I just don't get it!

briantrumpet

Jez mon wrote:

Sounds like you've got non technical people doing technical interviews, surely that's clearly never gonna work!

But that's how most of these rubbish 'objective' tests work: they've been written by people who often don't have a deep understanding of the subject, and have to be able to be assessed/marked by people who can only recognise one 'correct' answer, and anything that deviates from that must therefore be wrong, so there's no need to pay people who might be able to tell from an apparently 'incorrect' answer that the candidate does actually understand the subject. (This sort of thing crops up with the marking by 'key vocabulary' in other subjects: e.g. in explaining mirrors, candidates must use the word "reflects": if they explain that the light "bounces off", no marks will be given, even though it shows they know fundamentally what the light does.)

No, it doesn't work, to answer your question.

cowsham

Jez mon wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I'd be intrigued to see an example of the questions (and answers)... being an Engineer.

It was some while ago since I saw them but one of the questions was " what is a capacitor ?" --- An acceptable answer " A smoothing capacitor "
That's like asking - "what is a car?" Then expecting the answer to be " A sports car"

The answer to the question should be only one thing " An energy storing device"

If you were asked to give one application or use of a capacitor you could say it can form part of a power supply smoothing circuit, or part of a frequency generation, Decoupling or coupling circuit etc etc

Well being a mechanical engineer, I'd have clearly fluffed it anyway.

Sounds like you've got non technical people doing technical interviews, surely that's clearly never gonna work!

maybe.

For mechanical engineer it's " how do you get this peg in that hole?"
1 Beat it in with a big hammer
2 widen the hole a bit with a file
Or
3 go and ask an electrical engineer.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Sounds like you've got non technical people doing technical interviews, surely that's clearly never gonna work!

But that's how most of these rubbish 'objective' tests work: they've been written by people who often don't have a deep understanding of the subject, and have to be able to be assessed/marked by people who can only recognise one 'correct' answer, and anything that deviates from that must therefore be wrong, so there's no need to pay people who might be able to tell from an apparently 'incorrect' answer that the candidate does actually understand the subject. (This sort of thing crops up with the marking by 'key vocabulary' in other subjects: e.g. in explaining mirrors, candidates must use the word "reflects": if they explain that the light "bounces off", no marks will be given, even though it shows they know fundamentally what the light does.)

No, it doesn't work, to answer your question.

I've not come across anything as daft as Cowsham's example (I could give a rudimentary answer and I'm not any kind of engineer), but again it's a reaction to the other extreme, which is the interviewer having a meandering chat with a candidate and offering them a job on the basis of a gut feeling.

cowsham

verylonglegs wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I'd be intrigued to see an example of the questions (and answers)... being an Engineer.

It was some while ago since I saw them but one of the questions was " what is a capacitor ?" --- An acceptable answer " A smoothing capacitor "
That's like asking - "what is a car?" Then expecting the answer to be " A sports car"

The answer to the question should be only one thing " An energy storing device"

If you were asked to give one application or use of a capacitor you could say it can form part of a power supply smoothing circuit, or part of a frequency generation, Decoupling or coupling circuit etc etc

Well being a mechanical engineer, I'd have clearly fluffed it anyway.

Sounds like you've got non technical people doing technical interviews, surely that's clearly never gonna work!

Forget the answer, how is such a basic question finding its way into screening for an engineer level post? That's ridiculous.

Yes a logical question to ask

A lot of electrical engineers now know how to program a PLC or use the latest robotic computer software but have little clue about first principles when it comes to circuit design.

The opportunities are there but we are a bit short on skills.

capt_slog

awavey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

but I dont remember being taught English like that, and Id like to think I picked up most of the same grammar rules, I know I picked up the more rigid rules from learning foreign languages oddly. But those questions it almost feels like the difference between applied maths and pure maths with a language instead, like they are teaching just the pure English grammar rules, rather than applied to a natural language context, that must be very difficult to grasp at that age, and surely limits expanding outside of the pure application they are taught.

or they are just badly written questions

Pretty sure that I never was either, and certainly not at that age.

If I had known those terms, it would have come in very handy for learning French and German, which I had to battle through in the years up O levels. I distinctly remember having pages of verbs in french, and one set being marked as the "pluperfect". Not much use to me as I hadn't a clue what that meant for the English version.

keef66

Same for me. Never got beyond nouns, verbs and adjectives in English, so German grammar came as a bit of a shock!

briantrumpet

keef66 wrote:

Same for me. Never got beyond nouns, verbs and adjectives in English, so German grammar came as a bit of a shock!

