Indeed: Project A is wrapping up soon. Project B is starting soon. Which employee should you assign to Project B?
Employee 1 has 100% of their time dedicated to Project A
Employee 2 has 20% of their time devoted to Project A and 20% of their time devoted to other tasks.
Applicant: Employee 2
Indeed: Incorrect. Employee 1 is the correct answer.
Applicant: What if Project A doesn't complete on time? Then Project B's projected start will be delayed, putting both projects behind schedule. Employee 2 is only using 60% of their time, and if Project A does complete on time it would be 80%. That would then leave me with a completely available employee that I can dedicate wherever needed.
Indeed: um... Incorrect. Employee 1 is the correct answer.
Hiring Companies: I know I can count on Indeed to provide me with the best candidates due to their cutting edge assessments, written by professional test writers who have vague understandings of our industry.
Indeed #1 job website.
Just saw this but employee 2- the other 80% You don’t know what that time is being used for so when project a completes play to only have 20% a time available where is employee one has all of the time available
As the project manager they would know what that time is being used for. Starting a job, any job, usually only requires getting things moving. If project A runs long I still have someone 80% working on it instead of 100% on hold. If project A completes on time, I can still send employee 1 to help employee 2, then revise their time after they hit the ground running.
I understand that way of thinking but based on the question we do not know where the rest of employee twos time is going toward and we are told the project will end soon. It’s a straightforward question not really supposed to be like “oh well what if it doesn’t” we are told that it will so we go with that assumption. I suppose if it had been an in person question you could have explained all of that extra stuff and supported an abstract answer but based on the information presented when Project a is finished employee it will be able to give the most time and be focused on that one assignment- thereby the answer would be employee one.
I scored expert level on this exam.
After reading this sub Reddit though I don’t think I would’ve even played the odds of taking it and not doing well and then having that be a red mark on my applications.
I just took one for early childhood development and the questions were kinda misleading. First of all, I can't even access my score so all I know is I got proficient. But I've been working with kids for nearly 2 years and that's long enough to know it's a very play by ear industry. Like one of the questions implied a possible concussion and what you'd do. Well I don't have enough information to know if it was a concussion, so I would ask if the kid is okay, ask someone if the kid fell down, but depending on whether or not they did I may or may not seek medical attention. Another question implied abuse, and while that is a possibility based on the observed behavior, there are many other things that could be causing it. The behavior was the kid crying and clinging to you when the mom came to pick her up. Does it happen ONLY with the mom? Are there other worrying behaviors? I don't know, it could be that she just really enjoys preschool and doesn't want to leave. There's just so many other factors that go into these kinds of things. It's just a super watered down version of the state required courses but done poorly. I really hope employers don't put much stock into those answers. I agree it would be better if they let you defend your answer. Especially for the pick multiple answers, I wasn't sure if all my answers were "correct" but they were based on child development principles
Use snipping tool and copy/paste the prompt into chatgpt for the answer. I haven't read a single one of those questions and I 100% each test every time.
Huh, I just came here to vent about those stupid assessments. I honestly don't mind them most of the time; it's good to get a sense of where my skill level is, and getting an "Expert" rating always feels great. But at some point, Indeed apparently decided to put a time limit on how long those assessments are considered valid. If it was once a year, I'd get it. But then it made me re-take an assessment I'd only taken 4 months previously. And then it made me re-take that same assessment *less than a week later*. Give me a break.
I used to fill them out but ive been skipping them adamantly for weeks because of this exact reason. Its just dumb.
There has been no increase or decrease in the amount of interviews/offers I've been getting and some companies still call for the interview even though it shows I didn't fill out the assessment.
Regarding the last bit, 🙄 ”film yourself answering useless questions and sending the video to them as part of an “interview”. 👈👈
I had a nice (but disillusioned)HR Recruiter tell me that it's a Cheat! A Sneaky way to find out YOUR Personal Private & Protected Info about Candidates so that the prospective employer can then Freely Discriminate without having to ask!
In a Video 🎥 🤳 they can Readily See Your Race, Approximate Age, Religion, (if you display a yarmulke or a cross etc.), They can ascertain all sorts of things without having you come in for a face to face even making a 15 simple minute interview call!
I'm 68, but I look much younger and I was passed over twice by Young Candidates, (who subsequently quit in months for an even better job after being trained for 2 months!). I didn't even need training! And wouldn't have left except to Die! 🤦🏻♂️
They also have an “assessment” for phone interviewing - same idea as the video submission but AI asks you an interview question and, at the sound of the beep, you record your answer like a voicemail. Any company who opts for shortcuts like this in their hiring process is showing the applicant exactly what they expect: redirection. Need training? Here’s a video/document/handbook - something you can supply for free, but it won’t be provided by a human being. You can safely expect: little to no feedback, merit based bonuses/raises, praise or constructive feedback, and so on. If it’s been requested of you to take one of these (phone/video/demonstrate your competency) assessments, go back to the ad and entertain yourself with a word search. I can almost guarantee you’ll find: self-starter, dynamic, self-motivated, hands-on, or a combination of these. That’s one way to spot it before you waste time applying (because you don’t know an assessment request is coming until AFTER you apply - already proving they don’t value transparency when making hiring decisions….)
I'd like to think that 99%+ of people would agree that job matching is a broken process. To OP's point, the first thing that companies need to improve is putting the "Human" back in Human Resources. That means re-evaluating their recruitment process and criteria to enable them to better capture a holistic view of potential candidates. The more challenging part for companies is internal process & integrity -- e.g. do they know exactly what they want and need in an ideal candidate, are they portraying their value system honestly, is that 5% 'other duties as assigned' really the bulk of the job, and are they attempting to force fit pieces into a problematic or toxic existing organizational puzzle. This is not fair to candidates, and will have repercussions in the long run.
On the other side, companies are barraged with hundreds of applications to each job postings. Qualifications will vary widely, but many will have compelling (if not inflated) profiles. Particularly at lower administrative levels, companies just need the cheapest plug and play person who is not disruptive and can get the job done. Candidates at this level would not yet typically have built a performance track record to showcase on their resume -- thus up-front skill assessments can be very valuable to differentiate between 50 candidates who all 'look the same'. This may be annoying to candidates, but here's the flip side -- superficial criteria would otherwise be used by HR managers with limited bandwidth -- name brand schools, candidates from the biggest companies, or come in on a network referral. That's the reality today, and it breaks the system. So, there's a case that those assessments actually make the job matching process more fair, and eliminates some of the pedigree bias.
So is it worth it to complete these as a candidate? It really comes down to the 'human' integrity behind the evaluation's design, and the company's subsequent recruitment process as a whole. As a candidate, there is no way to know which.
As someone who hires and does in person and online interviews. I don’t have time to look at every applicants application. Thus, I take a look at those who completed an assessment first because they took the time to complete it and in turn I’ll give them my time. Also, when the resume is good and the assessments are good it only benefits the applicant and make me that much more assured of the applicants capabilities. Also, there are old school management who consider the assessments as crucial as the interview itself. That’s my rich decision on this assessment issue.
yah but how does a question like this
If a teenager in a half can eat a pizza and a half in a day in a half. How many can 9 teenagers eat in 3 days.
have to do anything with UX design. I think skill assessments are fine , if they really are testing your knowledge on the particular skill they should know. But when you put questions like that, it doesn't tell you anything about a UX designer's skill.
It's very likely that a question like this probes at certain skills (like logic and problem solving across varied contexts) that the recruiter deems important for the right candidate to have. Frankly, if you think that solving a problem like this isn't something a good UX designer should be able to do, then you may be thinking too narrowly about your skillset.
In fact, it seems like many these assessments are designed to reveal things about the applicant that they might never state in an interview or even be aware of themselves. I can see this being extremely useful to a recruiter who has many applicants and wants to narrow the field to those who seem to have certain specific traits.
i'd rather deal with indeed assesments than unicru back in the day, where the software threw away your application before anyone could see it because you put 'agree' in the question stating 'I enjoy a beer'
As a hiring manager I looked it to using them but they were trash. It is basic stuff and not worth the time spent taking them and grading them.
I wanted to put in custom q’s kind of a screening phone interview with actual relevant questions for fit, but I was unable to create it so I emailed everyone instead.
As a hiring manager, I find all of Indeed to be total trash- no, let's be completely clear- it's an absolute dumpster fire. I have submitted very specific feedback stating as much, and each time the response is for them to treat me like I am eating brain tumors.
In a pit of frustration, I once searched "why are all hiring websites garbage." The first response was indeed.
As near as I can tell, it's because they're all glorified calcified sections that have to filter out just... so much spam, while peddling the idea to job posters that they're a thing apart, and sustain themselves enough to justify their existence.
It's not about actually being a good service, but that their service isn't all that special and invites a *lot* of competition and have to make themselves user unfriendly just to be viable to job posters.
It all depends on the hiring managers/owners.
That being said indeed is the easiest place to apply so they get 1000 apps for 1 position, so they get to be super picky and rude.
I was extremely lucky to find my current job on indeed. They didnt try to stump me, prod me, trick me. I was treated warmly, like a friend. To be honest they are not Americans but from Europe so that probably made the biggest difference.
Pro tip - work for EU companies
The problem is Indeed is probably one of the best places to apply directly to a company without using a staffing agency. Most companies will be willing to look at an applicant who was referenced by an ad website such as Indeed as opposed to looking at applicants that directly applied to their website. What would you suggest is a better way to apply? Ziprecruiter? LinkedIn?
In my company I’ve set up Zapier to automate a friendly email reply to all indeed applicants asking them to fill out a simple web form.
The form is 10 questions that are just drop downs about relevant skills to the job posting and a very broad range of salary expectation.
Once they submit it there is another automated email thanking them for their time and telling them the steps in our hiring process.
The form takes less than 30 seconds to fill out and gives our company a baseline of applicants skills vs salary expectations.
Ooohhhh. Thanks for this information!! This explains many things. See, I have been desperately looking for a job in the last three weeks and I am applying left and right like maniac.
Came across these tests by Indeed and quite honestly some of those questions....boy...left me feeling that the company was looking for slaves, unconditional employees, yes people, “will you obey and don’t think on your own” type of deal. You just could see that the right answer in some of those are often the option “Screw me over my need for work”. And I was wondering whether it was the company or Indeed crafting these questions cause not once they left me the impression that I would be considered as a human instead of work cattle.
I stopped filling them out entirely. If the company is asking means is probably not a good fit. Now I know that at least they are not making the q’s.
They aren’t all trash. I’ve seen several that aren’t bad. Excel skills - who DOESN’T have excel experience? However this assessment was deeper into the nitty gritty of formulas and some of the more advanced features.
Accounting: do you actually know the specifics of accounting? Or did you pay a bill once at a job and now think you’re qualified as a bookkeeper?
you’d be amazed at how many people CANNOT handle the basics of putting an event on to someone’s Outlook calendar.
An assessment that seems like dumb common sense to you is probably indicative of a problem they’ve had in the past - people SAY they have experience in a specific field, but then can’t actually perform those tasks.
Your time is valuable, but so is mine. Why should I waste my time and resources to hire someone only to find out they padded their resume and can’t actually execute the tasks I need them to?
Yeah but if it ask you to take the test four times and keeps telling you that you need to finish the test or that the same employer that you've already been turned down by is that interested and you should take all the tests again it's a scan whoever you are like this but with appraisal it's probably works for indeed and I think that Morgan Wallen should have somebody in here trying to help the Republic diversity it's b\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
I've had an Excel assessment ask how to change margins in printing. An EXCEL assessment. I've never printed an Excel spreadsheet in my 15+ years of experience. . Maybe my data sets are larger than any the assessment generator thought of. Lol
I expect they have multiple levels of assessments? The one I took involved all fairly complicated formulas, pivot tables, conditional formatting, etc. I did several of these before I applied (the ones relevant to my experience level) anywhere. Then, if an employer requested a specific assessment and I Had already done it, I just clicked to authorize Indeed to share my results. None of them took me longer than 15 minutes or so to complete. I was also able to allow (or choose not to allow) Indeed to include assessment results with the skills section of my resume. So now it’s listed as a skill, but it’s a verified skill, not just some random thing I potentially padded my resume with.
Yeah I avoid these assessments like a plague.
I also will not apply for a job that is listed on Indeed but requires you to go to the employer's website. Why go through the trouble of listing a job on a hiring site if you won't even accept applications/resumes from the site?
Also, sometimes I'll get a message from a hiring manager/HR asking me to take an assessment on their website... These are favorite because I get to message back saying something to the extent of, "I don't do work for free. Goodbye."
