IQ test for SW Eng interview?
40 comments
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.
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.
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.
It's better than other voodoo practices because it more accurately measures what is trying to measure.
Your second paragraph is arguing that IT employers should be agnostic to how intelligent their devs are. That really didn't make sense to me. All things being equal I'd rather hire smarter devs.
Your second paragraph is arguing that IT employers should be agnostic to how intelligent their devs are. That really didn't make sense to me. All things being equal I'd rather hire smarter devs.
I don’t think you understand my stance an intelligence or IQ tests the way I intended it.
I am just saying that having a high IQ (single measure of intelligence) doesn’t guaranty you that the person is skilled right for your job (multiple types of intelligence) and that the person might be so skilled that he/she is good in avoiding doing actual work and taking credit for the work of others.
I’ve worked with people like that, intelligent yes, but not a good programmer. Instead really good at sucking up towards the managers, getting others to help him and taking credit in the right way. An IQ test wouldn’t have washed him out.
I am just saying that having a high IQ (single measure of intelligence) doesn’t guaranty you that the person is skilled right for your job (multiple types of intelligence) and that the person might be so skilled that he/she is good in avoiding doing actual work and taking credit for the work of others.
I’ve worked with people like that, intelligent yes, but not a good programmer. Instead really good at sucking up towards the managers, getting others to help him and taking credit in the right way. An IQ test wouldn’t have washed him out.
I think HR in general is broken. Working for a large bank, I see a lot of HR personnel try to filter candidates by university prestige, or a combination of previous titles held / companies worked for. I've recommended several friends with real world experience at no-name companies and they get passed over because some ex-JP Morgan or whoever applied for the role and "obviously" they're the better candidate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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" http://wminsk-shared-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/Schmidt_Hunter_20... .
There's always someone pointing to some psychiatric study that it predicts some kind of future performance, despite the fact most of them can't be reproduced.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183...
Out of all the subjects out there, I find psychiatric studies to be the most bullshit out of all of them. It's whatever you want it to be. I am sure if I was motivated, I would find another study that says the complete opposite.
I am a Mensan and even I find these IQ tests pointless and stupid.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183...
Out of all the subjects out there, I find psychiatric studies to be the most bullshit out of all of them. It's whatever you want it to be. I am sure if I was motivated, I would find another study that says the complete opposite.
I am a Mensan and even I find these IQ tests pointless and stupid.
IQ testing studies aren't the kind that fail to reproduce. The replication crisis is with other kinds of studies.
That seems both obvious and irrelevant to hiring. In today's market you are less picking the best available person and trying to increase the number of people available for the position who are willing to take it.
You never want to create a filter so small that no one can pass through it.
You never want to create a filter so small that no one can pass through it.
Increasing the number of people available for a position doesn't help you hire a better candidate if you aren't able to effectively screen out candidates.
I don't see why an IQ test creates a filter so small no one can pass through it. It's just one more data point.
I don't see why an IQ test creates a filter so small no one can pass through it. It's just one more data point.
It filters out people who wouldn't take it to begin with. I know I wouldn't continue with the process at a place that puts stock in one.
Not sure why you wouldn't want to take an IQ test, they don't strike me as any sillier than the multitude of other questions I've been asked for hiring.
Most places I've seen that use IQ tests usually hire from non traditional backgrounds. People without experience, bad GPAs etc...
Most places I've seen that use IQ tests usually hire from non traditional backgrounds. People without experience, bad GPAs etc...
How could a test that is predictive of job performance possibly be irrelevant to hiring?
Maybe you should fund a study about the success of companies that hire software engineers via IQ tests versus companies that don't test candidates via IQ test? Cause that would be a lot more relevant than your paper...
That wouldn't happen because IQ tests for employment are illegal due to Griggs v Ohio
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:
- LeetCode (and other tests)
- Homework assignments
- Looking at pedigree (university)
- Looking at experience (where you've been working)
- Looking at portfolio (open source contribution)
- Using gut feeling
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.
- LeetCode (and other tests)
- Homework assignments
- Looking at pedigree (university)
- Looking at experience (where you've been working)
- Looking at portfolio (open source contribution)
- Using gut feeling
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.
Of all these I think homework or portfolio is the most reasonable. I've almost never used leetcode style coding in my actual job, pedigree isn't indicative of much in my experience (all the best hackers I've known in 10 years and two continents are from eastern European state universities), and gut feeling is a coinflip.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Engineering does require a decent IQ, if you don't have that, you're unlikely to thrive as an engineer.
Unlikely doesn't mean you can't.
Engineering does require a decent IQ, if you don't have that, you're unlikely to thrive as an engineer.
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.
It's basically a stand-in for asking brain teasers.
It's basically a stand-in for asking brain teasers.
[deleted]
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.
Not true. And for several reasons.
There's a reason the US Army won't take recruits with an IQ under 87. At that point they can no longer keep in mind simple instructions and are not worth the training.
Ask any soon-to-be parent if they want a low or high IQ child.
Now, IQ doesn't accurately predict productivity. That's conscientiousness and it's highly predictive and stable over time.
There's a reason the US Army won't take recruits with an IQ under 87. At that point they can no longer keep in mind simple instructions and are not worth the training.
Ask any soon-to-be parent if they want a low or high IQ child.
Now, IQ doesn't accurately predict productivity. That's conscientiousness and it's highly predictive and stable over time.
RBC in Canada does this and it is the most infuriating shit ever.
I feels like opening your mouth so someone can check your teeth.
Which online test was it?
How many minutes did the test need?
How many minutes did the test need?
I wouldnt want to work at such a place. EQ is also important. An IQ test for any job screams "authoritarian" to me.
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?".
What do you think about this?