Spatial Reasoning Tests for EE hiring

[Howardlong]

I've noticed a recent increase in the use of certain psychometric tests by some companies for salaried employees. These include Spatial Ability Tests, the ones where you have to match and manipulate 2D and 3D shapes in your head. How relevant are they to EE?

[nctnico]

If you expect someone to do PCB layouts then I'd say those tests are mandatory.

[free_electron]

If you expect someone to do PCB layouts then I'd say those tests are mandatory.

yup. just try to mate two boards together... one has an upward facing connector, the other a downward facing connector. where's pin 1 on the downward one if you need to draw its footprint on the top layer and then flip it ? you'd be amazed how many get that wrong ....

[tszaboo]

My last job interview, I had to take an IQ test. I was kinda offended, almost left.
I filled it out with one wrong answer. Never fill out a test with 100% good answers.

The question is, do you want someone, who can pass these tests?

[Freelander]

HR woowoo.
IMO about as much use as a chocolate poker.
Next they will be asking if they have 'hugged a tree' in the last 12 months as a psychometric indicator of their future adherence to ROHS  ....  

In the Eighties the psychometric testing 'revolution' began and - thankfully - died off.

The UK tory government even fell for this woowoo again in 2010 under the 'Behavioral Insight Team' initiative set up by the Cameron government. 
Accurate confirmation of education, past experience, employment and qualifications are of prime importance. Primarily all candidates should be able to actually demonstrate their skill in both written and practical tests.

THE best way is actually letting them PROVE they really know their stuff in practical and verbal examinations. Even if the interview process takes a full day or even involves multiple day interviews / tests.

We use to recruit IT Tech staff only after they proved they had the skills we required. Practically and verbally. That was a prerequisite to being considered for the position.  Even first level basic written and verbal questionnaires as the candidates arrived usually got rid of most of the chaff. 
Also, if they had odd coloured socks they were definitely moved up a place or two in the rankings............................
Those that can do, those that cannot 'visualise' (or teach) ...
 

[Tomorokoshi]

If you expect someone to do PCB layouts then I'd say those tests are mandatory.

yup. just try to mate two boards together... one has an upward facing connector, the other a downward facing connector. where's pin 1 on the downward one if you need to draw its footprint on the top layer and then flip it ? you'd be amazed how many get that wrong ....

We called it "connector bane".

Pairs like this were the best:
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/3m/30316-6002HB/3M11931-ND/1237397

https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/3m/8516-4500PL/MSPV16-ND/1306248

4 permutations of layout, 2 of which work, and only 1 is properly correct, compounded by 8 permutations of installation.

[coppice]

My last job interview, I had to take an IQ test. I was kinda offended, almost left.
I filled it out with one wrong answer. Never fill out a test with 100% good answers.

Well, you THINK you gave one wrong answer. 

The question is, do you want someone, who can pass these tests?

Large numbers of people with apparently good qualifications do really badly in elementary IQ style tests at job interviews. This leads some organisations to conclude that testing the applicants for every position in the company might not be a bad thing. Doing well in the test might not mean a lot for post senior positions in a company, but doing badly probably does.

I've met several computer science graduates who applied to one big UK software house in the 70s and 80s who were affronted that they were expected to sit a fairly basic computer science aptitude test as part of the milk round screening at universities. It turns out these were people with a good computer science degree who failed the test. I worked in that place for a while. They took in quite a lot of fresh graduates each year. The policy stemmed from their finding that the new intake from computer science courses did no better in practical day to day work than the new intake from, say, an archaeology course.

Its surprising what you can flush out with some elementary screening.

[grumpydoc]

I've met several computer science graduates who applied to one big UK software house in the 70s and 80s who were affronted that they were expected to sit a fairly basic computer science aptitude test as part of the milk round screening at universities. It turns out these were people with a good computer science degree who failed the test. I worked in that place for a while. They took in quite a lot of fresh graduates each year. The policy stemmed from their finding that the new intake from computer science courses did no better in practical day to day work than the new intake from, say, an archaeology course.

I'm not sure whether to wonder more about the test or the CS graduates in question.

If you want a programmer then I guess an aptitude test is OK

If you want a software engineer I would hope that a CS grad was a better bet.

I note that you are talking about the 70's though - things were a bit different back then

[dmills]

We called it "connector bane".

I will see you your box header (Disproportionately annoying as they can be) and raise you the Samtec hermaphrodite connectors, one stock code but pin 1 connects to pin 2 and vice versa on the mated pair, also they need to be put in the board the right way around or they don't mate.
Far, far too many ways to screw up.

I got bitten by a 0.5mm FPC connector in which the cable could be installed either way up, we had used the thing with success on one product and re used it on another without realising that the FPC from the screen on that design fitted the other way up, sometimes no amount of care with the library saves you!

I got handed a Meyers-Briggs psychometric test at one interview, which I took as telling me everything I needed to know about that would be employer (I have seen studies into that tests actual usefulness, meh).

I assume somebody is making good money off this bullshit.

Regards, Dan.

[tggzzz]

I've met several computer science graduates who applied to one big UK software house in the 70s and 80s who were affronted that they were expected to sit a fairly basic computer science aptitude test as part of the milk round screening at universities. It turns out these were people with a good computer science degree who failed the test. I worked in that place for a while. They took in quite a lot of fresh graduates each year. The policy stemmed from their finding that the new intake from computer science courses did no better in practical day to day work than the new intake from, say, an archaeology course.

I'm not sure whether to wonder more about the test or the CS graduates in question.

If you want a programmer then I guess an aptitude test is OK

If you want a software engineer I would hope that a CS grad was a better bet.

I note that you are talking about the 70's though - things were a bit different back then

HR-droids have changed in only one way: back then they were personnel-droids.

HR-droids get dinged if they take on an employee that turns out to be a corporate headache. They continue to behave in predictable ways. They attempt to armour-plate their back by using any test that enables them to say "we took all reasonable precautions, and/or it is somebody else's fault".

It doesn't matter to them that that attitude can screen out the few people that would really make a positive difference to an organisation.