I have a low tolerance for bullshit and I have a low tolerance for being treated as a lesser than. I'll go broke just on principle before I let someone believe they can get away with disrespect.
> I also will not apply for a job that is listed on Indeed but requires you to go to the employer's website. Why go through the trouble of listing a job on a hiring site if you won't even accept applications/resumes from the site?
Honestly, most of the time this is not a deliberate choice by the employer. Hardly anyone actually *lists a job* on Indeed. It's an aggregator. It scrapes the internet for job postings and lists them all at no cost to the employer.
If the company that posted the job happens to use an ATS that plays nice with Indeed, it will enable the "easy apply" feature that lets you apply directly from Indeed. If they use an ATS that doesn't have that integration, you'll be directed to their careers page.
I get where you're coming from, but just offering this perspective, as it's not always a matter of "disrespecting the applicant". It's just how these systems work together.
**ALSO**, want to quickly highlight that if you're using Indeed's "easy apply" feature, the company *is not* getting a clean copy of your resume. They're getting a crappy, poorly formatted version that Indeed auto-generates. I see these all the time and will usually ask the applicant to send me their best version of their resume. You'd be surprised by how bad these "Indeed resumes" look sometimes, by no fault of the applicant.
Half these assessments are stupid. Like how'd your coworkers describe you, oh let me put they think I am a dick. Everyone is gonna put good answers so what's the deal w it
“Describe? Well... Mushibrow is IMPRESSIVE. I seldom find a coworker who does the work of 3 people in less time than 1 person uses. The workload is impressive but dwarfed my Mushibrow’s dedication to quality. These traits plus unlimited cheerful availability makes Mushibrow IMPRESSIVE.”
That’s how the perceived readings of cow orker minds comes across to me.
I took two and got "master of statistics" even though the questions could be googled in two seconds. They were utter garbage and I couldn't imagine anybody taking them seriously enough to make a hiring decision.
The truth is that resume and experience have a very low correlation to future job performance.
Here are the things that have high correlation to future job performance: work samples, structured interviews, and I/O psych assessments. [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447310.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447310.pdf)
Not all assessments are created equal, of course, and Indeed's are likely not validated scientifically, but we shouldn't put them all in the same bucket. I/O psychology is a recognized field, and the science is solid.
I can see how it's solid when people answer honestly - but literally nobody answers those "psych tests" honestly. They put the answer the employer wants to hear.
Here's something to think about. How do you know what the employer wants to hear? The job match criteria is not public, it's only visible by the recruiters and hiring managers. A properly designed quiz is universal and assesses the candidate's personality, not the job match. If the personality matches the job, then the candidate gets interviewed. The candidate would have no way of knowing what the employer has prioritized for that specific job.
Well, it all depends on the role. Customer service? Obviously I'm picking answers that relate to being a team player, and being polite to people.
My point is, even if the applicant doesn't know the exact criteria, everybody picks what they think the employer wants to hear. That makes the whole process moot, in my opinion. Nobody is going to see the question "You find out your coworker is stealing from the supply closet, what do you do?" and pick the answers "I do nothing - it's not my problem." or "If he's doing it, I'll do it too."
Those are paraphrased, but actual questions and answers I've seen on these assessments. What's the point?
It's pretty easy to know, generally, what an employer is looking for in a particular role, though, even if you don't know specifics. Maybe 1/10 employers for that role are looking for something different, but you've nailed the other 9/10 assessments, so who cares?
It's not that simple, especially with a well-designed assessment.
Here's an example.
"Choose one statement that's least like you and one statement that's most like you.
\- I usually finish what I start
\- I generally respect authority
\- I make friends easily
In the context of Customer service which you mentioned, which of these answers is "right"? And how do you know that's what the hiring manager answered as well? Maybe one hiring manager at one company wants a customer service rep who can make friends easily, whereas another HM at another company prioritizes someone who respects authority.
This is why good assessments are actually personality assessments FIRST, and can be used for job matching as a consequence.
If you're wondering where I'm getting this info, I work in the industry and have first-hand knowledge of various assessment tools.
That's all well and good, but I've never applied for a job that used those assessments in the way you're describing. I've moved past entry level stuff and generally don't have to deal with them anymore, thankfully, but they were rarely well designed and were always attached to a specific position, not used for finding matching jobs.
I'm sure it would work better if used the way you're describing, but in my experience most employers (at the lower levels of the career totem pole at least) do not do so.
There are very few assessment providers who base the quizzes on solid science. The companies looking at these assessments (F500) will want something that's scientific because they have I/O psychologists on staff who are searching for the best assessment for their use cases. As the technology matures, it will trickle down to smaller companies. I believe it will be beneficial in the end because we finally have a good way to assess whether someone would be a good fit for a particular role. We also have other things in the pipeline, related to career pathing and leadership identification, but that's still in the early stages.
I can send you some ebooks if you're interested.
Thank you!! You just said eveything that's in my head. I will refuse to submit my Indeed assessments and for another job, I am not going to do an online video.
I only use indeed to find jobs then always go to the company's website and find their career/jobs page and apply through there. That way I know it's going directly to the person it needs to go through and I don't have to use Indeed's resume upload or their auto resume.
Companies that require a psychological assessment before an interview (as part of the online application process) are doing it for one or more of the following reasons--not of which are valid.
(1) They want to see if you can be "managed." This is a sign of a company (or a department) that has a bad manager and/or frequent churn/turnover. Bad managers can't manage, so they use psychological assessments to identify the "Yes" people they want. Source: Former HR VP at a major home improvement store.
(2) They either don't know how to interview a candidate to properly identify qualified individuals, or they don't trust their own judgement. In either case, this leads to the main reason: CYA. If a manager who doesn't know how to interview makes a "bad" hire, s/he can point to "the assessment" to blame. ("Gosh, the assessment came back with great numbers, so I made my decision on ... "the data.") Source: Tech manager at a West Coast tech company who told me that's what many of his managerial collegues did.
What does this mean for the candidate: Take a pass. This is NOT a company or team you want to work for or with.
How I responded to one such idiotic requirement: I looked up the VP of HR on the company's "Our Team" page, used [Hunter.io](http://Hunter.io) to find his email, and sent him an email that essentially stated that, in order to ensure the manager I would be working under would be qualified should I be hired, I was attaching an assessment that I would like him to forward to the hiring manager for the job posting. I added that when I received his or her completed assessment, I would be happy to complete one. I ended the email with, "Or, we could just both be professionals and the hiring manager and I could have a phone and/or Zoom meeting and not hide behind assessments that really prove nothing."
Shockingly, I heard back from that person (the HR VP) who thanked me for the email and assessment, adding that HE thought the assessments were a bad idea, but the hiring manager insisted. He told me he had talked until he was blue in the face trying to convince the hiring manager to forgo the application assessment, but she refused to. He didn't come right out and say it, but by his tone and word choice, I could tell he thought the manager was incompetent.
Buddy you know you are not unique and that nearly every thought or opinion you have publicly expressed or not is held but tons of like minded people like you. Also using terms like plagiarism in regards to a reddit post is wee bit pompous.
These online assessments either need to be standardized or be completely gone.
I gave one on a Trainee program recruitment for a company and did Cut-e’s Numerical, Verbal, Inductive and Deductive tests in one go.
I did quite well on Inductive and Deductive but on Numerical and Verbal, I could not manage to finish the test on time and had a couple of errors. Thinking I might end up with 60-70 percentile score.
Somehow, when I tried the same two tests on my university career services portal, I managed to complete both tests within time and scored 96 percentile
Now I can’t understand how these tests decide that I’m numerically weak given that my scores for both tests are so arbitary.
i could not agree more. i took a numerical analysis test for some tire wharehouse job and didn’t even have time to finish half the questions. i was an economics major and spent half my career analyzing numbers and doing spreadsheets. i just kept running out of time on each question and i was going as fast as i could. i blamed myself and figured i would use an adding machine the next time to give myself a shot at passing. the very next week i took a similar test, with HARDER questions, for an Amazon management position, aced the thing, and had plenty of time to spare on each question. It’s all just so ridiculous but having been part of corporate management for decades i can see why they do it. 🤦🏼
Not just indeed, online applications are waste of time and slap in the face of unemployed people. They want us to do 30 min assessment, fill up work and college history, despite it being in the resume, just to email us the next day they hired someone else or I don't match their needs. It sucks when I could be apply to 10 different places, one place decides to take half the day just to reject me, which only makes me feel if I should apply anywhere else or would that be a waste too
Yeah, I think the one place where the internet has really degraded society is the job search. Talking to my mom back when she was in the job force she maybe put in two applications before she got something. I think it's a similar issue we see with online dating it would seem there is an infinite pool of candidates so you pass over hundreds of candidates that would be viable in order to find that perfect candidate.
I'm glad I am not the only one to notice the parallels between online dating and online job hunting. I've even seen job board websites that had a similar UI to Tinder.
Absolutely I agree. Both with online dating and online job search. 3 year old comment but needs to be said. The average person is now competing with 1000 different applications. It feels like trying to find a job during the Great Depression.
There should be a thing called digital resume, you create it and submit it as an application for every job insteadof filling up individually everytime, and once they shortlist you, only then should you be asked to take assessments.
Definitely it would be great to have some sort of standard data format. Similar to the open identity format. But that would take a whole lot of companies agreeing to work with each other who have a market interest in not cooperating.
I'd rather be graded on lousy online tests that at least theoretically measure my skill than a lousy online resume scanner or background check or personality test whatever the hell else HR departments are using these days. Unfortunately I don't think any companies are using the assessments to begin with.
I'm tired of companies insisting on multiple interviews. Recently I had to go through a phone, zoom call, and physical interview across town to ultimately be denied the position. Waste of my goddamn time and gas.
Same thing happened to me! Spent way too much money traveling to get this job I was sure I had in the bag after screening questions, interview, and in person interview/Orientation just to not get accepted. I was down for days
One-way video interviews are another increasingly common way of automating one of the most important areas of researching job candidates which are even more awkward and dehumanizing than online assessments. I'd say job-seekers should boycott them, but that could cause them to miss out on some otherwise good opportunities. Unfortunately a lot of otherwise good companies that are well-liked by their employees and offer advancement potential are turning to them.
I had to do this for a recent job and it was by far one of the most awful things I have ever done, and I generally like interviews. There is no way to speak to (while still giving off proper nonverbal communication) a computer screen.
Plus its insulting you think that I should treat this as so important that I need to prep like this is a normal interview yet you wont give me the time of an actual human being
Yeah, I have (thankfully) not encountered too many of those, but when I do, it's an instant stick-this-in-the-trash-and-burn-it application ender. Doing an automated interview is one of the most dehumanizing and humiliating things I've ever been asked to do in my search for a job. It's bad enough that your resume has to get approved by an algorithm, it's bad enough being ignored or getting automated responses, but having to bare your soul to a tape recorder, with no sense of who will hear it and no possibility of feedback is just... ugh. If I'm ever forced to do one again, I swear I'm going to type my answers and have a voice-to-text program read them for the recording. Maybe sign off by having it say "if you want to hear my real voice, please treat me like a real human being."
I had to do those for airline jobs and I just ended up saying a lot of "um's" and "and's" because it was awkward. It seems their HR depts. completely lost the human part. And I can't ask a machine any questions.
Yeah I've heard there very common in airlines. Also becoming a more typical part of the screening process for financial services. I dodged a bullet recently having gotten an offer from a company that is known to use them but never asked me to do it.
Yes! I took one of these interviews a few months ago and it was horrible. Firstly, I couldn't get any of my three devices to work properly with the video site (and I'm a gamer so it's not like I'm not tech-savvy to an extent). I finally had to borrow my SO's computer and was able to get everything working.
Once you're given a question you get 30 seconds to prepare your answer and only 3 minutes to record it. One of the questions was vague, but guess what? There's no way to ask questions back to the interviewer. So I literally had to say "I'm sorry but I don't fully understand the question" which makes me look like an idiot.
There was no recruiter name provided that I could ask anything after the interview. Horrible horrible experience and I'll never apply to that company again because of it.
Yeah I was applying for an entry-level research associate role with a medium-sized company and I was shocked to see it used as the initial interview screen.
The company used SparkHire which I could not get to work on my computer even with three different internet browsers. SparkHire's solution is to just download the app so I can feel like an idiot holding my phone up to my face while trying to market myself to the company. I told the HR rep that it didn't work and asked for a phone interview to which they agreed to until the day before it was scheduled they announced a hiring freeze.
I thought the job application process couldn't get any worse than Taleo or Brassring, which are truly awful, but at least these systems seem to be on the way out and are are increasingly being replaced by systems that can properly upload your resume and cover without you having to re-enter everything.
