Interview and GDPR

DonalB1

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone has any insight into this.

Recently applied for a job, on the second step there was an aptitude test. I’ve previously ran aptitude tests as part of my fathers business and one of the particular tests that I’ve done came up.

Fast forward two weeks and I’ve now received the “dear john, unfortunately” letter. I was very surprised that I fell down at this stage because it’d be my strong point. I asked if it were possible to send me on my scores, which they did and apparently I scored half the answers wrong. 9 out of 18. I know this isn’t the case, as I said I’ve done this exact test 5-6 times and would have been confident of basically 100%.

This isn’t sour grapes...completely understand I may not be the best fit for the job but I know the aptitude isn’t something that would have let me down based on me basically having the answers already.

What I’m wondering is can I request to see the actual markings and the exam sheet? What is my right there?

BattleCorp

Is there any chance this was multiple choice and you marked the wrong boxes?

As in you knew the answer was box A but marked box A in the wrong line therefore all the subsequent answers were wrong.

Seth Brundle

They may not have kept the markings to be honest.
Either way, you should be able to ask them. I wouldn't mention GDPR as it would probably just put them on the defensive. If they want to give it to you then they will, if not then no point getting their back up just to prove that you're right.

DonalB1

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They may not have kept the markings to be honest.
Either way, you should be able to ask them. I wouldn't mention GDPR as it would probably just put them on the defensive. If they want to give it to you then they will, if not then no point getting their back up just to prove that you're right.

Yes I agree but I want to see if there’s some level of favoritism here. It was for a job that was touted as being an in house operation but they opened it up to everyone because of the optics.

I’m very keen on the job so I’m wondering do they have to by law show you where you ‘failed’?

Again, no problem if it was a no later in the process but to fail on an aptitude I’ve taken anf corrected a few times before makes no sense.

.......

I think they were pretty silly to say you failed over specific results rather than simply say that another candidate had higher results (because you certainly couldnt ask for someone elses results!).

However, seeing as they have given you a precise answer, go back and ask them for a copy of the graded exam so that you can use it to improve your chances should you ever interview with them again

DonalB1

....... wrote: »

I think they were pretty silly to say you failed over specific results rather than simply say that another candidate had higher results (because you certainly couldnt ask for someone elses results!).

However, seeing as they have given you a precise answer, go back and ask them for a copy of the graded exam so that you can use it to improve your chances should you ever interview with them again

Are they in away way obliged by law to provide that information?

rd1izb7lvpuksx

DonalB1 wrote: »

Yes I agree but I want to see if there’s some level of favoritism here. It was for a job that was touted as being an in house operation but they opened it up to everyone because of the optics.

I’m very keen on the job so I’m wondering do they have to by law show you where you ‘failed’?

Again, no problem if it was a no later in the process but to fail on an aptitude I’ve taken anf corrected a few times before makes no sense.

DonalB1 wrote: »

Are they in away way obliged by law to provide that information?

You are entitled to make a Data Subject Access Request for any records they kept of your application.

However, even if you can prove that achieved 100% in the aptitude test, they are under no obligation to progress with your candidacy.

DonalB1

Wilson Greasy Rental wrote: »

You are entitled to make a Data Subject Access Request for any records they kept of your application.

However, even if you can prove that achieved 100% in the aptitude test, they are under no obligation to progress with your candidacy.

So even if I can prove there was clear favoritism I can’t do anything about that?

I’m not saying there was...it just doesn’t make sense right now

.......

Wilson Greasy Rental wrote: »

However, even if you can prove that achieved 100% in the aptitude test, they are under no obligation to progress with your candidacy.

It would still be useful for the OP to see why his results are so different to what he expected.

And genuine mistakes can and do happen. Perhaps they made their decision based on misinformation, someone manually graded something wrong etc..

Its no harm for the OP to show an interest in his graded paper and if it either uncovers a mistake of his own or a mistake of theirs - either side could learn from it.

How was the test administered? Was it on paper, online, in their offices, was it their own staff member or a third party company? They may not actually HAVE the graded exam depending on how it was done.

rd1izb7lvpuksx

DonalB1 wrote: »

So even if I can prove there was clear favoritism I can’t do anything about that?

I’m not saying there was...it just doesn’t make sense right now

Not if it's a private company. As long as they aren't discriminating against you on one of the nine protected grounds (gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, or membership of the Traveller community), they can base their decision on anything they like. Favouritism is a normal, valid, and legal basis for choosing a candidate.

