Junior Diplomat/Third Secretary

TheCruiser

james987 wrote: »

More than once I'd selected the answer on the last question and the timeout screen popped up before i'd clicked Finish.

I would have thought as long as you selected an answer, it would get counted, whether you press "Finish" or not. No?

saltyjack silverblade

TheCruiser wrote: »

I would have thought as long as you selected an answer, it would get counted, whether you press "Finish" or not. No?

I was wondering this too. Kind of concerned about it as about 3 of mine were like that. I am not sure if you had to click finish in order for them to count.

How does everyone think they got on? Few days ago for me so I may be overthinking this. I think my abstract reasoning went extremely well. I would say maybe 1 or 2 wrong. I don't want to sound cocky. My verbal reasoning is something else. When I was doing practice examples I found I was saying one thing and they were saying another. So I would put 'cannot say' and it turned out to be something different. I think my score in that will bring me down a lot.
In terms of getting through to the next round I would say I a borderline based on verbal reasoning.

Anyone any ideas when they will let you know?

The_Conductor

TheCruiser wrote: »

I would have thought as long as you selected an answer, it would get counted, whether you press "Finish" or not. No?

Not sure- I have at least 2 that I'm not confident were counted.

TheCruiser

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

I was wondering this too. Kind of concerned about it as about 3 of mine were like that. I am not sure if you had to click finish in order for them to count.

Just rang the Saville Consulting test helpline. Worry not: any answers selected before the time runs out will be counted, regardless of whether you click "Finish" or not.

saltyjack silverblade

TheCruiser wrote: »

Just rang the Saville Consulting test helpline. Worry not: any answers selected before the time runs out will be counted, regardless of whether you click "Finish" or not.

Well that's a relief for a lot of people I would say. I assume we all got the same tests and not different versions of.

sureitsgrand

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

I was wondering this too. Kind of concerned about it as about 3 of mine were like that. I am not sure if you had to click finish in order for them to count.

How does everyone think they got on? Few days ago for me so I may be overthinking this. I think my abstract reasoning went extremely well. I would say maybe 1 or 2 wrong. I don't want to sound cocky. My verbal reasoning is something else. When I was doing practice examples I found I was saying one thing and they were saying another. So I would put 'cannot say' and it turned out to be something different. I think my score in that will bring me down a lot.
In terms of getting through to the next round I would say I a borderline based on verbal reasoning.

Anyone any ideas when they will let you know?

Exact opposite for me! If anything it was the abstract reasoning that will have let me down…Funny how different people have different aptitudes like that!

I see no reason why we shouldn't know by the end of the week, giving people 2 weeks to prepare for stage 2.

I assume all they gotta do is chop of the top 10-15% and that's that….But of course, this is all conjecture on my part...

saltyjack silverblade

sureitsgrand wrote: »

Exact opposite for me! If anything it was the abstract reasoning that will have let me down…Funny how different people have different aptitudes like that!

I see no reason why we shouldn't know by the end of the week, giving people 2 weeks to prepare for stage 2.

I assume all they gotta do is chop of the top 10-15% and that's that….But of course, this is all conjecture on my part...

You think they would let us go halfsies on a job?

sureitsgrand

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

You think they would let us go halfsies on a job?

Ah sure why not!

lucat

Ugh, nervous now. I think I did about equally well (or badly) on both. The worst thing I found was in the abstract part, when you had discounted the impossible answers and were left with 2 very similar ones. I realised then at one point that I had selected the wrong one of the 2 but when I clicked to change it, I got timed out at that second. NOOOOO!

TheCruiser

Spoke to publicjobs ppl just there. They hope to have results and invitations to the next round out "sometime next week", with stage two taking place the week of the 18th (!) or 25th. I'd be surprised if it was the week of the 18th, given the guidance offered in the information booklet and also that would mean less than a week's notice. No information available on how many people will be invited to the next stage.

saltyjack silverblade

TheCruiser wrote: »

Spoke to publicjobs ppl just there. They hope to have results and invitations to the next round out "sometime next week", with stage two taking place the week of the 18th (!) or 25th. I'd be surprised if it was the week of the 18th, given the guidance offered in the information booklet and also that would mean less than a week's notice. No information available on how many people will be invited to the next stage.