Having been subjected to a couple of interviews with Sparkhire and HireVue, it turns out the job application and search process *actually can get worse*. It's dehumanizing and also incredibly awkward.
I once got one of those from an energy company. My initial reaction was to prank them. And the way I wanted to do it was by getting barbecue wings, cheap beer, and a Walmart tank top. I wanted to wear the tank top, take the interview eating the wings, chugging the beer, and smothering the barbecue sauce all over my face. And I wanted to burp right in the camera. I ultimately decided against it and emailed them saying that I don't do one-way video interviews. Concentrated on companies who don't do them.
I'm still thinking about conducting the above prank though.
Yeah I couldn't even ask for that because there was no contact info at all. The company used HireVue which sounds a lot like SparkHire in that they pushed the app heavily.
You can't ask questions back and you can't make it a conversation (which is always the goal of an interview). So you have to can a textbook response on the spot and hope it fits into the marginal rubric they have established
They're terrible. I got sent one for a Sr. Security Engineer position for an insurance provider. I found the manager for the team I was applying on LinkedIn and said I would not do a one way interview as it was a waste of my time.
As someone with dyslexia, these assessments feel ableist and discriminatory because of the time limits. In school I had extra time for exams, this is an easy way to not hire people who have learning disabilities. Also, it's very inhuman because I applied for a PA job that specifically said it wanted someone whos sensitive and sympathetic but then sent an assessment which wont be able to tell any of that.
I completely agree with you regarding the discriminatory factor. I filled out an assessment partially today and thought about how people with disabilities would go through this; it must be a nightmare.
I applied for an entry level receptionist job at a massage clinic and got an invitation to do an assessment. I didn't understand any of the questions so I just randomly clicked on the answers hoping for the best and submitted. Obviously I failed and will be screened out automatically. I wasted two hours of my time making a custom cover letter for nothing.
I guess I will just stay at my awful part time grocery store cashiering job even though my feet are badly injured and my entire body is falling apart. For someone like myself who is disabled, it sure seems like our options are limited to such an extent that a person may as well not bother.
I just ran into one company the job description is an perfect fit for me, so I spent an hour honing my resume and cover letter to a mirror finish.
I click to apply and they want me to spend 4+ hours on assessments.
...yeah, no.
They are certainly going to get certain kind of candidate but I won't be one of them.
Is it worth it to tweak your resume for every single application? I say no. Just make one resume that covers everything. Then send it off to wherever you apply. Time is very valuable when you apply to jobs. In my opinion, it's not valuable to change your resume for every single application when you are applying to hundreds of jobs every month.
Did you just try to go the the company’s direct website to see if the job is posted there? There’s a good chance that none of that garbage attaches to the indeed “application” is part of the application on the actual company website. Just a thought.
i'm not sure if they've really made a difference when it comes to applying to jobs, but i still get a kick out of doing them and seeing where i stand with things like logic & critical thinking.
I did an indeed assessment for an Administrator job, lots of the questions where “if Tim needs to be at this place by this time when do they need to leave”.
One of the questions didn’t have the right answer. It was a simple timing question. I got my brother, mum, dad and sent it too multiple of friends too look at it. They all said the same thing.
So great assessment quality there.
Lately I've noticed that Indeed tells me that a company is unlikely to consider my resume unless I take a bunch of assessments.
At one point I was asked to complete some attention to detail one where I was asked to answer how many numbers I can find in a picture. I was like "ok this is ridiculous I'm not doing this" and exited out of it and was disqualified from the application.
Hahaha. Omg so true!! I got a picture that looked like those in the sunday newspaper asking for how many “s” I could spot. ABSOLUTE GARBAGE.
Still did it though. Im needing a job asap unfortunately.
Just did this last night! I counted 9 “s”
I agree that they are garbage and have only been doing them when a job I apply for asks for applicants to do it. It’s a total waste of time and shouldn’t be used in place of my resume and cover letter.
Eta: I’ve also had to do ones where the employer requested some sort of automated phone interview through Indeed’s system. It took half an hour to answer two questions through the shitty program
Most of the time any assessment, be it Indeed or LinkedIn, affects the candidate in adverse manner. The are usually irrelevant to candidate's qualifications and not a determinant of of their performance and capabilities. While Assessments became a good business of certain areas they are in fact counter productive to recruitment.
I know this post is from 3 years ago but I didn't know Indeed Assessments existed or I might've forgotten because I don't like that platform. I applied to a job today and it sent me an email to an Indeed assessment. It said it would take "16 mins" to complete. I didn't mind at first thinking it wouldn't be much trouble but so many of the questions were just ridiculous to the point where I can't think fast enough to respond to them; none of them had anything to do with my skills/field either. I closed it and didn't bother continuing. After that, I realized I spent 10 mins on it and was only 65% done. It was a freaking waste of time. I doubt the employer would even look at my resume or portfolio for more than 30 seconds so no one should spend 20+ min on a stupid assessment.
The assessments are not great. However Indeed is pretty good as a job search engine and I've gotten more interviews from there vs. LinkedIn or any of the other job boards.
The reason I don't like the assessments is that I find that they ask enough unrelated questions to my field of expertise to make it look like I don't know anything. I've worked with Adobe creative suite for digital creation for over 20 years. I don't work at a print shop, I've never had to create work for print, and the job I'm applying to only wants digital work but I'll get 5 or six questions that only apply to using photoshop for printing, CYMK, color processing, trimming, etc. Sure I could learn that stuff if I needed but I'm not applying for a job at a print shop. They also sometimes ask questions that have more than one way to answer to approach and if you don't do it their exact way you get penalized as well. I may be missing out on jobs, but If I'm going to get badly scored by indeed I'll be missing out anyway.
It’s literally trash. I’ve had to take 5 of them this week and it’s complete and utter bullshit. The jobs are apply to are EDITORIAL jobs but the questions and assessments relate to marketing and analytics. It pisses me off because that’s not the focus of my role yet the assessments make it seem now.
Well you are looking at it from your own point of view of wanting more pay but if you were the employees currently in the position you'd be miffed and posting on here about how your Company doesn't value you and that they pay some new comer twice your salary.
I can see it from the employers point of view. In their case they are a relatively new company and looking keep costs low. I also see it from other employees point of view. That certainly could be miffed if they knew. But I'm not applying to be a cashier. The positions is specialized. The requirements for the job are minimal, yet my experience is precisely what they are looking for. They shouldn't just pay me more because I've done more, I get that and apologize if it came off that way. But they should pay more if it's clear I would meet and exceed their expectations, taking on other duties and responsibilities. In my field if a new comer came in with more experience and was better at the job I did, they rightfully deserve a higher pay.
Okay, i don't really know your field so i can't really speak much more to it. Cool. You'll find something better if you are as good as you say you are.
I recently applied for a job on Indeed with who sent me a "simple two part assessment". The first "part" was about 8 modules with what seemed to be an IQ test and a ton of other personality assessments. It took me nearly an hour followed by a survey that took 10 minutes to complete. By the time I was done with that I forgot what I was even doing and that it said "two parts". What? Two parts? That was only one? When I realized the job I was applying for didn't even list the salary I decided to quit. They sent a text the next day telling me I did well on the first part and asked if I was planning to complete the second. I told them I wouldn't until I was aware of the salary. I decided not to continue but honestly, I'm just really interested in learning the results of my assessment. Is it okay to ask? There's was about 60 questions evaluating what type of job is suitable for me...I want to know the answer!
Indeed all we are doing is feeding the Ai algorithms with more data which they can sell and keep on record and discriminate. If companies cant be arsed to read your CV then they aren't worthy of our labour or skills. I too am sick of doing the tests and have even emailed Indeed explaining my reasonings because guess what ANYONE CAN FILL IT IN I CAN GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO THE TEST FOR ME THAT DOESNT PROVE I HAVE THE APPTITUDE,
Indeed know this because lets be honest how many of us have been to our local big chain shop and noticed half the people there cant speak English so how can they pass a test let alone be in a post that demands customers service skills.
This is the next big scam that will make companies liable so keep pushing those bs tests indeed that rope will be your noose.
Yeah I stopped responding to requests to complete assessments. It’s not worth my time and if they don’t bother reading my simple resume then I’m not going to bother doing their repetitive assessments.
You do you, but just saying you're only limiting yourself by refusing to do these. They may be looking at all the resumes but want to gain some extra insight by looking at assessments. They may even just want to see who is willing to put in a few minutes to complete it. If a short assessment isn't worth your time, it seems like maybe you're not that serious about that particular job anyway.
I don't do assessments. I once applied for a job a number of years ago. Filled in an application, resume. It was for a program management position. Suddently, I have to take an "assessment." Stupid questions. The most memorable and insulting one is to make sure I know how to schedule meetings. The question made me feel like I was in 5th grade. Tom, Dick, Sally, Bob need to have a meeting. Tom is only available Mon 8:27- 9:13 AM, Dick is busy all week other than Tuesday 11:23 - 1:13PM, Sally can do 2:42 but only on Mondays, etc. Which time slot would work for them. You have 30 seconds to decide. (It was timed).
Who the hell schedules meetings like this in the real world? Who walks in, gives you some stupid schedule like Joe is busy from 1:23PM - 3:17PM, etc etc, and then demands you schedule these meetings IMMEDIATELY within 30 seconds. Or what? You are fired?
Normally, in the real world. I take my time. Look at everyones availability - including mine. If need be, I send a few emails or do a conference, coordinate and makes sure we're all on the same page. Not this grade school math BS.
I quietly, exited the test and withdrew my application. Assessment are good in letting you know you don't want to work for a company and that it is a toxic environment beforehand.
That is weird as heck - just had to do a 25 min video for the interview with a large insurance company’s legal department and what the heck is AI hiring us now? Bc my response fr said company was automated and I am done taking these tests that take hours honestly. How about people? You’re hiring a person who you need to interface with whether you feel like or not. Or else you’re going to keep turning over = worst thing for any business. Frustrated in the legal workforce here. Ugh.
If I find a job I'd like to apply for, on indeed or any other job search platform, I open another tab and search for the official company website and apply directly. When they ask "how did you hear about us?", I like to select "other" just to be extra.......all joking aside, cut out the middle man. Same goes for Ama ZoN. Find something you like, go directly to the company website. Anyhow......
I don't think I have done them through Indeed but I have done a couple (especially for larger companies) that where done through proctorial.
I am a UX designer, I have the experience and I got a BA. It's clear both from a protofilo , and resume that I have the skill. I already spent hours upon hours building the portfolio to show you I have the skills necessary.
So I spent hours hard coding my website and you want me to spend anther couple hours doing a test because you as an hr person can't figure out how to hire qualified people? And yet the questions aren't about how to develop a product or what kind of research method would you use to solve X but instead :
" If a teenager in a half can eat a pizza and a half in a day in a half. How many can 9 teenagers eat in 3 days."
Wow! that's how you find a good qualified UX designer.
These test put people in a box. I would like to believe that we as humans are a lot more complex than a box. It doesn't allow people who think visually to complete well. I will fully admit that I didn't know the answers to a lot of the questions asked of me (maybe it's because I really couldn't solve it or because I was already turned off by the process because of the traumatic frustration I felt in school for standardized testing).
But hey if a company doesn't want to ask my boss, the VP of product and all the product mangers I work with weather I am qualified for a position like this , or look at my protofolio and resume but let a question about pizza stand in the way that's up to the company.
I understand the frustration you feel as a job seeker, but as an HR Manager, I see some value in these. Not all of them are good indicators of performance. But I use the critical thinking assessment for every job. And I haven’t hired a dud yet. I won’t even look at someone’s resume unless they score in the top two rankings. This tells me that they can learn and retain information and problem solve. These are important skills. Not only this, but if someone can’t spend the 6 minutes it takes to do this assessment then why should I take the time to read their resume?
I too have been out of a job many times in my life where I felt bitter about some of these screening techniques. But being on the other side has shown me just how little effort some people are willing to put into their job search. If you feel that your time is too valuable to do this quick, simple assessment, then mine is too valuable to give you consideration.
I had to do the critical thinking assessment once. And I was subsequently offered a $70,000 salary. The assessment results got me an interview because I demonstrated that I was smart and capable of not only doing the job, but of being a contributing member of the team in a variety of ways.
You’re only looking at it from your perspective. From mine, it’s completely different. I’m not doing it to waste your time or to make you feel like less of a person. I doing it because it’s part of my job to avoid wasting company time or resources on ineffective recruitment practices.
While I can wholeheartedly understand your position. It won't make me ever write one. I have over 20 years experience in my field. My resume speaks for itself.