....... wrote: »

It would still be useful for the OP to see why his results are so different to what he expected.

And genuine mistakes can and do happen. Perhaps they made their decision based on misinformation, someone manually graded something wrong etc..

Its no harm for the OP to show an interest in his graded paper and if it either uncovers a mistake of his own or a mistake of theirs - either side could learn from it.

How was the test administered? Was it on paper, online, in their offices, was it their own staff member or a third party company? They may not actually HAVE the graded exam depending on how it was done.

Possibly. I would generally think that making a DSAR would not be a great start to a relationship with an employer, though.

.......

Wilson Greasy Rental wrote: »

Possibly. I would generally think that making a DSAR would not be a great start to a relationship with an employer, though.

Id start with just asking for the info on the pretext of wanting to use it to improve future chances.

Frame it more as an attention to detail and a desire to self improve.

Wheety

Isn't there different ways of marking aptitude tests, depending on the job? An engineer role would have different requirements to a customer service role.

Obviously numerical and reading comprehension should be the same but questions like "what would you do if..." etc. can have different correct answers.

Wheety

Wheety wrote: »

Isn't there different ways of marking aptitude tests, depending on the job? An engineer role would have different requirements to a customer service role.

Obviously numerical and reading comprehension should be the same but questions like "what would you do if..." etc. can have different correct answers.

This.

Aren’t they looking for aptitude relating to a particular job rather than right or wrong answers? I thought it was the collective assessment of the answers given rather than binary right/wrong scoring.

Hoboo

Maybe they just thought you might not fit in, and you're now proving them right?

Regarding your question, legally you're entitled to interview notes and how their decision was formed, and they must keep them for up to 12 months. The notes must show the decision making process and how it links to your interviews and assessments. Or it should.

It won't get you the job going down that road, but if you think you've been unfairly treated knock yourself out.

rd1izb7lvpuksx

Hoboo wrote: »

Maybe they just thought you might not fit in, and you're now proving them right?

Regarding your question, legally you're entitled to interview notes and how their decision was formed, and they must keep them for up to 12 months. The notes must show the decision making process and how it links to your interviews and assessments. Or it should.

It won't get you the job going down that road, but if you think you've been unfairly treated knock yourself out.

You're entitled to any records that they have stored in a filing system. You're not entitled to notes taken in notebooks unless they're transferred to a filing system. They're not obliged to keep any notes, and they don't have explain their decision making process, or anything of the sort.

Phileas Frog

Hoboo wrote: »

they must keep them for up to 12 months. The notes must show the decision making process and how it links to your interviews and assessments. Or it should.

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Hoboo

Hoboo wrote: »

they must keep them for up to 12 months. The notes must show the decision making process and how it links to your interviews and assessments. Or it should.

Article 5 (e) of the GDPR states personal data shall be kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which it is being processed.

Why would a private company be required to show their decision making process unless there was a suspicion of discrimination?

dudara

Based on my experience in big companies, it’s standard practice to keep HR/interview hiring notes for a year, in case the candidate requests further information. I don’t know if there’s a legal basis for the 1 year period, but I’ve seen it in effect several times.

BattleCorp

dudara wrote: »

Based on my experience in big companies, it’s standard practice to keep HR/interview hiring notes for a year, in case the candidate requests further information. I don’t know if there’s a legal basis for the 1 year period, but I’ve seen it in effect several times.

But that would fly in the face of the GDPR requirements to only keep data for as long as is necessary. If someone doesn't get the job, then you are keeping their data unnecessarily.

DonalB1

Thanks for all the replies. They’re much appreciated.

Basically, I heard this job was being opened up to the public to apply because of pressure but it was unlikely that they were going to hire anyone external because they’ve always recruited from within.

I really wanted the job, it’s less than what I’m earning currently but I’ve done courses and extra training should it ever have come up to make sure I’m qualified.

My cv was selected as I satisfied all of the criteria and ‘luckily’ for me on the next stage (aptitude) it was a test I’ve done and corrected many times (only one right answer in each question...no interpretation.)

So basically I’m wondering is there any foul play and if so can I investigate. I know I won’t get the job but I’d at least like to know.

It’s a shame that in Ireland in 2019 you can’t get a job unless your dad has gotten you in somewhere first

DonalB1

DonalB1 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. They’re much appreciated.

Basically, I heard this job was being opened up to the public to apply because of pressure but it was unlikely that they were going to hire anyone external because they’ve always recruited from within.

