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?
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.
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 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 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.
You never want to create a filter so small that no one can pass through it.
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.
Most places I've seen that use IQ tests usually hire from non traditional backgrounds. People without experience, bad GPAs etc...
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.
- 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.
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.
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).
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.
It's basically a stand-in for asking brain teasers.
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.
How many minutes did the test need?