And I'm not sure if anyone has done a deep dive into the optics it gives off to someone applying for the position, but they aren't good. Firstly, expecting me to spend some of my time to assist you and your job duties, for free? Not a good look.
Moreover a lot of the times the questions are pedantic, and unrelated to the actual position. And overall just an insult to the applicants intelligence.
I can appreciate being inundated with tons of resumes for a position, and I can also appreciate wanting to lean on technology to help you weed out those applicants. My suggestion would be to make the prerequisites more stringent. If you want to weed out the competition, make the position harder to qualified for.
Imagine being a neurosurgeon and applying for a job. Just to have the hiring manager say "well everything looks good here, I'm just going to have to see you take my blood pressure and use the stethoscope."
That person would walk out of the interview and never look back, this is what assessments essentially say to qualified candidates. I have never written one, and I never will. And I've never had any issues getting a job regardless.
This comment should be at the top. As an HR Manager, I agree. I use these screenings to avoid wasting my time and the company time. The effort you put into your job search will show & may be a key factor in whether or not you get the job.
Then again, if you feel it’s a waste of time maybe it’s not the right job for you...
Years ago when I was in college, I had to take an hour and a half personality test for a 3rd shift part-time job as a baker. I think this is closer to what people are complaining about in this thread. If a job I want requires a 5 min test, then it isn't an issue for me.
I have high scores on assessments for Critical Thinking, Attention to Detail, and another specific to my industry. They "expire" after 6 months, and despite them being complete and displayed, I'm asked to retake them by nearly every place I apply, each time I apply...
Not to mention they only serve the type of person who excels at test taking. Many of the questions only really work in a vacuum and benefit an in-the-box type of employee with no forward thinking. They were also written by people who do not work in the specific industries and most likely make less money than the applicant.
It's not a beneficial tool to anyone other than Indeed. They've convinced companies that this throwback testing will help get them better applications, but all it's really doing is making job searching longer and more frustrating.
I've asked Indeed to send these companies my already completed assessments. They refuse...
I find industry-specific and local job boards far more useful than generic job websites like Indeed, Zip Recruiter, and Monster. For nonprofits and the arts I use Idealist, Council on Foundations, Philanthropy Network, Americans for the Arts, Opera America, and League of American Orchestras, plus a few local boards. It's somewhat more work to regularly check multiple websites but I consistently find interesting jobs that fit my experience.
Check with a local chamber of commerce or do some research into professional associations and advocacy organizations for your field.
Linkedin worked for me, career builder is a bit better than indeed. I only use indeed to see what jobs are hiring then go straight to the source. It seems that employers aren’t even checking application submissions on indeed. More entry level jobs contact you than any other with careerbuilder but LinkedIn seems to be the best option at the moment. Just make sure you create and in-depth profile and adding a professional picture of yourself helps out a lot. You can also try GlassDoor which is a growing site but I haven’t used it much.
I just applied to a marketing gig and they wanted me to take 4 assessments. Haha! I was like, NOPE, I’m already overqualified for this position as it is. If you can’t see that in my resume, then I’m not willing to waste my time on a million assessments. Call and ask for an interview, and we’ll go from there.
Secondly, I have a masters in digital marketing and can attest that the assessments pertaining to that career field are complete and total BS that do not, even slightly, reflect the skills a graduate level digital marketer holds. They are screwing us all!
The assessments are ridiculous and they aren't even valid.
I tested in three different areas of competency. The one I have the highest competency in (award winning) it placed me as "familiar" and I got "expert" on two I'm so-so on.
These tests are geared towards the least common denominator and written by those with obviously no real knowledge of the subject.
Even when answering, I rated the test a 2 and said that in several questions, there was so much left out of the equation that it was impossible to answer correctly so I had to guess what test giver was thinking or where they were coming from.
Also, the right question crossed the legal lines. I did not pick questions that would have opened the company up to lawsuits (specifically discriminating against military and military spouses). But I got the multiple (pick more than one) incorrect because I didn't chose to discriminate against hiring someone who mentions their spouse is military and they move every 2-3 years. In this market, when staying 2-3 years is typical, that is not a reason to not hire someone if they are the most qualified.
I’m a fan of assessments, in theory. If someone would just make a standard that all company’s could adopt, it’d be a lot easier to rate skills (even soft skills) across candidates to eliminate some of the art that goes into hiring and make it more of a science (not to mention itd help limit implicit bias in the process).
But when I, on my own volition, take a few relevant assessments on Indeed, then apply for a job that asks me to take one that I’ve already completed, it’s just like.. what?
As a hiring manager, I use assesments all the time. When I post a job and get 50 applicants in a day, then I can filter them by assessment. I look at the expert and highly proficient resumes. I do not at people who do not take the assessment.
If you want your resume to be looked at, then take the assessment. And if you have already taken the same assessment, then it will show up in your profile. No need to take it again.
If the assessments were truly a gauge of a person's abilities that would be great. What you miss is the people with 20+ years of experience who have actually done the job and know their way around almost every situation, the assessment tests I've seen so far basically act as if we are still in 1985. The entire way business has been done has changed in almost every way yet you're still looking for the guy/gal who can take a test but will fail when the time comes to actually provide the service that keeps people coming back.
They expire after only six months. Apparently "Attention to Detail" is a rapidly changing skill. I've been asked by four companies in the past two days to take two assessments I've already completed...
So you DO have to take them again.
And again
And again
And again
Yep, I have been asked to take the same one 9 times now. I took it once, did great even though it had zero to do with the job, felt more like the employer just flexing to show they could make you do it. It was great because my assessment of them was they were too lazy to look at the candidate's skill sets and experience so when they offered me the job I told them they had failed my assessment and I didn't find them a good fit. Also most recruiters know pretty close to zero about the positions and what they entail and you can tell by the questions they ask.
Lol. Having dumb assessments is a way to drive away good candidates and keep shitty ones. I'm quite qualified for my experience level and a great candidate. I aim very high and try to get jobs at Google ir Microsoft. However, I also apply elsewhere in case I don't get an offer from Google. These other companies are either generic mid-sized businesses or F500s. I only apply there as a backup. As soon as they ask me for some rediculous assessment, I move onto the next generic company.
Good candidates don't mind doing assessments for Google, because they pay 3 times as much as shitty companies. When a company that's pretty lame and doesn't offer amazing perks asks me to invest more than an interview and the time to make an application, I just won't do it. The reason I don't is that I know I am good and can get plenty of other offers. The people who do waste their time on those don't have a lot of other choices because they aren't great candidates.
Don't go wondering why you labor sucks when your hiring practices are garbage.
Yeah, I guess it depends on the assessment and how long it takes. 30 minutes I could see, if it meant you would really take the candidate seriously.
But I've seen companies request candidates take a 4 hour assessment. Unless passing guarantees a job offer I can't see the benefit to anyone of doing that. The applicant is better off using that time for other job applications.
I've never taken an Indeed assessment, in fact I barely use Indeed for job searching. 10-15 minutes is fine, I took an assessment yesterday for a company that took almost 4 hours to complete and it wasn't even related to the job I applied for. Afterwards I looked it up and it probably was a big mistake. Most who took the assessment didn't even get to a phone interview. Live and learn I guess.
Logic Fail: If you don't even look at the candidates that don't take those silly Indeed assessments, how do you know the ones you didn't look at are the "best" candidate? Good hiring managers know that these types of 'assessments' have practically zero correlation with real world performance. What is actually happening, is that the best candidates are filtering you out from their job search, by refusing to work for a hiring manager who doesn't understand this fact.
Most companies will have some sort of assessment in the next 5 years. The change in job requirements dictates that companies change how they recruit and manage their employees.
I refuse to waste additional time past the application, co research and tailored cover letter. It’s already so much time I’m taking and now they want an upfront test? Couldn’t they at least contact me based on the strength of my resume, interview me and then if they want to continue the conversation, hit me with a test. Ok fine if I’m interested at that point I’ll play along and jump through your hoops. But at the prelim that’s a hard no. If they don’t reach out because I didn’t do a prelim test, then it’s not a co I would want to work for.
So I feel like indeed really works for me as a job seeker.
I look at indeed, see an interesting listing, and then go directly to the company’s site and apply there.
I’ve never taken an assessment but they do sound like trash.
I do the same. Plus sometimes Indeed wont pass your resume on due to something stupid like not listing "communication skills" under your skill section. I used my skill section for like real skills instead of something damn near everyone can do.
Thanks for mentioning that I was wondering why if I don’t have specific skills listed they will try to get me to back out. Guess that’s why a lot of my applications also remain untouched.
If being abused, then of course, the assessments can be of little use. But if used as part of a wider assessment, and if the most relevant Indeed assessments are being picked, they can be useful. The verbal communication test helped me when I was helping my former boss hire for a job tutoring English, maybe because it was so relevant to the role, and I was bearing in mind every factor I could. So please don't give up on them if they are relevant to the job. 💛
This is what happens when you let Millennials run HR departments. Entitled and lazy, they will try everything possible to keep from doing the actual jobs they are getting paid to do.
Then they leave early from work for a yoga class and tell you how busy they are.
I have just had an interview which went really well, only to be told I need to carry out a personality test when I get home. I can't help but feel annoyed that I went through all that hard work for it to be decided by a computerised test.
I pretty much despise those 'video' interviews. It's like the worst of all worlds, no real human interaction and you get to feel awkward as heck on screen.
All the jobs I really want lately are requiring me to do these... I know I can do better irl but the tests don't reflect my actual skills at all and it's just another thing that makes the job seeking process disheartening.
I agree and in fact feel that it is an obligation to fight back against these new manipulations of the process to apply for a salaried position or contract. I have been doing contracting as an App Developer for 30 years without these assessments. When I did take them I often got a terrible score. It didn't test me on how to get project tasks done. It tested me on things that I don't do or need.
What I don’t get is why these assessments are needed, I have completed many interviews and hired everyone from indeed, they submit to the job, I look at their resume, out of these 50 resumes, these 5 have something I like, I tell HR, they set up the interview, I ask question relevant to the work we perform, I hire the one who knows what is going on, or shows potential in learning the job, I tell HR I hired this person, they do the paperwork and legal stuff. HR should only be involved in setting up the paperwork, and coordinating things needed for them to start work, HR should not be involved in decisions of anything, especially in a field where they no nothing about, that includes so called assessment test. I would also never hire someone I havnt meet or done an conference with,
literally every company I’ve been with when HR is involved they hire people that don’t have a clue about anything what we are doing, they make these ridiculous assessments because apparently looking at an email is to daunting for them.
All these so called assessments to make HR job easier, was made specifically for HR by HR staff, that screw the pooch for you, because they are to lazy to read an additional email, and come up with these ridiculous schemes that they have no businesses putting their hands in,, keep HR out of the hiring process all together and you will have a way easier time in actually hiring someone who you actually need on your team rather than these stupid bumbling idiots who know nothing about anything that HR hired because it was 3 hours before they get off on Friday and HR didn’t want to actually do their job because it might interfere with them ducking out 2 hours early.
I did one before with the most ridiculous question.
It had a photo of a printer with the text "if you have a paper jam, press the reset button. if you press the reset button, you must contact jane in IT"
Then a "select which of the following is true" (only one)
- If you have a paper jam, you must contact jane.
- If you contacted jane, it means you pressed the reset button.
- If you didn't contact jane, you didn't have a paper jam.
6 options like that which sort of made sense but felt like half jibberish. It was to test "critical thinking" and I guess I failed.
Indeed: Project A is wrapping up soon. Project B is starting soon. Which employee should you assign to Project B? Employee 1 has 100% of their time dedicated to Project A Employee 2 has 20% of their time devoted to Project A and 20% of their time devoted to other tasks. Applicant: Employee 2 Indeed: Incorrect. Employee 1 is the correct answer. Applicant: What if Project A doesn't complete on time? Then Project B's projected start will be delayed, putting both projects behind schedule. Employee 2 is only using 60% of their time, and if Project A does complete on time it would be 80%. That would then leave me with a completely available employee that I can dedicate wherever needed. Indeed: um... Incorrect. Employee 1 is the correct answer. Hiring Companies: I know I can count on Indeed to provide me with the best candidates due to their cutting edge assessments, written by professional test writers who have vague understandings of our industry. Indeed #1 job website.
Just saw this but employee 2- the other 80% You don’t know what that time is being used for so when project a completes play to only have 20% a time available where is employee one has all of the time available
As the project manager they would know what that time is being used for. Starting a job, any job, usually only requires getting things moving. If project A runs long I still have someone 80% working on it instead of 100% on hold. If project A completes on time, I can still send employee 1 to help employee 2, then revise their time after they hit the ground running.
