More on (in)competence

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Ray Burgess wrote:
     << ...It [tests] is not only insulting its a waste of time. I was once
     asked to produce a short description of how a water heater worked...
     in 20 minutes. The comments were that it was a bit basic and therefore
     not very good; which was true. I had told them that 20 minutes
     earlier.>>
        A very valid point, but what technical writer would ask for results
     under such conditions? If the employer thinks this represents fair
     working conditions, you might want to look elsewhere for a job. A test
     should be given under realistic conditions; in this case, if you're
     the tester, let the person come up with a first draft in 20 minutes
     (or whatever), make a photocopy, then tell them to take the draft home
     and resubmit a revision. I went through the same interview process you
     did, with the same results, and I agree it's not very productive.
        Nonetheless, some kind of test is necessary. Previous writing
     samples are fine in principle, but how can you tell if the person
     really did the work or is borrowing someone else's reputation? The
     authors whose work I've edited rarely put my name in the
     acknowledgments, thus, my work was passed off as theirs when they
     submitted writing samples! As for using references, this is a tricky
     business for a few reasons. First, no one will knowingly submit a bad
     reference, so all you'll get is good references. Second, I've known
     several managers who wrote glowing references to get rid of someone
     they didn't like by ensuring that the person was portrayed as the best
     thing since the word processor... which was far from the truth. Third,
     if the candidate is truly good, I've known managers who provided a bad
     reference (when contacted over the phone to confirm the written
     reference) so they wouldn't lose a good worker. (I've had direct
     personal experience with all three problems, so I know whereat I
     speak.)
        The bottom line, as always, is to obtain some indication of the
     candidate's quality. Tests, samples and references are three tools,
     each of which has advantages and problems. I can't see hiring anyone
     without judicious use of all three.

     Ray also wrote: << Thank God they don't ask lumber jacks to
     demonstrate their work. We'd be up to ar..s'. in even more paper.>>
        As a forester myself, I note (tongue firmly in cheek) that we are
     already up to our asses in paper, and yes, they _do_ make lumberjacks
     prove themselves before hiring. The work is _dangerous_ and there's
     too high an injury rate to accept "hackers". Moreover, until they make
     online documentation that you can read on the toilet, we'll still be
     up to our asses in paper. (Furthermore, I won't use such a device in
     the bathroom until they make "floppy disks" soft ?nd absorbent enough
     to be (in your words, but in my rather indelicate reworking of the
     concept) "up to my ass in paper!)
     --Geoff Hart  #8^{)}  <--- why can't they make eyeglass icons that
     wink?