Sounds good. Not sure what is going to take them so long though to be honest. I would have assumed they would have the results for this so fast that they could issue the 2nd round within a few days if not hours.
Maybe they are going to go through the applications and the results together and whittle people down. As in only people with over a certain score in the exam get to go through and of those only a certain amount because of their applications?

lucat

TheCruiser wrote: »

Spoke to publicjobs ppl just there. They hope to have results and invitations to the next round out "sometime next week", with stage two taking place the week of the 18th (!) or 25th. I'd be surprised if it was the week of the 18th, given the guidance offered in the information booklet and also that would mean less than a week's notice. No information available on how many people will be invited to the next stage.

There was less than a week's notice given for the AO exams.

Albert_Roi

Will the second round be held on a Saturday? If it is (and if I make it to the next stage, very big if!), I really hope it's not Saturday the 30th as I have a weekend away booked, would be very annoying to have to cancel it. But if it's during the week, it is very short notice to get time off work. Does anyone know if the tests are held at the weekend or during the week? Hopefully they're held on Saturday the 23rd.

I'd be very surprised to make it to the next stage anyway. I was surprisingly happy with how the Abstract Reasoning went, I really got into a rhythm doing that but of course ran out of time for a good few of them but I think I didn't do too well on the Verbal Reasoning at all, which was the opposite to how I felt after the practice tests for both. As others have said, it would be no problem with a more generous time limit but I just didn't have enough time to read the reasonably long passages and understand them well enough to answer the questions. I highly doubt I'll be in the top percentage range to make it to the next round anyway but it's very hard to know. We'll just have to wait and see and hope for the best!

delricyo

In my opinion, it is unlikely to be held on a Saturday. Given the number of staff involved (remember you will be doing 3 separate tests at stage 2) - its unlikely that will cough up that much overtime for the staff involved.

From my experience they usually give you short notice for the later stages. Part of the testing, probably. I don't understand why they are waiting so long to release the results. They have them ready by now surely ?

Montjuic

Out of that 1,700 who applied does anyone know what % will be called to the assessment centre? I went through this process in 2005 when they had the same Third Sec competition and although they had an online element then that you had to complete it seems that anyone who did it were called because I recall sitting the test in Croke Park with 1000,s others.

In this competition it seems to be different in that the online test counts for a lot and it appears but I don't know they are going to cut a lot of people just from the online test which is a bit unfair. The verbal reasoning was fine but the abstract reasoning would suit someone who studied engineering etc than someone who studied politics, International Relations. It is a bit of a joke that your CV is not even considered until you get through the exams which seems to suit engineering/scientific types better than candidates who have a genuine interest in international relations. These psychometric tests are an unfair instrument in my opinion.

The verbal reasoning at least serves some purpose the abstract reasoning would suit an architect type more than anyone else. I know some Third Secs who got through and they were primary teachers, one vet and an engineer none with any interest in the job but just did it for the craic.

IS_a_Class

Not really. The purpose of an abstract reasoning test, also called a non-verbal reasoning test, is to put all applicants on a level playing field, as they involve the ability to reason with novel material without the need to draw on learned knowledge.

The usefulness of such a test to organisations who are hiring could be debated. I personally would not see them as useful. It is frustrating for people, for example in this case, with real knowledge of international relations and languages etc to be culled because someone else, whose skills and knowledge might have zero relevancy, can do better in such a test.