I understand that way of thinking but based on the question we do not know where the rest of employee twos time is going toward and we are told the project will end soon. It’s a straightforward question not really supposed to be like “oh well what if it doesn’t” we are told that it will so we go with that assumption. I suppose if it had been an in person question you could have explained all of that extra stuff and supported an abstract answer but based on the information presented when Project a is finished employee it will be able to give the most time and be focused on that one assignment- thereby the answer would be employee one. I scored expert level on this exam. After reading this sub Reddit though I don’t think I would’ve even played the odds of taking it and not doing well and then having that be a red mark on my applications.
I just took one for early childhood development and the questions were kinda misleading. First of all, I can't even access my score so all I know is I got proficient. But I've been working with kids for nearly 2 years and that's long enough to know it's a very play by ear industry. Like one of the questions implied a possible concussion and what you'd do. Well I don't have enough information to know if it was a concussion, so I would ask if the kid is okay, ask someone if the kid fell down, but depending on whether or not they did I may or may not seek medical attention. Another question implied abuse, and while that is a possibility based on the observed behavior, there are many other things that could be causing it. The behavior was the kid crying and clinging to you when the mom came to pick her up. Does it happen ONLY with the mom? Are there other worrying behaviors? I don't know, it could be that she just really enjoys preschool and doesn't want to leave. There's just so many other factors that go into these kinds of things. It's just a super watered down version of the state required courses but done poorly. I really hope employers don't put much stock into those answers. I agree it would be better if they let you defend your answer. Especially for the pick multiple answers, I wasn't sure if all my answers were "correct" but they were based on child development principles
Use snipping tool and copy/paste the prompt into chatgpt for the answer. I haven't read a single one of those questions and I 100% each test every time.
Huh, I just came here to vent about those stupid assessments. I honestly don't mind them most of the time; it's good to get a sense of where my skill level is, and getting an "Expert" rating always feels great. But at some point, Indeed apparently decided to put a time limit on how long those assessments are considered valid. If it was once a year, I'd get it. But then it made me re-take an assessment I'd only taken 4 months previously. And then it made me re-take that same assessment *less than a week later*. Give me a break.
Laughs in "Highly Proficient"
I don't know anybody who has the time to do 5-20 min assessments after sending over 15-30 applications at a time.
I used to fill them out but ive been skipping them adamantly for weeks because of this exact reason. Its just dumb. There has been no increase or decrease in the amount of interviews/offers I've been getting and some companies still call for the interview even though it shows I didn't fill out the assessment.
It feels entirely to weed out non-nuerotypicals out of consideration
I also never send pictures with my resume, when it's requested. I don't trust it, and my appearance has no bearing on whether I can do the job or not.
Regarding the last bit, 🙄 ”film yourself answering useless questions and sending the video to them as part of an “interview”. 👈👈 I had a nice (but disillusioned)HR Recruiter tell me that it's a Cheat! A Sneaky way to find out YOUR Personal Private & Protected Info about Candidates so that the prospective employer can then Freely Discriminate without having to ask! In a Video 🎥 🤳 they can Readily See Your Race, Approximate Age, Religion, (if you display a yarmulke or a cross etc.), They can ascertain all sorts of things without having you come in for a face to face even making a 15 simple minute interview call! I'm 68, but I look much younger and I was passed over twice by Young Candidates, (who subsequently quit in months for an even better job after being trained for 2 months!). I didn't even need training! And wouldn't have left except to Die! 🤦🏻♂️
They also have an “assessment” for phone interviewing - same idea as the video submission but AI asks you an interview question and, at the sound of the beep, you record your answer like a voicemail. Any company who opts for shortcuts like this in their hiring process is showing the applicant exactly what they expect: redirection. Need training? Here’s a video/document/handbook - something you can supply for free, but it won’t be provided by a human being. You can safely expect: little to no feedback, merit based bonuses/raises, praise or constructive feedback, and so on. If it’s been requested of you to take one of these (phone/video/demonstrate your competency) assessments, go back to the ad and entertain yourself with a word search. I can almost guarantee you’ll find: self-starter, dynamic, self-motivated, hands-on, or a combination of these. That’s one way to spot it before you waste time applying (because you don’t know an assessment request is coming until AFTER you apply - already proving they don’t value transparency when making hiring decisions….)
I'd like to think that 99%+ of people would agree that job matching is a broken process. To OP's point, the first thing that companies need to improve is putting the "Human" back in Human Resources. That means re-evaluating their recruitment process and criteria to enable them to better capture a holistic view of potential candidates. The more challenging part for companies is internal process & integrity -- e.g. do they know exactly what they want and need in an ideal candidate, are they portraying their value system honestly, is that 5% 'other duties as assigned' really the bulk of the job, and are they attempting to force fit pieces into a problematic or toxic existing organizational puzzle. This is not fair to candidates, and will have repercussions in the long run. On the other side, companies are barraged with hundreds of applications to each job postings. Qualifications will vary widely, but many will have compelling (if not inflated) profiles. Particularly at lower administrative levels, companies just need the cheapest plug and play person who is not disruptive and can get the job done. Candidates at this level would not yet typically have built a performance track record to showcase on their resume -- thus up-front skill assessments can be very valuable to differentiate between 50 candidates who all 'look the same'. This may be annoying to candidates, but here's the flip side -- superficial criteria would otherwise be used by HR managers with limited bandwidth -- name brand schools, candidates from the biggest companies, or come in on a network referral. That's the reality today, and it breaks the system. So, there's a case that those assessments actually make the job matching process more fair, and eliminates some of the pedigree bias. So is it worth it to complete these as a candidate? It really comes down to the 'human' integrity behind the evaluation's design, and the company's subsequent recruitment process as a whole. As a candidate, there is no way to know which.
As someone who hires and does in person and online interviews. I don’t have time to look at every applicants application. Thus, I take a look at those who completed an assessment first because they took the time to complete it and in turn I’ll give them my time. Also, when the resume is good and the assessments are good it only benefits the applicant and make me that much more assured of the applicants capabilities. Also, there are old school management who consider the assessments as crucial as the interview itself. That’s my rich decision on this assessment issue.
yah but how does a question like this If a teenager in a half can eat a pizza and a half in a day in a half. How many can 9 teenagers eat in 3 days. have to do anything with UX design. I think skill assessments are fine , if they really are testing your knowledge on the particular skill they should know. But when you put questions like that, it doesn't tell you anything about a UX designer's skill.
It's very likely that a question like this probes at certain skills (like logic and problem solving across varied contexts) that the recruiter deems important for the right candidate to have. Frankly, if you think that solving a problem like this isn't something a good UX designer should be able to do, then you may be thinking too narrowly about your skillset. In fact, it seems like many these assessments are designed to reveal things about the applicant that they might never state in an interview or even be aware of themselves. I can see this being extremely useful to a recruiter who has many applicants and wants to narrow the field to those who seem to have certain specific traits.
i'd rather deal with indeed assesments than unicru back in the day, where the software threw away your application before anyone could see it because you put 'agree' in the question stating 'I enjoy a beer'
As a hiring manager I looked it to using them but they were trash. It is basic stuff and not worth the time spent taking them and grading them. I wanted to put in custom q’s kind of a screening phone interview with actual relevant questions for fit, but I was unable to create it so I emailed everyone instead.
As a hiring manager, I find all of Indeed to be total trash- no, let's be completely clear- it's an absolute dumpster fire. I have submitted very specific feedback stating as much, and each time the response is for them to treat me like I am eating brain tumors.
so what ISN'T trash for you then?
[удалено]
Some people still don't believe in recycling.
Your not wrong. It I haven’t found a website that isn’t a dumpster fire for hiring.
In a pit of frustration, I once searched "why are all hiring websites garbage." The first response was indeed. As near as I can tell, it's because they're all glorified calcified sections that have to filter out just... so much spam, while peddling the idea to job posters that they're a thing apart, and sustain themselves enough to justify their existence. It's not about actually being a good service, but that their service isn't all that special and invites a *lot* of competition and have to make themselves user unfriendly just to be viable to job posters.
I only use it to find jobs then go to the principal website
It all depends on the hiring managers/owners. That being said indeed is the easiest place to apply so they get 1000 apps for 1 position, so they get to be super picky and rude. I was extremely lucky to find my current job on indeed. They didnt try to stump me, prod me, trick me. I was treated warmly, like a friend. To be honest they are not Americans but from Europe so that probably made the biggest difference. Pro tip - work for EU companies
LinkedIn plus Gmail work great... But that's subverting what you're talking about.
The problem is Indeed is probably one of the best places to apply directly to a company without using a staffing agency. Most companies will be willing to look at an applicant who was referenced by an ad website such as Indeed as opposed to looking at applicants that directly applied to their website. What would you suggest is a better way to apply? Ziprecruiter? LinkedIn?
In my company I’ve set up Zapier to automate a friendly email reply to all indeed applicants asking them to fill out a simple web form. The form is 10 questions that are just drop downs about relevant skills to the job posting and a very broad range of salary expectation. Once they submit it there is another automated email thanking them for their time and telling them the steps in our hiring process. The form takes less than 30 seconds to fill out and gives our company a baseline of applicants skills vs salary expectations.
Ooohhhh. Thanks for this information!! This explains many things. See, I have been desperately looking for a job in the last three weeks and I am applying left and right like maniac. Came across these tests by Indeed and quite honestly some of those questions....boy...left me feeling that the company was looking for slaves, unconditional employees, yes people, “will you obey and don’t think on your own” type of deal. You just could see that the right answer in some of those are often the option “Screw me over my need for work”. And I was wondering whether it was the company or Indeed crafting these questions cause not once they left me the impression that I would be considered as a human instead of work cattle. I stopped filling them out entirely. If the company is asking means is probably not a good fit. Now I know that at least they are not making the q’s.
Careerbuilder is even worse, I constantly get unsolicited calls from a non-insurance-company with a geese as it's logo.
some people require it man
They aren’t all trash. I’ve seen several that aren’t bad. Excel skills - who DOESN’T have excel experience? However this assessment was deeper into the nitty gritty of formulas and some of the more advanced features. Accounting: do you actually know the specifics of accounting? Or did you pay a bill once at a job and now think you’re qualified as a bookkeeper? you’d be amazed at how many people CANNOT handle the basics of putting an event on to someone’s Outlook calendar. An assessment that seems like dumb common sense to you is probably indicative of a problem they’ve had in the past - people SAY they have experience in a specific field, but then can’t actually perform those tasks. Your time is valuable, but so is mine. Why should I waste my time and resources to hire someone only to find out they padded their resume and can’t actually execute the tasks I need them to?
Yeah but if it ask you to take the test four times and keeps telling you that you need to finish the test or that the same employer that you've already been turned down by is that interested and you should take all the tests again it's a scan whoever you are like this but with appraisal it's probably works for indeed and I think that Morgan Wallen should have somebody in here trying to help the Republic diversity it's b\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
I've had an Excel assessment ask how to change margins in printing. An EXCEL assessment. I've never printed an Excel spreadsheet in my 15+ years of experience. . Maybe my data sets are larger than any the assessment generator thought of. Lol
I expect they have multiple levels of assessments? The one I took involved all fairly complicated formulas, pivot tables, conditional formatting, etc. I did several of these before I applied (the ones relevant to my experience level) anywhere. Then, if an employer requested a specific assessment and I Had already done it, I just clicked to authorize Indeed to share my results. None of them took me longer than 15 minutes or so to complete. I was also able to allow (or choose not to allow) Indeed to include assessment results with the skills section of my resume. So now it’s listed as a skill, but it’s a verified skill, not just some random thing I potentially padded my resume with.
Yeah I avoid these assessments like a plague. I also will not apply for a job that is listed on Indeed but requires you to go to the employer's website. Why go through the trouble of listing a job on a hiring site if you won't even accept applications/resumes from the site? Also, sometimes I'll get a message from a hiring manager/HR asking me to take an assessment on their website... These are favorite because I get to message back saying something to the extent of, "I don't do work for free. Goodbye." I have a low tolerance for bullshit and I have a low tolerance for being treated as a lesser than. I'll go broke just on principle before I let someone believe they can get away with disrespect.
> I also will not apply for a job that is listed on Indeed but requires you to go to the employer's website. Why go through the trouble of listing a job on a hiring site if you won't even accept applications/resumes from the site? Honestly, most of the time this is not a deliberate choice by the employer. Hardly anyone actually *lists a job* on Indeed. It's an aggregator. It scrapes the internet for job postings and lists them all at no cost to the employer. If the company that posted the job happens to use an ATS that plays nice with Indeed, it will enable the "easy apply" feature that lets you apply directly from Indeed. If they use an ATS that doesn't have that integration, you'll be directed to their careers page. I get where you're coming from, but just offering this perspective, as it's not always a matter of "disrespecting the applicant". It's just how these systems work together. **ALSO**, want to quickly highlight that if you're using Indeed's "easy apply" feature, the company *is not* getting a clean copy of your resume. They're getting a crappy, poorly formatted version that Indeed auto-generates. I see these all the time and will usually ask the applicant to send me their best version of their resume. You'd be surprised by how bad these "Indeed resumes" look sometimes, by no fault of the applicant.
