I ran across a reference to this the other day that some companies may require incoming IT personnel to take a "skills" test. This wouldn't be so bad if ALL personnel, regardless of their field of endeavor, were subjected to the a "skills" test. Just imagine - an incoming attorney being required to take a "skills" test -insulting for them and insulting for IT Pros as well.
I can understand the genesis of this - the paper MCSE's. Many companies were deceived as to the technical competency of the new hire. But if the person they are bringing in has years of experience, solid references AND certifications - then there is no real need to subject them to a "skills" test. If a new person walks in, says they have all of these certifications, but no work record to support the certification claims, then I would be suspicious. But the crux of the matter is that if you ONLY test IT personnel, then aren't you discriminating against them? Can't someone "earn" a degree through various on-line degree-mills - send the "school" XX dollars and poof - now you have a degree in computer science? Once when I was searching for a new job, I was asked to take a skills test and told them I wasn't interested in their job if this was required only for the IT staff - just as well, company has gone downhill since.
The crux of this is that one time it was way too easy to get a certification. Times have changed, it is not that easy to earn a certification and it is about to get harder. If you single-out one group of people to "test" and not all, that is discrimination and there is no way to justify this, no matter how the HR types want to spin this sad tale. If you test one, you test all or you test none - simple as that. A good HR interviewer (note I said good here) with a few IT folks would interview the perspective hire and ask appropriate questions that a skilled an knowledgeable IT Pro should possess and voila! No discriminating test required. Maybe what should be examined are the people doing the interviewing - perhaps if THEY knew their job, there wouldn't be a need for these discriminating tests. Then **gasp** - someone would actually have to take responsibility for their actions and not blame someone else for their own failures?
Recent posts...
So who does have to take a pre-employment jobs skills test?
Randy Muller, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, MCDST, is currently an instructor with Global Knowledge, specializing in teaching Certification Boot Camps as well as courses on Exchange, Server 2008 and Office Communications Server.
Subscribe to Randy Muller's All about Microsoft Certifications feed.
Global Knowledge offers a comprehensive catalog of Microsoft courses:
Microsoft 2003 MCSE Boot Camp
MCITP: Server Administrator Boot Camp
MCITP: Enterprise Administrator Boot Camp
MCITP: Database Administrator Boot Camp
More Microsoft courses
|
|
A good question
I think everyone who looks a job in a corporate / company that doesn't really know what they want!
Tests used to be common a long time ago but there was a difference, IMHO. They really reflected the position or job and were more aptitude tests than how to use some product. Today, sorry - too long in this business, most questions either are asked by a person who has no idea but is reading a (vendor?) paper or is really inexperienced and know only one answer - sometimes even totally wrong or incomplete and totally irrelevant to the environment / infrastructure / problems / tasks they have!
The article is correct - we try to replace knowledge and capability by memorized answer lists. Yes, works on very junior level who first time starts gaining experience and learning more but shouldn't actually be used even on that level!
Something has happened to real skills - we see these headlines in newspapers every day, is it S.F., TJX, government, New York State wireless, some bank backups, etc - I'm sure that all people there can answer the questions in skill tests in their sleep BUT why then the headlines? Have we lost the forest for the trees?
The problem is kind of what I have seen in 35+ years, hundreds of corporations, companies, institutions, manufacturing, trade, governments, etc - none work same way, none has the same infrastructure or products or vendors in same places, each has different culture, existing skill levels totally different in each place, some have plans and designs even for longer than next quarter, some don't! So - how can any "skill test" address how you will adapt to your task? And that I would think is the most important or? Maybe reading Dilbert would help?
Skills testing is common in other professions
Skills testing is common for most professions. Why should it be any different for IT?
Other professions..
No and yes - depends what you call a skill? Even if used, the tests are not what you know but what is the result. A big difference if you think it. And to be tested on required laws, regulations, etc is not same as tested for skills, anyone can read those but have absolutely no "skill" on that trade, see the difference again. This is the worst problem in IT today - book learned people but no idea what it means, especially in security, capacity, etc..
On higher level, if a hospital hires a specialist surgeon, they don't test his/her skills, or if hey hire a plumber, they don't test his/her skills before letting them work on malfunctioning toilet? If a better car garage hires technicians they send them to 6 months special vendor training in case it is needed (often needed, not many can handle all the computers in modern cars, can be hundreds!), if they hire a cleaning crew, they don't test them. All these are hands-on jobs - now when was the last time you heard a CEO candidate filling "abc" test papers, and so on? Or you hire a new hardware engineer, a nano-technology engineer, etc - no tests, if they have to know some new tools and toys they learn them, if they have to know something about the project, they are told.
Many other, I have had hilarious (or sad, depends) experiences in IT - I have been "tested" and told that I know nothing about some big (I mean big!) systems I had defined, designed, partly developed, supported but licensed and sold by some other company. Of course I can not take a project or job in such place, it just would be too embarrassing for both sides after that. They really didn't understand the systems - after a long time trying and wasting money they gave up. But that's their right, sad that a lot of people got laid off also..
This question kind of ticks me off, even so simple as C! I started using it early 80's, on many platforms, supported and fixed many flavors of compilers on several platforms, later helped to develop and to test it to new platforms, blah, blah. Looking a (mixed platform) project which had a project manager(?) who had absolutely no idea how compilers work telling me that it seems that you don't know C? I don't often walk away angry, not good for health!, and later on felt bad for the company - needless to say, that project failed later on!
So, IT is definitely about the only trade today where meaningless "tests" and questions are used, the store clerks are another but use shorter forms and at least those are somehow related to what they are supposed to do.
And as I have said before, IT is a young trade so it can be excused but doesn't make it less frustrating making the same mistakes other trades have learned a long time ago. And following the pattern, shouldn't the vendor "specialists" be tested before letting them to work on something? Just wondering?
Post new comment