I really wanted the job, it’s less than what I’m earning currently but I’ve done courses and extra training should it ever have come up to make sure I’m qualified.

My cv was selected as I satisfied all of the criteria and ‘luckily’ for me on the next stage (aptitude) it was a test I’ve done and corrected many times (only one right answer in each question...no interpretation.)

So basically I’m wondering is there any foul play and if so can I investigate. I know I won’t get the job but I’d at least like to know.

It’s a shame that in Ireland in 2019 you can’t get a job unless your dad has gotten you in somewhere first

What a strange post. Why do suspect foul play and/or nepotism rather than a better candidate got the job?

The criteria for the job is the minimum requirement, satisfying it doesn’t mean you are the most or best qualified.

Seth Brundle

DonalB1 wrote: »

So basically I’m wondering is there any foul play and if so can I investigate. I know I won’t get the job but I’d at least like to know.

Ireland is a small place. If you push this then you run the risk of it coming back to haunt you down the line.
Forget about it and move on. Life is too short to be bitter.

DonalB1 wrote: »

It’s a shame that in Ireland in 2019 you can’t get a job unless your dad has gotten you in somewhere first

Whilst that may be the case in a very small minority of situations, it most certainly is not the norm.


Edit: just to add that having reread the thread, I feel that it sounds like the company may have dodged a bullet!

rd1izb7lvpuksx

BattleCorp wrote: »

But that would fly in the face of the GDPR requirements to only keep data for as long as is necessary. If someone doesn't get the job, then you are keeping their data unnecessarily.

We took legal advice last year about how to deal with interview records and the advice given was any notes or records that are taken should be kept for a period of one year, as destruction of notes taken can be problematic in the event of a disgruntled failed candidate. The legal basis for keeping the notes is legitimate interest.

DonalB1 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. They’re much appreciated.

Basically, I heard this job was being opened up to the public to apply because of pressure but it was unlikely that they were going to hire anyone external because they’ve always recruited from within.

I really wanted the job, it’s less than what I’m earning currently but I’ve done courses and extra training should it ever have come up to make sure I’m qualified.

My cv was selected as I satisfied all of the criteria and ‘luckily’ for me on the next stage (aptitude) it was a test I’ve done and corrected many times (only one right answer in each question...no interpretation.)

So basically I’m wondering is there any foul play and if so can I investigate. I know I won’t get the job but I’d at least like to know.

It’s a shame that in Ireland in 2019 you can’t get a job unless your dad has gotten you in somewhere first

Many jobs and most good/senior jobs are filled through personal or professional networks, not solicited applications. This is because the cost of hiring the wrong person is immense to a company (both financially and opportunity cost), so any signal that can help determine whether a candidate is suitable is extremely valuable. Past personal and professional experiences, and trusted referrals, are high-quality signals that shouldn't be ignored when hiring.

This isn't a shame nor limited to Ireland nor to 2019. When you have built a professional network who can attest to and recommend your skillset and aptitude, you wouldn't want it ignored.

What I would say is that you are approaching this situation from the wrong mindset. Very frequently, a company or team will have a preferred candidate, but will still advertise a role to get an idea of how that candidate compares to the market. If the company is happy that the candidate is of similar quality to other applicants, the preferred candidate is likely to be chosen.

There is no indication of foul play in the situation that you've described so far (except arguably by you). The company has no obligation to use a score from any assessment in their decision making, nor do they have to disclose to you why another candidate was selected. As an employer, the only part that stands out to me as dishonest is that you took an assessment that you knew didn't accurately reflect your aptitude because you had previously taken it. I would expect a candidate to highlight that to the company (depending on kind the assessment - for some, previous knowledge wouldn't be an issue).

My honest advice is to step back and to reassess your expectations in the working world. It may be that most tone is lost in text, but my impression from this thread is that you may have a sense of entitlement that would make you unattractive to employers. In particular, the idea that you would investigate a company that declined to progress your application would be a major red flag for me (unless they had done so because of your race, marital status, etc).

DonalB1

Thanks for the replies.

I think ye have picked me up wrong.

I’m in no way saying I should be hired...there could very well be better candidates.

What I’m saying is a position became available, it’s a government role. Traditionally it isn’t open to the public but this year they opened it up for the first time. They haven’t recruited for this in over 10 years.

I prepared for the possibility of this coming up and despite being told it was always in house I did everything I could to be ready.

Anyway, position comes up, I apply and apparently I fail on an aptitude I know I didn’t fail on.

This company have never met me and couldn’t know anything about me.