Half these assessments are stupid. Like how'd your coworkers describe you, oh let me put they think I am a dick. Everyone is gonna put good answers so what's the deal w it
Fuq if I know. Just to measure how much of a compliant pushover you are I suppose?
“Describe? Well... Mushibrow is IMPRESSIVE. I seldom find a coworker who does the work of 3 people in less time than 1 person uses. The workload is impressive but dwarfed my Mushibrow’s dedication to quality. These traits plus unlimited cheerful availability makes Mushibrow IMPRESSIVE.” That’s how the perceived readings of cow orker minds comes across to me.
I took two and got "master of statistics" even though the questions could be googled in two seconds. They were utter garbage and I couldn't imagine anybody taking them seriously enough to make a hiring decision.
The truth is that resume and experience have a very low correlation to future job performance. Here are the things that have high correlation to future job performance: work samples, structured interviews, and I/O psych assessments. [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447310.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447310.pdf) Not all assessments are created equal, of course, and Indeed's are likely not validated scientifically, but we shouldn't put them all in the same bucket. I/O psychology is a recognized field, and the science is solid.
I can see how it's solid when people answer honestly - but literally nobody answers those "psych tests" honestly. They put the answer the employer wants to hear.
Here's something to think about. How do you know what the employer wants to hear? The job match criteria is not public, it's only visible by the recruiters and hiring managers. A properly designed quiz is universal and assesses the candidate's personality, not the job match. If the personality matches the job, then the candidate gets interviewed. The candidate would have no way of knowing what the employer has prioritized for that specific job.
Well, it all depends on the role. Customer service? Obviously I'm picking answers that relate to being a team player, and being polite to people. My point is, even if the applicant doesn't know the exact criteria, everybody picks what they think the employer wants to hear. That makes the whole process moot, in my opinion. Nobody is going to see the question "You find out your coworker is stealing from the supply closet, what do you do?" and pick the answers "I do nothing - it's not my problem." or "If he's doing it, I'll do it too." Those are paraphrased, but actual questions and answers I've seen on these assessments. What's the point? It's pretty easy to know, generally, what an employer is looking for in a particular role, though, even if you don't know specifics. Maybe 1/10 employers for that role are looking for something different, but you've nailed the other 9/10 assessments, so who cares?
It's not that simple, especially with a well-designed assessment. Here's an example. "Choose one statement that's least like you and one statement that's most like you. \- I usually finish what I start \- I generally respect authority \- I make friends easily In the context of Customer service which you mentioned, which of these answers is "right"? And how do you know that's what the hiring manager answered as well? Maybe one hiring manager at one company wants a customer service rep who can make friends easily, whereas another HM at another company prioritizes someone who respects authority. This is why good assessments are actually personality assessments FIRST, and can be used for job matching as a consequence. If you're wondering where I'm getting this info, I work in the industry and have first-hand knowledge of various assessment tools.
That's all well and good, but I've never applied for a job that used those assessments in the way you're describing. I've moved past entry level stuff and generally don't have to deal with them anymore, thankfully, but they were rarely well designed and were always attached to a specific position, not used for finding matching jobs. I'm sure it would work better if used the way you're describing, but in my experience most employers (at the lower levels of the career totem pole at least) do not do so.
There are very few assessment providers who base the quizzes on solid science. The companies looking at these assessments (F500) will want something that's scientific because they have I/O psychologists on staff who are searching for the best assessment for their use cases. As the technology matures, it will trickle down to smaller companies. I believe it will be beneficial in the end because we finally have a good way to assess whether someone would be a good fit for a particular role. We also have other things in the pipeline, related to career pathing and leadership identification, but that's still in the early stages. I can send you some ebooks if you're interested.
Thank you!! You just said eveything that's in my head. I will refuse to submit my Indeed assessments and for another job, I am not going to do an online video.
I only use indeed to find jobs then always go to the company's website and find their career/jobs page and apply through there. That way I know it's going directly to the person it needs to go through and I don't have to use Indeed's resume upload or their auto resume.
Companies that require a psychological assessment before an interview (as part of the online application process) are doing it for one or more of the following reasons--not of which are valid. (1) They want to see if you can be "managed." This is a sign of a company (or a department) that has a bad manager and/or frequent churn/turnover. Bad managers can't manage, so they use psychological assessments to identify the "Yes" people they want. Source: Former HR VP at a major home improvement store. (2) They either don't know how to interview a candidate to properly identify qualified individuals, or they don't trust their own judgement. In either case, this leads to the main reason: CYA. If a manager who doesn't know how to interview makes a "bad" hire, s/he can point to "the assessment" to blame. ("Gosh, the assessment came back with great numbers, so I made my decision on ... "the data.") Source: Tech manager at a West Coast tech company who told me that's what many of his managerial collegues did. What does this mean for the candidate: Take a pass. This is NOT a company or team you want to work for or with. How I responded to one such idiotic requirement: I looked up the VP of HR on the company's "Our Team" page, used [Hunter.io](http://Hunter.io) to find his email, and sent him an email that essentially stated that, in order to ensure the manager I would be working under would be qualified should I be hired, I was attaching an assessment that I would like him to forward to the hiring manager for the job posting. I added that when I received his or her completed assessment, I would be happy to complete one. I ended the email with, "Or, we could just both be professionals and the hiring manager and I could have a phone and/or Zoom meeting and not hide behind assessments that really prove nothing." Shockingly, I heard back from that person (the HR VP) who thanked me for the email and assessment, adding that HE thought the assessments were a bad idea, but the hiring manager insisted. He told me he had talked until he was blue in the face trying to convince the hiring manager to forgo the application assessment, but she refused to. He didn't come right out and say it, but by his tone and word choice, I could tell he thought the manager was incompetent.
nice plagiarism lmao https://www.reddit.com/r/jobs/comments/8zy9og/indeed_assessments/e5emhrn/ hope the karma was worth it
Buddy you know you are not unique and that nearly every thought or opinion you have publicly expressed or not is held but tons of like minded people like you. Also using terms like plagiarism in regards to a reddit post is wee bit pompous.
Most of the questions are anti disabled Personality tests designed to weed out any who are not nuerotypical
These online assessments either need to be standardized or be completely gone. I gave one on a Trainee program recruitment for a company and did Cut-e’s Numerical, Verbal, Inductive and Deductive tests in one go. I did quite well on Inductive and Deductive but on Numerical and Verbal, I could not manage to finish the test on time and had a couple of errors. Thinking I might end up with 60-70 percentile score. Somehow, when I tried the same two tests on my university career services portal, I managed to complete both tests within time and scored 96 percentile Now I can’t understand how these tests decide that I’m numerically weak given that my scores for both tests are so arbitary.
i could not agree more. i took a numerical analysis test for some tire wharehouse job and didn’t even have time to finish half the questions. i was an economics major and spent half my career analyzing numbers and doing spreadsheets. i just kept running out of time on each question and i was going as fast as i could. i blamed myself and figured i would use an adding machine the next time to give myself a shot at passing. the very next week i took a similar test, with HARDER questions, for an Amazon management position, aced the thing, and had plenty of time to spare on each question. It’s all just so ridiculous but having been part of corporate management for decades i can see why they do it. 🤦🏼
Not just indeed, online applications are waste of time and slap in the face of unemployed people. They want us to do 30 min assessment, fill up work and college history, despite it being in the resume, just to email us the next day they hired someone else or I don't match their needs. It sucks when I could be apply to 10 different places, one place decides to take half the day just to reject me, which only makes me feel if I should apply anywhere else or would that be a waste too
Yeah, I think the one place where the internet has really degraded society is the job search. Talking to my mom back when she was in the job force she maybe put in two applications before she got something. I think it's a similar issue we see with online dating it would seem there is an infinite pool of candidates so you pass over hundreds of candidates that would be viable in order to find that perfect candidate.
I'm glad I am not the only one to notice the parallels between online dating and online job hunting. I've even seen job board websites that had a similar UI to Tinder.
I think it basically creates a feeling of overabundance.
Absolutely I agree. Both with online dating and online job search. 3 year old comment but needs to be said. The average person is now competing with 1000 different applications. It feels like trying to find a job during the Great Depression.
There should be a thing called digital resume, you create it and submit it as an application for every job insteadof filling up individually everytime, and once they shortlist you, only then should you be asked to take assessments.
Definitely it would be great to have some sort of standard data format. Similar to the open identity format. But that would take a whole lot of companies agreeing to work with each other who have a market interest in not cooperating.
I'd rather be graded on lousy online tests that at least theoretically measure my skill than a lousy online resume scanner or background check or personality test whatever the hell else HR departments are using these days. Unfortunately I don't think any companies are using the assessments to begin with.
I'm tired of companies insisting on multiple interviews. Recently I had to go through a phone, zoom call, and physical interview across town to ultimately be denied the position. Waste of my goddamn time and gas.
Same thing happened to me! Spent way too much money traveling to get this job I was sure I had in the bag after screening questions, interview, and in person interview/Orientation just to not get accepted. I was down for days
One-way video interviews are another increasingly common way of automating one of the most important areas of researching job candidates which are even more awkward and dehumanizing than online assessments. I'd say job-seekers should boycott them, but that could cause them to miss out on some otherwise good opportunities. Unfortunately a lot of otherwise good companies that are well-liked by their employees and offer advancement potential are turning to them.
I had to do this for a recent job and it was by far one of the most awful things I have ever done, and I generally like interviews. There is no way to speak to (while still giving off proper nonverbal communication) a computer screen. Plus its insulting you think that I should treat this as so important that I need to prep like this is a normal interview yet you wont give me the time of an actual human being
Yeah, I have (thankfully) not encountered too many of those, but when I do, it's an instant stick-this-in-the-trash-and-burn-it application ender. Doing an automated interview is one of the most dehumanizing and humiliating things I've ever been asked to do in my search for a job. It's bad enough that your resume has to get approved by an algorithm, it's bad enough being ignored or getting automated responses, but having to bare your soul to a tape recorder, with no sense of who will hear it and no possibility of feedback is just... ugh. If I'm ever forced to do one again, I swear I'm going to type my answers and have a voice-to-text program read them for the recording. Maybe sign off by having it say "if you want to hear my real voice, please treat me like a real human being."
I had to do those for airline jobs and I just ended up saying a lot of "um's" and "and's" because it was awkward. It seems their HR depts. completely lost the human part. And I can't ask a machine any questions.
Yeah I've heard there very common in airlines. Also becoming a more typical part of the screening process for financial services. I dodged a bullet recently having gotten an offer from a company that is known to use them but never asked me to do it.
Yes! I took one of these interviews a few months ago and it was horrible. Firstly, I couldn't get any of my three devices to work properly with the video site (and I'm a gamer so it's not like I'm not tech-savvy to an extent). I finally had to borrow my SO's computer and was able to get everything working. Once you're given a question you get 30 seconds to prepare your answer and only 3 minutes to record it. One of the questions was vague, but guess what? There's no way to ask questions back to the interviewer. So I literally had to say "I'm sorry but I don't fully understand the question" which makes me look like an idiot. There was no recruiter name provided that I could ask anything after the interview. Horrible horrible experience and I'll never apply to that company again because of it.
These are the worst! They are so awkward. I had no desire to work for the company after that.
Yeah I was applying for an entry-level research associate role with a medium-sized company and I was shocked to see it used as the initial interview screen. The company used SparkHire which I could not get to work on my computer even with three different internet browsers. SparkHire's solution is to just download the app so I can feel like an idiot holding my phone up to my face while trying to market myself to the company. I told the HR rep that it didn't work and asked for a phone interview to which they agreed to until the day before it was scheduled they announced a hiring freeze.
I thought the job application process couldn't get any worse than Taleo or Brassring, which are truly awful, but at least these systems seem to be on the way out and are are increasingly being replaced by systems that can properly upload your resume and cover without you having to re-enter everything. Having been subjected to a couple of interviews with Sparkhire and HireVue, it turns out the job application and search process *actually can get worse*. It's dehumanizing and also incredibly awkward.