Thankfully I'd done Latin for a couple of years before German, so losing two of the six cases was a bonus. Still didn't really like German though, apart from the chance to say "Vater".

briantrumpet

Capt Slog wrote:

awavey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

but I dont remember being taught English like that, and Id like to think I picked up most of the same grammar rules, I know I picked up the more rigid rules from learning foreign languages oddly. But those questions it almost feels like the difference between applied maths and pure maths with a language instead, like they are teaching just the pure English grammar rules, rather than applied to a natural language context, that must be very difficult to grasp at that age, and surely limits expanding outside of the pure application they are taught.

or they are just badly written questions

Pretty sure that I never was either, and certainly not at that age.

If I had known those terms, it would have come in very handy for learning French and German, which I had to battle through in the years up O levels. I distinctly remember having pages of verbs in french, and one set being marked as the "pluperfect". Not much use to me as I hadn't a clue what that meant for the English version.

The 'timeline' way of looking at verb tenses is a very good one, should you now be interested.

http://eslibrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04 ... lines.html

And that's the thing about language and linguistics: the logic behind 'why' and 'how' grammar works as it does is really fascinating. But if you wanted to design a syllabus put young minds off the fascination of language, you couldn't do much better than what these SPAG tests are representative of.

ballysmate

briantrumpet wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Same for me. Never got beyond nouns, verbs and adjectives in English, so German grammar came as a bit of a shock!

Thankfully I'd done Latin for a couple of years before German, so losing two of the six cases was a bonus. Still didn't really like German though, apart from the chance to say "Vater".

I too, studied Latin. Was pleasantly surprised as I thought it would be boring. Only did it in order to drop music and art, at which I was (still am) shite.
Managed an O level. Thank you Mr Chips.

ayjaycee

I was also force fed latin at school a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (ie. 1960s Brixton). It's amazing how it comes back when watching University Challenge and how impressed the Mrs still is when I answer latin related questions correctly - it almost makes up for my abysmal knowledge of classical music.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Same for me. Never got beyond nouns, verbs and adjectives in English, so German grammar came as a bit of a shock!

Thankfully I'd done Latin for a couple of years before German, so losing two of the six cases was a bonus. Still didn't really like German though, apart from the chance to say "Vater".

I too, studied Latin. Was pleasantly surprised as I thought it would be boring. Only did it in order to drop music and art, at which I was (still am) shite.
Managed an O level. Thank you Mr Chips.

I stopped Latin when I started German, but still glad I did it, all these years later, not least for the discipline of thinking about how language works. It does make me reflect on the extent children should be 'encouraged' to do subjects that might not have an immediate application in their lives, but might lurk in their brains ready for resuscitation later in life, or whose logic might have parallel applications.

Ben6899

I find German one of the easiest languages, to be honest. Not as easy as Spanish though.

Never learned Latin and the English grammar rules shared upthread are baffling!

rick_chasey

briantrumpet wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Just don't get me started on SPAG tests. 'Fronted adverbials', my ar$e.

What's a SPAG test then?

SPelling And Grammar.

Here's an example test, with explanations: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erials.pdf

Remind yourself that this is for 11-year-olds, and preparation for it will have started quite a while before.

Blxxdy L. This for 11yos? Primary school? Right, this loon here has straight As in English at O and Higher (Scotland) grades. I look at these Qs and think I don't understand what is being asked. I can interpret answers from the examples, but the terminology used in phrasing the questions...about zis I 'av' no clue.

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

There's a difference between being able to answer the questions, and understanding why. My guess would be if you asked even the top 5% by mark of the 11-year-olds taking these tests about the logic behind the right answers, they'd not have a clue: they've just been coached to pass the tests. It's all surface-learning of the type that Richard Feynman rightly railed against: knowledge with no understanding, and therefore quite unable to extrapolate anything useful. It's a tragedy to do this to young enquiring minds, about such an amazingly fascinating subject.

Not necessarily. They’re just using terminology you’re not familiar with.