In my opinion, someone with good ability in abstract reasoning will not make a better diplomat than someone who isn't, so it is a stupid way to cull applicants. But that's how HR are doing things these days. Just the other day, i was applying to a bank, and their first cull stage only involved an abstract reasoning test, so companies seem to be putting great faith in them for some reason.

ezra_pound

IS_a_Class wrote: »

Not really. The purpose of an abstract reasoning test, also called a non-verbal reasoning test, is to put all applicants on a level playing field, as they involve the ability to reason with novel material without the need to draw on learned knowledge.

The usefulness of such a test to organisations who are hiring could be debated. I personally would not see them as useful. It is frustrating for people, for example in this case, with real knowledge of international relations and languages etc to be culled because someone else, whose skills and knowledge might have zero relevancy, can do better in such a test.

In my opinion, someone with good ability in abstract reasoning will not make a better diplomat than someone who isn't, so it is a stupid way to cull applicants. But that's how HR are doing things these days. Just the other day, i was applying to a bank, and their first cull stage only involved an abstract reasoning test, so companies seem to be putting great faith in them for some reason.

Apparently they show raw intelligence. Ie intelligence potential regardless of education.

It seems to me a reasonable filter to apply when you have so many applicants.

Montjuic

Not so reasonable when you could have two to three people gathered around the laptop with you helping you along as one of my friends did. Not such a test of raw intelligence.

IS_a_Class

Well, it definitely is a cheap way to cull people, and less annoying for the HR girls, than having to go through every CV looking for spelling mistakes and crap like that.

Hiring people based on raw intelligence, while making perfectly good sense indeed, really doesn't leave much hope to the honest hard-working student who while not possessing aptitude test scores in the +90th percentile, has worked hard and done their work all the way through from primary school to their masters degree or whatever, but that's the way of the world now, i guess.

ezra_pound

Montjuic wrote: »

Not so reasonable when you could have two to three people gathered around the laptop with you helping you along as one of my friends did. Not such a test of raw intelligence.

Well your friend will have to resit test on his or her own if they did well enough.

Tbh I don't think having others gathered round would be much help given time. I think it would actually be worse.

ezra_pound

IS_a_Class wrote: »

Well, it definitely is a cheap way to cull people, and less annoying for the HR girls, than having to go through every CV looking for spelling mistakes and crap like that.

Hiring people based on raw intelligence, while making perfectly good sense indeed, really doesn't leave much hope to the honest hard-working student who while not possessing aptitude test scores in the +90th percentile, has worked hard and done their work all the way through from primary school to their masters degree or whatever, but that's the way of the world now, i guess.

Nobody is hired based on raw intelligence. An unworkable number of applicants is reduced to a manageable number based in verbal reasoning and abstract reasoning. From this reduced pool, applicants are hired based on competencies and merit.

Look. I'm in the same boat. I don't know if I'm through either but I think It's not only reasonable but transparent method of recruiting. It is cruel for applicants though.

Montjuic

What would be reasonable, transparent and make sense would be testing candidates on their knowledge, interest on foreign affairs, international relations and politics which are directly relevent to the job rather than the current ridiculous system of squares dots and circles tests which suits the mathematical mind rather than the politics/literary/linguistic profile which would be way more suitable. Hence you get a situation whereby people with no real interest, knowledge or aptitude get through whereas a Professor in International Relations from Harvard might possibly not.

IS_a_Class

ezra_pound wrote: »

Nobody is hired based on raw intelligence. An unworkable number of applicants is reduced to a manageable number based in verbal reasoning and abstract reasoning. From this reduced pool, applicants are hired based on competencies and merit.

Look. I'm in the same boat. I don't know if I'm through either but I think It's not only reasonable but transparent method of recruiting. It is cruel for applicants though.

I realize that, I should rephrase that to culling people based on raw intelligence.

Though I don't think 1700 is unworkable. How many staff are sitting there in HR doing feck all, pure laziness is all it is. It would be reasonably easy to give each application form a score based on a number of criteria and cull the numbers that way.

If they don't want thousands of people applying then they should make the criteria stricter, for example, only accepting people who speak a foreign language to an advanced level.

ezra_pound

IS_a_Class wrote: »

I realize that, I should rephrase that to culling people based on raw intelligence.