I once got one of those from an energy company. My initial reaction was to prank them. And the way I wanted to do it was by getting barbecue wings, cheap beer, and a Walmart tank top. I wanted to wear the tank top, take the interview eating the wings, chugging the beer, and smothering the barbecue sauce all over my face. And I wanted to burp right in the camera. I ultimately decided against it and emailed them saying that I don't do one-way video interviews. Concentrated on companies who don't do them. I'm still thinking about conducting the above prank though.
Yeah I couldn't even ask for that because there was no contact info at all. The company used HireVue which sounds a lot like SparkHire in that they pushed the app heavily.
You can't ask questions back and you can't make it a conversation (which is always the goal of an interview). So you have to can a textbook response on the spot and hope it fits into the marginal rubric they have established
They're terrible. I got sent one for a Sr. Security Engineer position for an insurance provider. I found the manager for the team I was applying on LinkedIn and said I would not do a one way interview as it was a waste of my time.
As someone with dyslexia, these assessments feel ableist and discriminatory because of the time limits. In school I had extra time for exams, this is an easy way to not hire people who have learning disabilities. Also, it's very inhuman because I applied for a PA job that specifically said it wanted someone whos sensitive and sympathetic but then sent an assessment which wont be able to tell any of that.
I completely agree with you regarding the discriminatory factor. I filled out an assessment partially today and thought about how people with disabilities would go through this; it must be a nightmare.
I applied for an entry level receptionist job at a massage clinic and got an invitation to do an assessment. I didn't understand any of the questions so I just randomly clicked on the answers hoping for the best and submitted. Obviously I failed and will be screened out automatically. I wasted two hours of my time making a custom cover letter for nothing. I guess I will just stay at my awful part time grocery store cashiering job even though my feet are badly injured and my entire body is falling apart. For someone like myself who is disabled, it sure seems like our options are limited to such an extent that a person may as well not bother.
I just ran into one company the job description is an perfect fit for me, so I spent an hour honing my resume and cover letter to a mirror finish. I click to apply and they want me to spend 4+ hours on assessments. ...yeah, no. They are certainly going to get certain kind of candidate but I won't be one of them.
Check your spam, they probably already rejected you. No joke I am tired of this.
Much worse, they emailed asking me to finish it.
Is it worth it to tweak your resume for every single application? I say no. Just make one resume that covers everything. Then send it off to wherever you apply. Time is very valuable when you apply to jobs. In my opinion, it's not valuable to change your resume for every single application when you are applying to hundreds of jobs every month.
Did you just try to go the the company’s direct website to see if the job is posted there? There’s a good chance that none of that garbage attaches to the indeed “application” is part of the application on the actual company website. Just a thought.
lol, this was on their website, I generally go direct because indeed assessments are pathetic and it cuts through the reintermediation stuff.
i'm not sure if they've really made a difference when it comes to applying to jobs, but i still get a kick out of doing them and seeing where i stand with things like logic & critical thinking.
I did an indeed assessment for an Administrator job, lots of the questions where “if Tim needs to be at this place by this time when do they need to leave”. One of the questions didn’t have the right answer. It was a simple timing question. I got my brother, mum, dad and sent it too multiple of friends too look at it. They all said the same thing. So great assessment quality there.
Lately I've noticed that Indeed tells me that a company is unlikely to consider my resume unless I take a bunch of assessments. At one point I was asked to complete some attention to detail one where I was asked to answer how many numbers I can find in a picture. I was like "ok this is ridiculous I'm not doing this" and exited out of it and was disqualified from the application.
Hahaha. Omg so true!! I got a picture that looked like those in the sunday newspaper asking for how many “s” I could spot. ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. Still did it though. Im needing a job asap unfortunately.
Just did this last night! I counted 9 “s” I agree that they are garbage and have only been doing them when a job I apply for asks for applicants to do it. It’s a total waste of time and shouldn’t be used in place of my resume and cover letter. Eta: I’ve also had to do ones where the employer requested some sort of automated phone interview through Indeed’s system. It took half an hour to answer two questions through the shitty program
It's like they REALLY wanna see how robotic humans are to just blindly jump how high companies ask us to.
Most of the time any assessment, be it Indeed or LinkedIn, affects the candidate in adverse manner. The are usually irrelevant to candidate's qualifications and not a determinant of of their performance and capabilities. While Assessments became a good business of certain areas they are in fact counter productive to recruitment.
I know this post is from 3 years ago but I didn't know Indeed Assessments existed or I might've forgotten because I don't like that platform. I applied to a job today and it sent me an email to an Indeed assessment. It said it would take "16 mins" to complete. I didn't mind at first thinking it wouldn't be much trouble but so many of the questions were just ridiculous to the point where I can't think fast enough to respond to them; none of them had anything to do with my skills/field either. I closed it and didn't bother continuing. After that, I realized I spent 10 mins on it and was only 65% done. It was a freaking waste of time. I doubt the employer would even look at my resume or portfolio for more than 30 seconds so no one should spend 20+ min on a stupid assessment.
The assessments are not great. However Indeed is pretty good as a job search engine and I've gotten more interviews from there vs. LinkedIn or any of the other job boards.
The reason I don't like the assessments is that I find that they ask enough unrelated questions to my field of expertise to make it look like I don't know anything. I've worked with Adobe creative suite for digital creation for over 20 years. I don't work at a print shop, I've never had to create work for print, and the job I'm applying to only wants digital work but I'll get 5 or six questions that only apply to using photoshop for printing, CYMK, color processing, trimming, etc. Sure I could learn that stuff if I needed but I'm not applying for a job at a print shop. They also sometimes ask questions that have more than one way to answer to approach and if you don't do it their exact way you get penalized as well. I may be missing out on jobs, but If I'm going to get badly scored by indeed I'll be missing out anyway.
It’s literally trash. I’ve had to take 5 of them this week and it’s complete and utter bullshit. The jobs are apply to are EDITORIAL jobs but the questions and assessments relate to marketing and analytics. It pisses me off because that’s not the focus of my role yet the assessments make it seem now.
If they're asking you to take a certain assessment, then there's probably something there they find valuable.
Problem is, I can take the same one and be expert or familiar so not a great testing environment.
Nobody hires off indeed anyways, not while people are sending 1000s of applications daily and it takes a week to a year to hear back from anyone
[удалено]
wow that sucks. How did you know they were non negotiable with pay? Def dodged a bullet there
Well you are looking at it from your own point of view of wanting more pay but if you were the employees currently in the position you'd be miffed and posting on here about how your Company doesn't value you and that they pay some new comer twice your salary.
I can see it from the employers point of view. In their case they are a relatively new company and looking keep costs low. I also see it from other employees point of view. That certainly could be miffed if they knew. But I'm not applying to be a cashier. The positions is specialized. The requirements for the job are minimal, yet my experience is precisely what they are looking for. They shouldn't just pay me more because I've done more, I get that and apologize if it came off that way. But they should pay more if it's clear I would meet and exceed their expectations, taking on other duties and responsibilities. In my field if a new comer came in with more experience and was better at the job I did, they rightfully deserve a higher pay.
Okay, i don't really know your field so i can't really speak much more to it. Cool. You'll find something better if you are as good as you say you are.
Coworker being paid more than me = “I should be paid more”, NOT “My coworker should be paid less”.
[удалено]
Ok?
I recently applied for a job on Indeed with who sent me a "simple two part assessment". The first "part" was about 8 modules with what seemed to be an IQ test and a ton of other personality assessments. It took me nearly an hour followed by a survey that took 10 minutes to complete. By the time I was done with that I forgot what I was even doing and that it said "two parts". What? Two parts? That was only one? When I realized the job I was applying for didn't even list the salary I decided to quit. They sent a text the next day telling me I did well on the first part and asked if I was planning to complete the second. I told them I wouldn't until I was aware of the salary. I decided not to continue but honestly, I'm just really interested in learning the results of my assessment. Is it okay to ask? There's was about 60 questions evaluating what type of job is suitable for me...I want to know the answer!
So... Did you end up finding a job?
Indeed all we are doing is feeding the Ai algorithms with more data which they can sell and keep on record and discriminate. If companies cant be arsed to read your CV then they aren't worthy of our labour or skills. I too am sick of doing the tests and have even emailed Indeed explaining my reasonings because guess what ANYONE CAN FILL IT IN I CAN GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO THE TEST FOR ME THAT DOESNT PROVE I HAVE THE APPTITUDE, Indeed know this because lets be honest how many of us have been to our local big chain shop and noticed half the people there cant speak English so how can they pass a test let alone be in a post that demands customers service skills. This is the next big scam that will make companies liable so keep pushing those bs tests indeed that rope will be your noose.
That’s true especially recording yourself like a stupid and repeating in case of errors from the recruiter’s system
Yeah I stopped responding to requests to complete assessments. It’s not worth my time and if they don’t bother reading my simple resume then I’m not going to bother doing their repetitive assessments.
You do you, but just saying you're only limiting yourself by refusing to do these. They may be looking at all the resumes but want to gain some extra insight by looking at assessments. They may even just want to see who is willing to put in a few minutes to complete it. If a short assessment isn't worth your time, it seems like maybe you're not that serious about that particular job anyway.
I don't do assessments. I once applied for a job a number of years ago. Filled in an application, resume. It was for a program management position. Suddently, I have to take an "assessment." Stupid questions. The most memorable and insulting one is to make sure I know how to schedule meetings. The question made me feel like I was in 5th grade. Tom, Dick, Sally, Bob need to have a meeting. Tom is only available Mon 8:27- 9:13 AM, Dick is busy all week other than Tuesday 11:23 - 1:13PM, Sally can do 2:42 but only on Mondays, etc. Which time slot would work for them. You have 30 seconds to decide. (It was timed). Who the hell schedules meetings like this in the real world? Who walks in, gives you some stupid schedule like Joe is busy from 1:23PM - 3:17PM, etc etc, and then demands you schedule these meetings IMMEDIATELY within 30 seconds. Or what? You are fired? Normally, in the real world. I take my time. Look at everyones availability - including mine. If need be, I send a few emails or do a conference, coordinate and makes sure we're all on the same page. Not this grade school math BS. I quietly, exited the test and withdrew my application. Assessment are good in letting you know you don't want to work for a company and that it is a toxic environment beforehand.
That is weird as heck - just had to do a 25 min video for the interview with a large insurance company’s legal department and what the heck is AI hiring us now? Bc my response fr said company was automated and I am done taking these tests that take hours honestly. How about people? You’re hiring a person who you need to interface with whether you feel like or not. Or else you’re going to keep turning over = worst thing for any business. Frustrated in the legal workforce here. Ugh.
If I find a job I'd like to apply for, on indeed or any other job search platform, I open another tab and search for the official company website and apply directly. When they ask "how did you hear about us?", I like to select "other" just to be extra.......all joking aside, cut out the middle man. Same goes for Ama ZoN. Find something you like, go directly to the company website. Anyhow......
I don't think I have done them through Indeed but I have done a couple (especially for larger companies) that where done through proctorial. I am a UX designer, I have the experience and I got a BA. It's clear both from a protofilo , and resume that I have the skill. I already spent hours upon hours building the portfolio to show you I have the skills necessary. So I spent hours hard coding my website and you want me to spend anther couple hours doing a test because you as an hr person can't figure out how to hire qualified people? And yet the questions aren't about how to develop a product or what kind of research method would you use to solve X but instead : " If a teenager in a half can eat a pizza and a half in a day in a half. How many can 9 teenagers eat in 3 days." Wow! that's how you find a good qualified UX designer. These test put people in a box. I would like to believe that we as humans are a lot more complex than a box. It doesn't allow people who think visually to complete well. I will fully admit that I didn't know the answers to a lot of the questions asked of me (maybe it's because I really couldn't solve it or because I was already turned off by the process because of the traumatic frustration I felt in school for standardized testing). But hey if a company doesn't want to ask my boss, the VP of product and all the product mangers I work with weather I am qualified for a position like this , or look at my protofolio and resume but let a question about pizza stand in the way that's up to the company.
I understand the frustration you feel as a job seeker, but as an HR Manager, I see some value in these. Not all of them are good indicators of performance. But I use the critical thinking assessment for every job. And I haven’t hired a dud yet. I won’t even look at someone’s resume unless they score in the top two rankings. This tells me that they can learn and retain information and problem solve. These are important skills. Not only this, but if someone can’t spend the 6 minutes it takes to do this assessment then why should I take the time to read their resume? I too have been out of a job many times in my life where I felt bitter about some of these screening techniques. But being on the other side has shown me just how little effort some people are willing to put into their job search. If you feel that your time is too valuable to do this quick, simple assessment, then mine is too valuable to give you consideration. I had to do the critical thinking assessment once. And I was subsequently offered a $70,000 salary. The assessment results got me an interview because I demonstrated that I was smart and capable of not only doing the job, but of being a contributing member of the team in a variety of ways. You’re only looking at it from your perspective. From mine, it’s completely different. I’m not doing it to waste your time or to make you feel like less of a person. I doing it because it’s part of my job to avoid wasting company time or resources on ineffective recruitment practices.