Not really sure why as an 11yr old you need to know why grammar is the way it is. I have friends who have written PhDs on narrow iterations of that question,

Just because you’re old doesn’t mean you necessarily know more than kids.

john80

I have seen most types of interview in engineering companies. From the does his face fit informal chat to the psychometric testing of graduate programmes. The best I have seen is where prior to interview the candidate is asked to pick one of 6 engineering problems and then asked to talk through how they would design a solution from first principles. It demonstrates that they can still use the math they were taught and university and have a coherent decision making ability. The worst is when I overheard colleagues talking about the merits of candidates based purely on their interests and whether they would get on with no substance behind this. If you cycled you were in which was all rather pathetic really.

Ben6899

Interviews should be fair, consistent and robust to any challenge of whether the right candidate was chosen. If you can satisfy those, then you're doing it right.

Be careful with detailed technical questions with experienced Engineers - they'll smash it unless they're useless and you won't learn much* - you want to get them showing they still have that "hey let's try it this way" burn inside them that they left university with.

*my bet is they won't be shortlisted if they're useless. It shines through in applications.

cowsham

Ben6899 wrote:

you want to get them showing they still have that "hey let's try it this way" burn inside them that they left university with.

What - how many vodka soaked cream crackers can you eat while hanging upside down in the gym? That's not new.

Ben6899

Yes. That.

capt_slog

briantrumpet wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

awavey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

but I dont remember being taught English like that, and Id like to think I picked up most of the same grammar rules, I know I picked up the more rigid rules from learning foreign languages oddly. But those questions it almost feels like the difference between applied maths and pure maths with a language instead, like they are teaching just the pure English grammar rules, rather than applied to a natural language context, that must be very difficult to grasp at that age, and surely limits expanding outside of the pure application they are taught.

or they are just badly written questions

Pretty sure that I never was either, and certainly not at that age.

If I had known those terms, it would have come in very handy for learning French and German, which I had to battle through in the years up O levels. I distinctly remember having pages of verbs in french, and one set being marked as the "pluperfect". Not much use to me as I hadn't a clue what that meant for the English version.

The 'timeline' way of looking at verb tenses is a very good one, should you now be interested.

http://eslibrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04 ... lines.html

And that's the thing about language and linguistics: the logic behind 'why' and 'how' grammar works as it does is really fascinating. But if you wanted to design a syllabus put young minds off the fascination of language, you couldn't do much better than what these SPAG tests are representative of.

To be fair to my teachers, I suppose it doesn't help that a lot of what we use in English isn't used/translated into other languages.

Things like, "where are you going?" translating to "where go you?" and even more often "where go[verb ending]?"

briantrumpet

Capt Slog wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

awavey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You probably would had you attended the lessons.

but I dont remember being taught English like that, and Id like to think I picked up most of the same grammar rules, I know I picked up the more rigid rules from learning foreign languages oddly. But those questions it almost feels like the difference between applied maths and pure maths with a language instead, like they are teaching just the pure English grammar rules, rather than applied to a natural language context, that must be very difficult to grasp at that age, and surely limits expanding outside of the pure application they are taught.

or they are just badly written questions

Pretty sure that I never was either, and certainly not at that age.

If I had known those terms, it would have come in very handy for learning French and German, which I had to battle through in the years up O levels. I distinctly remember having pages of verbs in french, and one set being marked as the "pluperfect". Not much use to me as I hadn't a clue what that meant for the English version.

The 'timeline' way of looking at verb tenses is a very good one, should you now be interested.

http://eslibrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04 ... lines.html

And that's the thing about language and linguistics: the logic behind 'why' and 'how' grammar works as it does is really fascinating. But if you wanted to design a syllabus put young minds off the fascination of language, you couldn't do much better than what these SPAG tests are representative of.

To be fair to my teachers, I suppose it doesn't help that a lot of what we use in English isn't used/translated into other languages.

Things like, "where are you going?" translating to "where go you?" and even more often "where go[verb ending]?"

Looking it at it from the other direction (a foreigner learning English), all those auxiliary verbs in English (e.g. "If I had been meaning to go to do that, I would have been more careful" - I make that 7 verbs, and one verb pretending to be a noun) are a nightmare if you're used to conjugating verb endings.

Jez mon

Ben6899 wrote:

Interviews should be fair, consistent and robust to any challenge of whether the right candidate was chosen. If you can satisfy those, then you're doing it right.

Be careful with detailed technical questions with experienced Engineers - they'll smash it unless they're useless and you won't learn much* - you want to get them showing they still have that "hey let's try it this way" burn inside them that they left university with.

