I mean, seriously?
Is that still a thing in 2022?<p>I bumped into such an online test by a marketing firm and I just couldn't bring myself to go through it. Dunno, felt a bit like monkey and a bit like "do I really want to work in such a place?".<p>What do you think about this?
I honestly believe that HR in IT is so broken that just about nothing they do makes sense. Most interviews are BS, most coding interviews/tests are BS, an IQ test is BS too. I don’t think the IQ test is inherently worse or better that the other voodoo HR practices.<p>A high IQ is something you can use to show a high probability of a candidate to “succeed” at his/her job but what is success? An IQ test can’t differentiate between people who can do the work and those that can scam the system in some way. You need intelligence for both.
In 2000 I applied for a job as an enumerator at the U.S. Census. They made us gather in a room to take what was basically a short I.Q. test with somewhere between 15 to 30 multiple choice questions.<p>I think they went down the list in order of descending score to call people. They offered me a supervisor job but I didn't take it because it was a small amount of extra pay for a lot of extra responsibility.<p>I got called later with an offer to be an enumerator. The team of enumerators I worked with were a selection of high-I.Q. people, much better quality than you'd typically get for a temp job, and it was a lot of fun working with them.
IQ tests have been shown to have predict performance in a wide range of jobs. There is a 2004 paper "General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance" <a href="http://wminsk-shared-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://wminsk-shared-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/Schmidt_Hunter_20...</a> .
An employer thinking is you can give candidates an IQ test and grade it like the SATs is a fool. Expect this reductive logic to permeate the entire organization.
Yes it is a thing, I've had almost every kind of test under the sun during a job interview at this point. The best companies to work for IME are the ones that don't test you at all: You sit down with a domain-knowledgeable manager and an expert, and you figure out if you fit right.
How to interview software engineers:<p>- LeetCode (and other tests)<p>- Homework assignments<p>- Looking at pedigree (university)<p>- Looking at experience (where you've been working)<p>- Looking at portfolio (open source contribution)<p>- Using gut feeling<p>Each has its drawbacks. So what is the fairest way to interview software engineers? I guess, we should let software engineers pick their poison and start from there.
I'm torn. On one hand, we know that without "metrics" recruiters and clueless people resort to other even more idiotic measurements. How white your skin is, how tall you are, how nice smile you have, how firm your handshake is, how fat you are, what university you went to, ... On the other hand, iq tests are fucking demeaning. It's "we need testing!" but you are too lazy to come up with a useful test. Personally, I blame software developers' lack of interest in unionizing. It's the main reason we have to put up with this shit.
I am not a lawyer, but given the Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Company, it’s kind of surprising that IQ would be a metric used by employers in America. Despite the validity of IQ as a tool, it seems legally dicey to me. You’re risking civil rights lawsuits, obviously.<p>As far as IQ tests as a concept, provided that it’s the only hoop that you’d have to jump through, I’d be game to chop through the interview process with one test and a short technical conversation to prove I have a tech background. The interview process is such a chore to wade through otherwise with BS homework assignments and recruiters who understand nothing trying to feel you out. It’s all much stupider than taking an IQ test to prove ability. I’d much rather take one test and be done with it.
Oh I had to take an IQ test for a company I applied for last year and it was one of (several) reasons I turned down the offer. It's such a weird and archaic way to vet candidates. I've never had another company ask for me to take one.
Son was tested going into the Army. Opportunities opened up according to your score.<p>He scored 99%, was offered a position training for intelligence. But he was a young blood, wanted to see the world and declined. Ended up in Iraq (as he desired).
It's just a test. As far as I know IQ science, is good science. It does measure something real.<p>Engineering does require a decent IQ, if you don't have that, you're unlikely to thrive as an engineer.<p>Unlikely doesn't mean you can't.
I think it's refreshingly honest. In software we have so many tests that we pretend measures some skill when we're really just doing a shitty IQ test.
It's super common in Europe to give employees a personality test and a not-quite-iq-but-does-correlate-test.<p>It's basically a stand-in for asking brain teasers.
I'm waiting for the day when we submit to a cranial measurement scan that deduces intelligence based on blackbox ai. This is a joke, but yeah interviews are ridiculous at this point. In time, I might just do something more fun like being a pilot, running a eucalyptus farm etc.
Iq tests are absolutely junk science, they might as well take skull measurements. There is an intelligence spectrum but we can't reliably measure it for every aspect of intelligence.