Though I don't think 1700 is unworkable. How many staff are sitting there in HR doing feck all, pure laziness is all it is. It would be reasonably easy to give each application form a score based on a number of criteria and cull the numbers that way.

If they don't want thousands of people applying then they should make the criteria stricter, for example, only accepting people who speak a foreign language to an advanced level.

There are currently 1700 applicants for this competition. There are a similar number of applicants for ao at the moment. It is expected that before Xmas there will be an eo competition. This will have many times more applicants - prob over 10k if not close to 15k. How many people do you think work in pas?

There are also strict requirements of recruiting going back to the free state which would make your suggestions funeasible. These requirements have given us a transparent and incorruptible cs.

TheCruiser

Another way of culling would be to only accept people with a Master's degree. You could argue that privileges those who have the financial means to continue into further education but on the other hand, masters are so widespread now that I don't think it would exclude too many and it would give prominence to those with an interest in relevant subjects.

I would also dispute the "raw intelligence" thing. Abstract reasoning tests aren't magical indicators of intelligence. Candidates' performance improves with practice, with learning several key principles and basically diligent preparation. You can argue this both ways though - perhaps those who practice more, have better attention to detail and prepare well deserve to progress. Perhaps it is diligent preparation that DFA are seeking out and rewarding here, rather than some arbitrary measure of aptitude.

JUDE2013

I think that 1,700 applicants is unworkable when you combine it with the 2,600 or so applicants who applied for the AO positions, plus every other position being recruited by the CS. While it is no doubt unfair for those with applicable education and work experience, the CS will want to recruit in a timely and cost-effective manner, and these tests are the most unbiased and transparent way of doing so.

I also disagree that aptitudes tests measure intelligence, but rather just 'aptitudes'. I did well in the verbal and abstract reasoning (I think, and I didn't study architecture or engineering) but had I been examined in numerical reasoning whatever ranking I achieve would have seriously plummeted. Others might have done well in numerical, but poorly in the verbal. It doesn't mean that either of us is more intelligent than the other, but just have different aptitudes.

I agree with what one poster suggested about making the entry requirements more specific, much as they did for the AO applications. Relevant degrees or experience would ensure that suitable candidates face a better chance in these tests due to less competition. It hasn't been done though, so we just have to play the game as it is.

Also, by limiting applications to those with Master's degrees would cause everyone without, but with years of relevant experience, to complain. You can't keep everyone happy.

la_rose

Initially I thought that abstract reasoning was an extremely unfair "culling tool", however having sat both the numerical reasoning (for the AO jobs) and the abstract reasoning, I'm inclined to feel that abstract reasoning is fairer and probably a better tool. It relies on logic, reason, speed and (possibly) raw intelligence, which seem like fair skills to assess - in comparison to numerical ability for AO Law position, for example.

Also, I'm not sure that abstract reasoning tests necessarily favour those from an engineering/science background. I have a PhD in the Humanities area, but found that with practice and applying the rules of logic abstract reasoning became easier

Now to wait for the results....

TheCruiser

Given that it's the first time abstract reasoning has been used in Irish CS exams, I wonder how well they chose the difficulty level and thus how effectively the candidates were distributed along the curve. Most people on here seem to be saying they found it relatively manageable - if that trend is widespread it might make the cull more difficult. On the other hand, many people might have been completely unaccustomed to it and performed poorly...

No way to know any of this stuff - but all this waiting makes me wonder about these things....

Montjuic

It is also quite unfair that they give you less than a weeks notice to inform you that you have passed to the next round and that you have to get yourself to Dublin. If you have to take time off work at such notice it is pretty hard. In my case it is made harder since I live abroad.

saltyjack silverblade

They should administer the test in a room in the RDS. It isn't fair that some people had friends around them at the time. Personally I would find this a disadvantage. Too many cooks spoil the broth.