> If we want to meaningfully challenge "elitism", we need to
>replace pointless procedures like the job interview with standardized
>assessments that have high criterion related validity.
>
I don't often disagree with you, but i do about this. I have been both
interviewer and interviewee and I think job interviews work just fine.
Perhaps this has to to with the kind of work I am concerned with:
-- teaching -- technical writing
To take tech writing as an example, all I need to know is whether they can write (and teach) and whether they will be easy to work with. I can determine that in a one hour interview -- and there will be a handful of other people who will double check my judgement. In over twenty years I have never seriously misjudged an individual.
I can't even imagine "what a standard assessment" would be like for a tech writer. A tech writer isn't a finished product, she's a work in progress. The important stuff is whether they have the basic skills (you can tell by looking at writing sample) and whether they are capable of learning (you can tell by how they converse and what they say). It is also important to know whether they can work with people and whether they would be comfortable in a situation where they are completly ignorant and at the power of the subject matter expert....etc. Someone who is capable of doing the job can tell whether someone else is too.
Joanna
>
>
>