Maybe I’m not the best candidate but what I’m saying is everyone should have a fair shot to get a position that is essentially funded by the public. That’s all and that there should be a fair process

I’ve been interviews before and not got the position and that’s life...no problem, with every winner there has to be a loser.

rock22

DonalB1 wrote: »

…
Basically, I heard this job was being opened up to the public to apply because of pressure but it was unlikely that they were going to hire anyone external because they’ve always recruited from within.

..
So basically I’m wondering is there any foul play and if so can I investigate. I know I won’t get the job but I’d at least like to know.

It’s a shame that in Ireland in 2019 you can’t get a job unless your dad has gotten you in somewhere first

You knew this company had a custom of promoting internally, which is their choice, but you still decided to apply for the post. That is fine but you surely had a low expectation of being successful


The company has absolute discretion as to who they offered the position/promotion to. I assume, from your assertion, that it offered the position to an internal candidate.


Your final sentence makes no sense. If the successful candidate was already working for the company then the outcome was in line with previous practice and in line with you own expectation( your first sentence in this post).

"Ireland", "2019" and "Dad" had nothing to do with it.

.......

DonalB1 wrote: »

That’s all and that there should be a fair process

Generally speaking recruitment is not a fair process in the logical sense.

You go up against someone with the same qualifications/experience and then it comes down to likeability.

This can be perceived as being unfair, but the reality is that someone who is easier to get along with will be easier to integrate into a team. Whereas someone abrasive may cause problems in a team.

Soft skills are important but you are never going to tell a potential candidate "well you just werent as sound as the other guy". Fundamentally, people cannot give themselves a personality transplant.

Its easier to tell someone that they did not do well in a measured test - that way you can point at that and its not a negative comment on them as a person.

DonalB1

rock22 wrote: »

You knew this company had a custom of promoting internally, which is their choice, but you still decided to apply for the post. That is fine but you surely had a low expectation of being successful


The company has absolute discretion as to who they offered the position/promotion to. I assume, from your assertion, that it offered the position to an internal candidate.


Your final sentence makes no sense. If the successful candidate was already working for the company then the outcome was in line with previous practice and in line with you own expectation( your first sentence in this post).

"Ireland", "2019" and "Dad" had nothing to do with it.

Traditionally the only way to get into this organization was by knowing someone already in there. 90% of the employees are from father/relations pull.

Do you believe that this should be the way forward? That it matters more about who you are that what you do?

That tax payers money should continue to fund a public service that uses pull to get where they want?

I’m not saying that’s why I didn’t get it. But it couldn’t be based on likability because they never met me, and it couldn’t be based on that aptitude test either so why was it? I think that’s a reasonable question to ask, especially from a tax payer funded Organisation.

I understand interviews are about likability and as such, I would accept not getting the job on that or lack of qualification. It wouldn’t be the first time and won’t be the last.

.......

So all you have done was the aptitude test and no interview at all?

When you referred to second stage I thought you meant an interview was the first stage.

DonalB1

....... wrote: »

So all you have done was the aptitude test and no interview at all?

When you referred to second stage I thought you meant an interview was the first stage.

No that’s exactly what I don’t understand.

Absolutely get it if they met me and made a decision. That’s fine and completely normal.

Seth Brundle

DonalB1 wrote: »

Traditionally the only way to get into this organization was by knowing someone already in there. 90% of the employees are from father/relations pull.

Do you believe that this should be the way forward? That it matters more about who you are that what you do?

That tax payers money should continue to fund a public service that uses pull to get where they want?

If you have evidence of nepotism amongst 90% of employees in this organisation then you should have no problem naming the organisation or going to the media about it.

3DataModem

Perhaps the aptitude results + CV and interview feedback were all considered together, maybe the aptitude was not a stage you fell at, but the only thing you were good at.

.......

3DataModem wrote: »

Perhaps the aptitude results + CV and interview feedback were all considered together, maybe the aptitude was not a stage you fell at, but the only thing you were good at.

There was no interview.