*my bet is they won't be shortlisted if they're useless. It shines through in applications.

Not so sure, the detailed engineering question, which I passed last time around, would seemingly have flummoxed many of my old colleagues, some of whom I'd rate at least equally!

Otoh, maybe it depends on how experienced you are referring to, in the grand scheme of things we're pretty young...

I certainly think in my previous job, anyone relatively keen on cycling, and relatively hardworking, with an engineering degree, would be a good fit.

ballysmate

If this hasn't been mentioned before I would like to add the current fashion for wearing torn clothing, particularly trousers.
Scruffy bastards.
Perhaps evidence that the gullible will buy any sh1t.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

If this hasn't been mentioned before I would like to add the current fashion for wearing torn clothing, particularly trousers.
Scruffy bastards.
Perhaps evidence that the gullible will buy any sh1t.

I suspect it's also more expensive than the untorn clothing. Weird, whatever.

crispybug2

Ballysmate wrote:

If this hasn't been mentioned before I would like to add the current fashion for wearing torn clothing, particularly trousers.
Scruffy bastards.
Perhaps evidence that the gullible will buy any sh1t.

^this^

I think I’ve done a reasonable job in teaching my kids (opinions may vary about this) however since the age of fifteen I’ve been a Mod, and remain so to this day, and this has most definitely rubbed off on my son who wants to wear clean and ironed clothes and hates ripped jeans with a passion.

cowsham

crispybug2 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If this hasn't been mentioned before I would like to add the current fashion for wearing torn clothing, particularly trousers.
Scruffy bastards.
Perhaps evidence that the gullible will buy any sh1t.

^this^

I think I’ve done a reasonable job in teaching my kids (opinions may vary about this) however since the age of fifteen I’ve been a Mod, and remain so to this day, and this has most definitely rubbed off on my son who wants to wear clean and ironed clothes and hates ripped jeans with a passion.

I don't get that either - when my jeans get a bit ropey the wife makes me throw them out which jars me cos I get the feeling I've added value to them.

I like to see the MODs arriving at some of the vintage motorcycle shows I go to, mainly for the comedic picture of lots of little old fat men in trench coats arriving in single file. Looks like I've gatecrashed a perverts convention.
At least we 80's street vandals ( if we haven't put on too much weight ) still look the part until we take off our helmets -- then we get to laugh at each other.

cowsham

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

rjsterry

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

He’s always been less geeza than he likes to make out.

Mask occasionally slips. My personal favourite in response to a journo asking him about how badly his latest film has been received by critics.

“well it can’t all be f@cking fellini, can it?”

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

He’s always been less geeza than he likes to make out.

Mask occasionally slips. My personal favourite in response to a journo asking him about how badly his latest film has been received by critics.

“well it can’t all be f@cking fellini, can it?”

Yes he was pretty obviously hamming it up a bit for the programme, but as an antidote to the unrelenting grimness in the real world, last night was spot on.

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

He’s always been less geeza than he likes to make out.

Mask occasionally slips. My personal favourite in response to a journo asking him about how badly his latest film has been received by critics.

“well it can’t all be f@cking fellini, can it?”

Yes he was pretty obviously hamming it up a bit for the programme, but as an antidote to the unrelenting grimness in the real world, last night was spot on.

Saw part of it and found it quite interesting. It's just a way of presenting history in a different way that might appeal to people who would otherwise have no interest. It would be pretty good to have proof that you were directly related to so many major historical characters. Oh, and I think he's a current Eastender or at least he was on it when I was at the inlaws last week.

It cracked me up when he did a documentary on football violence and attended an Old Firm game talking about how intimidating the atmosphere was though considering there were young kids in some of the background shots who didn't seem remotely scared.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

He’s always been less geeza than he likes to make out.

Mask occasionally slips. My personal favourite in response to a journo asking him about how badly his latest film has been received by critics.

“well it can’t all be f@cking fellini, can it?”

Yes he was pretty obviously hamming it up a bit for the programme, but as an antidote to the unrelenting grimness in the real world, last night was spot on.

Saw part of it and found it quite interesting. It's just a way of presenting history in a different way that might appeal to people who would otherwise have no interest. It would be pretty good to have proof that you were directly related to so many major historical characters.

And he seems to be genuinely interested in it all. Thought the meeting with Lord Tollemache was quite sweet.