively marking their score.