The OP said that there was only an aptitude test and they were told they only got 50% in that - when they feel that they would have gotten 100%.

look, aside from the usual discussion about not getting through because they wanted someone else from the start and all that-

i would have grave reservations about someone who "knew 100%" that they had gotten a certain score on an aptitude test based on "memorising the test/doing it before"

even if this kind of statement from an unsuccessful candidate could be removed from their own natural bias/imperfect recall (it cannot) its frankly a bad reflection on how you went about the test

on the other hand, its a recorded measurable test and if done through govt process id say go get the info, it should be available

DonalB1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

look, aside from the usual discussion about not getting through because they wanted someone else from the start and all that-

i would have grave reservations about someone who "knew 100%" that they had gotten a certain score on an aptitude test based on "memorising the test/doing it before"

even if this kind of statement from an unsuccessful candidate could be removed from their own natural bias/imperfect recall (it cannot) its frankly a bad reflection on how you went about the test

on the other hand, its a recorded measurable test and if done through govt process id say go get the info, it should be available

I’m not trying to be argumentative but I sat a test and when I opened up the booklet it was a test I’d done before. I really wanted to get to the interviewing stage...you’re telling me at this point you would have put your hand up and told them you’d done/corrected this before?

I’m not saying I got 100% for definite...I could easily have filled in an answer wrong. What I’m sure about is I didn’t get half the answers wrong.

It’s unfortunate but I knew the answers to all the questions, but my gripe here isn’t that I didn’t get the position. It’s that I was told I got 50% when I know that’s not the case. Why is that?

BattleCorp

Sometimes it's worth questioning why you didn't get a job.

I've a friend who works in the civil service. She applied for a job where one of the requirements was having a level 8 degree or equivalent.

She didn't get called for an interview although she was qualified. That didn't irk her though. She just thought there were other applicants who must have been more qualified than she was. What did p1ss her off was when she heard that two of her male work colleagues got called for interview and neither of them had anything near a level 8 degree or similar (which was a requirement rather than a nice to have).

She complained, used the old 'did you discriminate against me because I am a woman' and her bosses acknowledged that they were wrong. So what they did was leave her doing her job but raised her pay to that of the job she had applied for. She was happy with that.

So yeah, if she didn't question why she didn't get called for interview when lesser qualified people got called, she wouldn't have ended up getting her pay rise. I know it's different to the OP, but there are times that it is beneficial to question things.

.......

Deleted User wrote: »

...its frankly a bad reflection on how you went about the test .

Why? We all prepare for tests dont we?

And when you sit a test you generally know how well youve done.

I have certainly walked out of tests knowing that Ive aced them (or not as the case may be).

An aptitude test is not different. Unless its one of the subjective ones that is testing for your response to various situations and there is no right or wrong answer. But the OP has said that its a measurable right answer/wrong answer one.

BattleCorp

....... wrote: »

Why? We all prepare for tests dont we?

And when you sit a test you generally know how well youve done.

I have certainly walked out of tests knowing that Ive aced them (or not as the case may be).

An aptitude test is not different. Unless its one of the subjective ones that is testing for your response to various situations and there is no right or wrong answer. But the OP has said that its a measurable right answer/wrong answer one.

I've seen the odd person screw up in multiple choice aptitude tests because they accidentally skipped a line even though they knew all the answers. For example, if you know the answer to Q1 is A, but you mark A in Q2, then chances are that your subsequent answers will be marked on the wrong line thus increasing the likelihood of you making a balls of the test.

JayRoc

....... wrote: »

There was no interview.

The OP said that there was only an aptitude test and they were told they only got 50% in that - when they feel that they would have gotten 100%.

It's an interesting enough question; assuming the OP is correct that he did far better in an aptitude test than they subsequently told him...is this "allowed"?

Seems perfectly believable to me that he would know how he did given his familiarity with the test.

If it was a Public Sector job it is quite likely that they were required to take applications for the job from people that they may have had no intention of hiring. I've seen this myself as I'm sure have many others.

It's not discrimination but if you're falsifying a test score because you had no intention of hiring anyone but the person you want for the job it's certainly not cricket and a waste of people's time and money.

.......

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've seen the odd person screw up in multiple choice aptitude tests because they accidentally skipped a line even though they knew all the answers. For example, if you know the answer to Q1 is A, but you mark A in Q2, then chances are that your subsequent answers will be marked on the wrong line thus increasing the likelihood of you making a balls of the test.

And if thats the case then it would be useful for the OP to get his graded test to see this. Prevent him from screwing it up next time.

.......

JayRoc wrote: »

It's not discrimination but if you're falsifying a test score because you had no intention of hiring anyone but the person you want for the job it's certainly not cricket and a waste of people's time and money.

+1

dudara

BattleCorp wrote: »

But that would fly in the face of the GDPR requirements to only keep data for as long as is necessary. If someone doesn't get the job, then you are keeping their data unnecessarily.

