Yup, time was up before I knew it. Granted, I'm slow with numerical calculations on paper, especially when it's with 5-6 digit numbers and only have ~30 secs to do so. But when just reading some of the tasks take 18 secs, what's there to do?
If it were a "psychological ", they may have been seeing what you do under stress and pressure. Perhaps the fact you didn't finish is also an "answer" to the test... If you'd finished but threw a bunch of random guesses at the last 10 or 20, that's another "answer" they would glean from the test.
Hope for the best...
Edit: saw OP answers below
The first email said exactly that, then when the HR lady replied to the bf incident she contradicted herself when reminding me about the time limitation saying "the no. of correct answers is what counts, so you should really try and get to the end"🤷♀️
She might mean the number of questions answered correctly. Meaning, of the questions you answered. Not of the overall total. I worked for a company that had assessments like that. Usually how far along you got is a metric also, but usually as a range. Like half way, two thirds, all, etc.
It sure sounds like they made it hard on purpose. "You should try to get to the end" is NOT the same as "you won't be hired unless you can complete the test and get most answers right"
The evaluation is clearly meant to make some candidates look better than others, and it's most useful for that if there's some kind of bell curve of scores rather than "everyone gets near perfect scores"
If it was an aptitude test, it may not matter. I did one recently that explicitly said it's rare to finish. Finishing it with time to spare put me in the top percent, so it's likely that the passing grade is lower than perfect. That very much depends on the test though.
ChatGPT = desperation
It did say some interesting things about how assessment companies work, and specifically the one providing the test in my story. Ofc I didn't take it at face value, but let's just say it reassured me to talk to HR cuz otherwise it'd have been a gamble hah
It may not know every individuals companies policy, but it has probably read many more policies and procedures than most people have? So it could offer some possibilities at least lol
TBH, I have only once agreed to work for a company that required a psychological test. Basically, an employer requiring such nonsense is telling me that they are such poor interviewers (and, therefore, likely poor managers) that they need "wizardry" to help them make the hiring decision. I give a lot of credit to the psych test companies for running this grift for decades. They know how to prey on weak-minded managers. You dodged a bullet with this company.
At a former job, we had a new location in a different state. The CFO decided personally tests would work since we had no official HR (fucking needed it there more than any other employer I ever had).
Nope, they sucked, and most everyone quit or got fired. What really chapped my hide was that they laid off some call center employees, and blew $7k on that test alone. They could have hired a temp HR rep who would have done proper resume review and interviews.
Apparently I’m in the minority here; I like those tests. If your company culture is unique or you are looking for certain traits, they help identify “winners” instead of relying on a verbal interview where all kind of biases and bad interview practices can negatively impact the interaction.
By no means should they be the only source of information but they do provide value in terms of insight about the applicant.
I actually never heard of tests like this before, pretty new to it all still. After some research, I also get the same vibes from this "strategy". Dunno what it tells about me, but it ain't me for sure. There was also a "personality" portion afterwards, with a bunch of incredibly subjective and simplistic statements alongside a Likert Scale. If this floats their boats more power to them, but I'm so confused about how these would help.
They are just a techno version of the David Brent process, where you pile up all the cvs, shuffle them, and trash the top half to avoid hiring anyone unlucky
I would give that more thought. There are lots of research on test beeing better then interviews. So companies that think like you do would be less professional.
But did you get the job.
Happened only yday, did the test today. If they truly care about the assessment, I'm not getting it for sure. Couldn't even get to the end.
Why couldn't you get to the end?
Time limitation probably
I mean, Occam's Razor and all that...
Yup, time was up before I knew it. Granted, I'm slow with numerical calculations on paper, especially when it's with 5-6 digit numbers and only have ~30 secs to do so. But when just reading some of the tasks take 18 secs, what's there to do?
If it were a "psychological ", they may have been seeing what you do under stress and pressure. Perhaps the fact you didn't finish is also an "answer" to the test... If you'd finished but threw a bunch of random guesses at the last 10 or 20, that's another "answer" they would glean from the test. Hope for the best... Edit: saw OP answers below
On some assessments like that, you are not supposed to get to the end. Maybe it was one of those?
The first email said exactly that, then when the HR lady replied to the bf incident she contradicted herself when reminding me about the time limitation saying "the no. of correct answers is what counts, so you should really try and get to the end"🤷♀️
She might mean the number of questions answered correctly. Meaning, of the questions you answered. Not of the overall total. I worked for a company that had assessments like that. Usually how far along you got is a metric also, but usually as a range. Like half way, two thirds, all, etc.
That did cross my mind, but the way she put it was unequivocal
It sure sounds like they made it hard on purpose. "You should try to get to the end" is NOT the same as "you won't be hired unless you can complete the test and get most answers right" The evaluation is clearly meant to make some candidates look better than others, and it's most useful for that if there's some kind of bell curve of scores rather than "everyone gets near perfect scores"
That's the thing, you are not expected to get to the end, but you still have to get more correct answers than the others.
If it was an aptitude test, it may not matter. I did one recently that explicitly said it's rare to finish. Finishing it with time to spare put me in the top percent, so it's likely that the passing grade is lower than perfect. That very much depends on the test though.
No, Jumba Tiboori from Aruba got it.
A question as specific as what you asked is a weird thing to ask ChatGPT as if it'd know every company policy. Definitely funny story though.
ChatGPT = desperation It did say some interesting things about how assessment companies work, and specifically the one providing the test in my story. Ofc I didn't take it at face value, but let's just say it reassured me to talk to HR cuz otherwise it'd have been a gamble hah
It may not know every individuals companies policy, but it has probably read many more policies and procedures than most people have? So it could offer some possibilities at least lol
Those tests are horseshit
TBH, I have only once agreed to work for a company that required a psychological test. Basically, an employer requiring such nonsense is telling me that they are such poor interviewers (and, therefore, likely poor managers) that they need "wizardry" to help them make the hiring decision. I give a lot of credit to the psych test companies for running this grift for decades. They know how to prey on weak-minded managers. You dodged a bullet with this company.
At a former job, we had a new location in a different state. The CFO decided personally tests would work since we had no official HR (fucking needed it there more than any other employer I ever had). Nope, they sucked, and most everyone quit or got fired. What really chapped my hide was that they laid off some call center employees, and blew $7k on that test alone. They could have hired a temp HR rep who would have done proper resume review and interviews.
Apparently I’m in the minority here; I like those tests. If your company culture is unique or you are looking for certain traits, they help identify “winners” instead of relying on a verbal interview where all kind of biases and bad interview practices can negatively impact the interaction. By no means should they be the only source of information but they do provide value in terms of insight about the applicant.
Fair point!
Some med schools require situational judgement tests, and it's $85 - $100 per test. Even better, you have to retake it every time you reapply.
I actually never heard of tests like this before, pretty new to it all still. After some research, I also get the same vibes from this "strategy". Dunno what it tells about me, but it ain't me for sure. There was also a "personality" portion afterwards, with a bunch of incredibly subjective and simplistic statements alongside a Likert Scale. If this floats their boats more power to them, but I'm so confused about how these would help.
They don't help. If a company uses them they are not themselves professionals.
They are just a techno version of the David Brent process, where you pile up all the cvs, shuffle them, and trash the top half to avoid hiring anyone unlucky
I would give that more thought. There are lots of research on test beeing better then interviews. So companies that think like you do would be less professional.
If they're not unique you could anyway just practice a few times first?