Brainbench perl test?

[Uri Guttman]

On 08/28/2012 02:46 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Uri Guttman <uri at stemsystems.com> wrote:
>> i also did it way back and didn't like it then. multiple choice tests in
>> general suck for actual testing of real world skills and programming ones
>> suck even more. no candidate i have reviewed in ages has ever mentioned
>> brainbench nor has any client. so in my world it is a non-entity. i know of
>> several take home tests from clients that i review or see the answers and
>> they tell me much more than any 'cert' could do. so does reviewing of
>> existing code samples. there is no reason to even consider a timed multiple
>> choice test.
>
> When I interviewed at the BBC they had me do Brainbench. It seemed
> like a fair, reasonably challenging test. The BBC is a pretty decent
> employer so I'd consider that a reason to do a timed multiple choice
> test ;-)

it can be used as a very basic filter to remove the idiots (there are 
plenty of them). clients hate having to do that level of filtering 
themselves so they may buy brainbench uses. i don't need them as my 
idiot filter is on a hair trigger all the time. :)
>
>>From an employer's side - it's practically no cost to them on top of
> their existing recruitment efforts, and has a bunch of benefits
> associated with involving an unconnected third party.

considering the dozens of clients i have dealt with and none have ever 
mentioned brainbench, i stand ny my view that it is a non-entity. if you 
can't pass brainbench, you are a non-starter. if you can pass it you 
would still need to be properly vetted by me or by coding tests. so it 
doesn't gain much in my view.

thanx,

uri