Interview and GDPR

.......

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.....

Phileas Frog

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.

There is no such right.

km991148

....... wrote: »

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.....

Alright calm down. Thinking it ok to call someone a moron if you proceed it with respectfully is just... well moronic ?


This wasnt test prep this was stated as giving out the tests to other candidates (although reading between the lines I think she/he had access to the test and just learned it).

Waste of everyone's time if that happens, no? What does it show? You know how to learn a test? great..
I'd rather people state its a waste of time and let everyone know up front.

But not everyone works this way. Some feel they need to resort to devious tricks to get a job. Some would be too shy to flag it or nervous or whatever and I guess other would think they just 'prepped' well and have one up on the others.

I know what type of people I would hire.

.......

km991148 wrote: »

Alright calm down. Thinking it ok to call someone a moron if you proceed it with respectfully is just... well moronic ?

Just to be clear I wasnt calling YOU a moron. I was saying that questioning what hadnt been revealed on the basis that someone used to administer aptitude tests and therefore was good at them was moronic. I thought highlighting that sentence in your post illustrated that.

I get it - you think its dishonest to be well prepared for an aptitude test as they should be taken "raw" otherwise they are not a proper measure of aptitude.

I disagree with that, and actually think aptitude tests are a waste of time for other reasons.

But it is wrong (IMO) to call the OP dishonest for doing what the employer wanted him to do - ie, taking an aptitude test.

mrsdewinter

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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.

Actually, this. I think it's meant facetiously but why don't you go to the papers, OP?

Hoboo

Phileas Frog wrote: »

There is no such right.

You haven't a clue. Honestly. Not a clue. Not even funny.

GM228

Hoboo wrote: »

You haven't a clue. Honestly. Not a clue. Not even funny.

Where is there a right to "challenge hiring decisions and request feedback"?

Yes you could attempt a court case to challenge a hiring decision, but the last two attempts to do this have failed in the High Court.

There is also no legal right to Feedback on hiring decisions here, efforts are a foot in the UK to change this and eventually someone may also attempt to do so here.

km991148

....... wrote: »

I disagree with that, and actually think aptitude tests are a waste of time for other reasons.

well.. if we are talking about aptitude tests in particular - I think most of them are a waste of time for many reasons!


Regardless of this side debate - op move on! Life is to short - gonna be hard to be convince them to give you another go at it.

Mrs OBumble

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.

People can ask for anything they want.

They have a right to data about them, under GDPR.

But they don't have a right to data comparing them to other candidates, unless the data about the other candidates is removed which renders the documents fairly useless.

Where is the right to challenge hiring decisions established?

Phileas Frog

Hoboo wrote: »

You haven't a clue. Honestly. Not a clue. Not even funny.

Utter Bollcocks. I think you'll find that I do. There is no such right to challenge feedback. There is also no such right to request feedback. There is a right to information, which is neither a right to challenge not a right to feedback. In a lot of cases, information is not committed to paper, so there is no information to share.

For Public & Civil Service interviews you were entitled to the interview notes under FOI long before GDPR, but private sector organisations are not subject to FOI and are not required to have the same transparency so often there are no interview notes or they are soon destroyed.


Mod
Language!

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

"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.

Maybe it's dodgy but I doubt it.

Her work colleague also told me that this was the case. So, two separate people have told me that this is what happened, one of them being the individual who got her pay bumped up.

It sounds logical to be honest knowing what I know about the Civil Service. Much easier to fix the problem that way rather than having a full investigation where they know they did wrong.