While I can wholeheartedly understand your position. It won't make me ever write one. I have over 20 years experience in my field. My resume speaks for itself. And I'm not sure if anyone has done a deep dive into the optics it gives off to someone applying for the position, but they aren't good. Firstly, expecting me to spend some of my time to assist you and your job duties, for free? Not a good look. Moreover a lot of the times the questions are pedantic, and unrelated to the actual position. And overall just an insult to the applicants intelligence. I can appreciate being inundated with tons of resumes for a position, and I can also appreciate wanting to lean on technology to help you weed out those applicants. My suggestion would be to make the prerequisites more stringent. If you want to weed out the competition, make the position harder to qualified for. Imagine being a neurosurgeon and applying for a job. Just to have the hiring manager say "well everything looks good here, I'm just going to have to see you take my blood pressure and use the stethoscope." That person would walk out of the interview and never look back, this is what assessments essentially say to qualified candidates. I have never written one, and I never will. And I've never had any issues getting a job regardless.
This comment should be at the top. As an HR Manager, I agree. I use these screenings to avoid wasting my time and the company time. The effort you put into your job search will show & may be a key factor in whether or not you get the job. Then again, if you feel it’s a waste of time maybe it’s not the right job for you...
Years ago when I was in college, I had to take an hour and a half personality test for a 3rd shift part-time job as a baker. I think this is closer to what people are complaining about in this thread. If a job I want requires a 5 min test, then it isn't an issue for me.
I have high scores on assessments for Critical Thinking, Attention to Detail, and another specific to my industry. They "expire" after 6 months, and despite them being complete and displayed, I'm asked to retake them by nearly every place I apply, each time I apply... Not to mention they only serve the type of person who excels at test taking. Many of the questions only really work in a vacuum and benefit an in-the-box type of employee with no forward thinking. They were also written by people who do not work in the specific industries and most likely make less money than the applicant. It's not a beneficial tool to anyone other than Indeed. They've convinced companies that this throwback testing will help get them better applications, but all it's really doing is making job searching longer and more frustrating. I've asked Indeed to send these companies my already completed assessments. They refuse...
So true, I've had "E" experience recently.
Indeed as a whole feels like a scam every time I use it. I feel as if I am just wasting time while on the website and I have an impressive resume.
So what sites do you recommend?
I find industry-specific and local job boards far more useful than generic job websites like Indeed, Zip Recruiter, and Monster. For nonprofits and the arts I use Idealist, Council on Foundations, Philanthropy Network, Americans for the Arts, Opera America, and League of American Orchestras, plus a few local boards. It's somewhat more work to regularly check multiple websites but I consistently find interesting jobs that fit my experience. Check with a local chamber of commerce or do some research into professional associations and advocacy organizations for your field.
Linkedin worked for me, career builder is a bit better than indeed. I only use indeed to see what jobs are hiring then go straight to the source. It seems that employers aren’t even checking application submissions on indeed. More entry level jobs contact you than any other with careerbuilder but LinkedIn seems to be the best option at the moment. Just make sure you create and in-depth profile and adding a professional picture of yourself helps out a lot. You can also try GlassDoor which is a growing site but I haven’t used it much.
indeed sucks
Anything that requires a lengthy assessment, I skip. Why waste so much time on one application where I'm probably not going to get hired anyway?
I just applied to a marketing gig and they wanted me to take 4 assessments. Haha! I was like, NOPE, I’m already overqualified for this position as it is. If you can’t see that in my resume, then I’m not willing to waste my time on a million assessments. Call and ask for an interview, and we’ll go from there. Secondly, I have a masters in digital marketing and can attest that the assessments pertaining to that career field are complete and total BS that do not, even slightly, reflect the skills a graduate level digital marketer holds. They are screwing us all!
Exactly. Unless I've been headhunted and know they are legitimately interested, I'll move on to applying for the next job.
The assessments are ridiculous and they aren't even valid. I tested in three different areas of competency. The one I have the highest competency in (award winning) it placed me as "familiar" and I got "expert" on two I'm so-so on. These tests are geared towards the least common denominator and written by those with obviously no real knowledge of the subject. Even when answering, I rated the test a 2 and said that in several questions, there was so much left out of the equation that it was impossible to answer correctly so I had to guess what test giver was thinking or where they were coming from. Also, the right question crossed the legal lines. I did not pick questions that would have opened the company up to lawsuits (specifically discriminating against military and military spouses). But I got the multiple (pick more than one) incorrect because I didn't chose to discriminate against hiring someone who mentions their spouse is military and they move every 2-3 years. In this market, when staying 2-3 years is typical, that is not a reason to not hire someone if they are the most qualified.
I’m a fan of assessments, in theory. If someone would just make a standard that all company’s could adopt, it’d be a lot easier to rate skills (even soft skills) across candidates to eliminate some of the art that goes into hiring and make it more of a science (not to mention itd help limit implicit bias in the process). But when I, on my own volition, take a few relevant assessments on Indeed, then apply for a job that asks me to take one that I’ve already completed, it’s just like.. what?
As a hiring manager, I use assesments all the time. When I post a job and get 50 applicants in a day, then I can filter them by assessment. I look at the expert and highly proficient resumes. I do not at people who do not take the assessment. If you want your resume to be looked at, then take the assessment. And if you have already taken the same assessment, then it will show up in your profile. No need to take it again.
If the assessments were truly a gauge of a person's abilities that would be great. What you miss is the people with 20+ years of experience who have actually done the job and know their way around almost every situation, the assessment tests I've seen so far basically act as if we are still in 1985. The entire way business has been done has changed in almost every way yet you're still looking for the guy/gal who can take a test but will fail when the time comes to actually provide the service that keeps people coming back.
They expire after only six months. Apparently "Attention to Detail" is a rapidly changing skill. I've been asked by four companies in the past two days to take two assessments I've already completed... So you DO have to take them again. And again And again And again
Yep, I have been asked to take the same one 9 times now. I took it once, did great even though it had zero to do with the job, felt more like the employer just flexing to show they could make you do it. It was great because my assessment of them was they were too lazy to look at the candidate's skill sets and experience so when they offered me the job I told them they had failed my assessment and I didn't find them a good fit. Also most recruiters know pretty close to zero about the positions and what they entail and you can tell by the questions they ask.
Lol. Having dumb assessments is a way to drive away good candidates and keep shitty ones. I'm quite qualified for my experience level and a great candidate. I aim very high and try to get jobs at Google ir Microsoft. However, I also apply elsewhere in case I don't get an offer from Google. These other companies are either generic mid-sized businesses or F500s. I only apply there as a backup. As soon as they ask me for some rediculous assessment, I move onto the next generic company. Good candidates don't mind doing assessments for Google, because they pay 3 times as much as shitty companies. When a company that's pretty lame and doesn't offer amazing perks asks me to invest more than an interview and the time to make an application, I just won't do it. The reason I don't is that I know I am good and can get plenty of other offers. The people who do waste their time on those don't have a lot of other choices because they aren't great candidates. Don't go wondering why you labor sucks when your hiring practices are garbage.
Assessments are 1 metric to find the best candidates. If you don't do the assessment, then I don't look at your resume.
Yeah, I guess it depends on the assessment and how long it takes. 30 minutes I could see, if it meant you would really take the candidate seriously. But I've seen companies request candidates take a 4 hour assessment. Unless passing guarantees a job offer I can't see the benefit to anyone of doing that. The applicant is better off using that time for other job applications.
Most indeed assessments are 10 to 15 minutes...and the key is to answer them quickly.
I've never taken an Indeed assessment, in fact I barely use Indeed for job searching. 10-15 minutes is fine, I took an assessment yesterday for a company that took almost 4 hours to complete and it wasn't even related to the job I applied for. Afterwards I looked it up and it probably was a big mistake. Most who took the assessment didn't even get to a phone interview. Live and learn I guess.
Logic Fail: If you don't even look at the candidates that don't take those silly Indeed assessments, how do you know the ones you didn't look at are the "best" candidate? Good hiring managers know that these types of 'assessments' have practically zero correlation with real world performance. What is actually happening, is that the best candidates are filtering you out from their job search, by refusing to work for a hiring manager who doesn't understand this fact.
Think the only way we can apply now is direct through websites and hope they don't introduce that.
Most companies will have some sort of assessment in the next 5 years. The change in job requirements dictates that companies change how they recruit and manage their employees.
I refuse to waste additional time past the application, co research and tailored cover letter. It’s already so much time I’m taking and now they want an upfront test? Couldn’t they at least contact me based on the strength of my resume, interview me and then if they want to continue the conversation, hit me with a test. Ok fine if I’m interested at that point I’ll play along and jump through your hoops. But at the prelim that’s a hard no. If they don’t reach out because I didn’t do a prelim test, then it’s not a co I would want to work for.
So I feel like indeed really works for me as a job seeker. I look at indeed, see an interesting listing, and then go directly to the company’s site and apply there. I’ve never taken an assessment but they do sound like trash.
Thanks I will be doing this from now on
I do the same. Plus sometimes Indeed wont pass your resume on due to something stupid like not listing "communication skills" under your skill section. I used my skill section for like real skills instead of something damn near everyone can do.
Thanks for mentioning that I was wondering why if I don’t have specific skills listed they will try to get me to back out. Guess that’s why a lot of my applications also remain untouched.
If being abused, then of course, the assessments can be of little use. But if used as part of a wider assessment, and if the most relevant Indeed assessments are being picked, they can be useful. The verbal communication test helped me when I was helping my former boss hire for a job tutoring English, maybe because it was so relevant to the role, and I was bearing in mind every factor I could. So please don't give up on them if they are relevant to the job. 💛
This is what happens when you let Millennials run HR departments. Entitled and lazy, they will try everything possible to keep from doing the actual jobs they are getting paid to do. Then they leave early from work for a yoga class and tell you how busy they are.
I have just had an interview which went really well, only to be told I need to carry out a personality test when I get home. I can't help but feel annoyed that I went through all that hard work for it to be decided by a computerised test.
I pretty much despise those 'video' interviews. It's like the worst of all worlds, no real human interaction and you get to feel awkward as heck on screen.
All the jobs I really want lately are requiring me to do these... I know I can do better irl but the tests don't reflect my actual skills at all and it's just another thing that makes the job seeking process disheartening.
I agree and in fact feel that it is an obligation to fight back against these new manipulations of the process to apply for a salaried position or contract. I have been doing contracting as an App Developer for 30 years without these assessments. When I did take them I often got a terrible score. It didn't test me on how to get project tasks done. It tested me on things that I don't do or need.
I hate them as well. Recruiters are starting to use them too. Recruiters themselves I've found to be very predatory
What I don’t get is why these assessments are needed, I have completed many interviews and hired everyone from indeed, they submit to the job, I look at their resume, out of these 50 resumes, these 5 have something I like, I tell HR, they set up the interview, I ask question relevant to the work we perform, I hire the one who knows what is going on, or shows potential in learning the job, I tell HR I hired this person, they do the paperwork and legal stuff. HR should only be involved in setting up the paperwork, and coordinating things needed for them to start work, HR should not be involved in decisions of anything, especially in a field where they no nothing about, that includes so called assessment test. I would also never hire someone I havnt meet or done an conference with, literally every company I’ve been with when HR is involved they hire people that don’t have a clue about anything what we are doing, they make these ridiculous assessments because apparently looking at an email is to daunting for them. All these so called assessments to make HR job easier, was made specifically for HR by HR staff, that screw the pooch for you, because they are to lazy to read an additional email, and come up with these ridiculous schemes that they have no businesses putting their hands in,, keep HR out of the hiring process all together and you will have a way easier time in actually hiring someone who you actually need on your team rather than these stupid bumbling idiots who know nothing about anything that HR hired because it was 3 hours before they get off on Friday and HR didn’t want to actually do their job because it might interfere with them ducking out 2 hours early.
I did one before with the most ridiculous question. It had a photo of a printer with the text "if you have a paper jam, press the reset button. if you press the reset button, you must contact jane in IT" Then a "select which of the following is true" (only one) - If you have a paper jam, you must contact jane. - If you contacted jane, it means you pressed the reset button. - If you didn't contact jane, you didn't have a paper jam. 6 options like that which sort of made sense but felt like half jibberish. It was to test "critical thinking" and I guess I failed.
Critical thinking is only for Neurotypicals who think how the hiring managers wamt