Actually no. People have the right to challenge hiring decisions and request feedback on their interviews. It’s pretty standard in my experience.

Therefore it’s reasonable for an organisation to retain this information for a period of time to meet such demand. Once it’s documented in their privacy policy / personal data register / data retention & destruction policy, then they are covered.

rock22

dudara wrote: »

Actually no. People have the right to challenge hiring decisions and request feedback on their interviews. It’s pretty standard in my experience.

Therefore it’s reasonable for an organisation to retain this information for a period of time to meet such demand. Once it’s documented in their privacy policy / personal data register / data retention & destruction policy, then they are covered.

What rights are you talking about?

km991148

You need to learn how to let things go. You applied and for whatever reason they dont want you. If it was an interview, asking for constructive feedback is fair enough but you didnt even get that far and you wont be able to. What are you going to do - reveal your dshonesty and sound like a complainer or a ncence by crying foul? Its not gonna happen - move on.

DonalB1 wrote: »

you’re telling me at this point you would have put your hand up and told them you’d done/corrected this before?

Thats exactly what you should have done. You missed an opportunity to show you are reliable and honest and you have experience giving out the tests rather than just another candidate.

Plus its the right thing to do - people who lie at interviews (either candidates or hiring managers) suck. They waste everyone time and ultimately cost more in the long run by taking a job that they probably wont be a good fit for.

.......

km991148 wrote: »

What are you going to do - reveal your dshonesty and sound like a complainer or a ncence by crying foul? Its not gonna happen - move on.

How was the OP dishonest by having familiarity with a test because he had sat the same one in the past?

If you have sat a lot of aptitude tests or did good prep for them chances are you will be familiar with some of them.

I did aptitude tests for a company a number of years ago and then some time later applied for another place that administered the same tests - are you suggesting it was dishonest of me to sit the second test?

Absolutely ridiculous!

Do you really think people sit exams and when they see the paper they say "oh I know the answer to this so you better give me another test" - I dont know what planet you are on!!

km991148

....... wrote: »

Why? We all prepare for tests dont we?

Learning by rote is not preparing..
This is effectively what the op has done.

.......

km991148 wrote: »

Learning by rote is not preparing..
This is effectively what the op has done.

Nonsense.

Learning is learning. Doesnt matter how the prep is done.

km991148

....... wrote: »

Do you really think people sit exams and when they see the paper they say "oh I know the answer to this so you better give me another test" - I dont know what planet you are on!!

A planet where I hire people quite successfully and don't have much trouble finding and maintains jobs that are right for me.

Each to their own, but if I found out the person was responsible for running the tests in their previous job or fathers business (if this was the case) and they never told me I would be questioning what else they havent revealed.

km991148

....... wrote: »

Nonsense.

Learning is learning. Doesnt matter how the prep is done.

We need to agree to disagree I think. I am only talking about my experience, you have your own experience.

"i know someone in the civil service who got her pay bumped up a grade while staying in the same grade because x happened"

you do not. if someone told you this then take anything else they tell you as dodgy.

"should I have told them i had done this test before, etc?"

no, im not saying that. im saying a person's recollection of how they did in an aptitude test is not anything id be building a case upon. butvi am encouraging you to seek out the test and the results.

"a govt office will forge easily-detected test results to get their candidate in"

they will not.

lads ffs.

uck51js9zml2yt

Wilson Greasy Rental wrote: »

You are entitled to make a Data Subject Access Request for any records they kept of your application.

However, even if you can prove that achieved 100% in the aptitude test, they are under no obligation to progress with your candidacy.

As above. Quote article 15 of gdpr. It won't change the result.

.......

km991148 wrote: »

A planet where I hire people quite successfully and don't have much trouble finding and maintains jobs that are right for me.

Each to their own, but if I found out the person was responsible for running the tests in their previous job or fathers business (if this was the case) and they never told me I would be questioning what else they havent revealed.

Respectfully - thats moronic.

These aptitude tests are based on a fairly familiar template. Ive sat a few under different conditions and now Im just used to them - no learning by rote needed. Youd expect me to detail every job interview or other circumstance where Id sat one and gained my experience?

Theres nothing dishonest in having experience and being prepared for a test.

The hiring body in this case have not yet had a chance to ask the OP anything (or have him tell them anything), if you read the thread you will see there has been no interview. CV application and an aptitude test so far only.

Perhaps if theyd interviewed him they could have asked how he happens to be so good at such tests and found out why.

But seeing as they didnt follow up.....