Interdepartmental Higher Executive Officer 2020 - (Serving Civil Servants ONLY)

Cidy2020 wrote: »

So has anyone heard if many have not received the email for stage 1b or did everyone get it?

Everyone who applied, got it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Has this ever been documented? Like, did they come out and say that, officially, this is the reason we don't count the maths part?

Not that I'm aware of, I was told by PAS management that this was the case.

Their reasoning being that if half of the competition applicants were female at the start of the process, PAS roughly expected half of the applicants getting to interview following the psychometric tests to be female. This wasn't always the case as they found men to generally perform better in the numeric reasoning which increased their rank on the OOM and resulted in more males getting to interview and getting jobs.

MrsBean wrote: »

it's a policy that makes a lot of sense when you consider it.

I respectfully disagree.

There are many roles and tasks in the Civil Service where strong numerical ability would be more important than verbal. So to relegate the numerical assessment to a simple black or white/yes or no/pass or fail test seems short-sighted when you consider somebody who only scrapes through it could end up in one of these roles if they score highly on other things.

This shouldn't be seen as an anti-woman thing, by the way! Could equally happen that a man who's not particularly strong on numbers could end up there because he scored highly on verbal and/or SJT. Meanwhile, somebody else (could be a man or woman!) who's far stronger on numbers misses out because they went for "true" instead of "cannot say" on a couple of questions, for example.

Fair enough. But I think roles where strong numerical ability is required are advertised as such and in those circumstances numerical scores are considered (such as Revenue roles etc).

The civil service is based on a generalist system, so we are expected to have a reasonable level of numerical, verbal and judgement in order to be considered eligible, and then to further develop specialist skills on the job. We all have our areas of interest or areas of expertise, qualifications, etc, but more often than not we are not placed in roles based on those skills. The roles we end up being offered is akin to a lottery system.

I don't see it as an anti-woman thing at all, or as a sexist policy. If anything I view it as an anti-sexist policy as it is attempting to provide a level playing field in light of evidence of gender imbalance in numerical testing.

However, this discussion is based on hearsay, as to the best of my knowledge PAS have not come out and said this is why they don't count numerical. (And probably for this very reason ) For the purposes of the thread I'll leave it there as it's not helpful to those waiting for their results.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it stacks up at all. I think it's a bunch of urban legend nonsense that's been perpetuated by people who should know better.

There is no way, and I mean 100% no chance in a million years, that there is an official policy to disregard maths scores because men do better. Or that it is in place, unofficially, but PAS management are going around talking about it nonchalantly with would-be applicants.

There's literally the entire reputation of PAS at stake here. An officially sexist policy would cause the whole thing to crumble to the ground. An unofficial one, if it did exist, would not be talked about with anybody who wasn't already in the know......least of all someone who stands to gain/lose because of it.

As said by MrsBean, I don't know if it can be viewed as a sexist policy rather than one that aimed to have a more balanced selection criteria, both genders had the same opportunity.

I'm not a would be applicant. I've no reason to lie and no reason to doubt what I was told. I don't care if you believe me or not.

There's alot of flawed logic in this thread. If PAS did count the numerical scores that would be a far stronger case of discrimination than the other way around.

You can't retain any credibility about having a balanced and fair recruitment process when you use a selection criteria that is proven to favour men over women.

As thing stand, all PAS do by not counting scores in numerical scores that is level the playing field and ensure no gender is favoured over another.

They have two choices, either not count numerical when ranking the OOM or else scrap numerical testing completely. The option to use the numerical scores is discrimination and wouldn't survive a case in WRC.

1B is out

Redadele wrote: »

I have it. You have to log in or sign up to get in to the tests?

Yes, sign up using the e-mail address you use for Public jobs e-mails.

I've tried logging in and or signing up and it won't let me..
Saying email and or password not recognised
When I try resetting the password via link sent from SHL...
The link isn't available....
Was really hoping to get it done and out of the way today!! 😔
Maybe I need to try again. A few more times....
Anyone else having any bother..
Thanks 😊

TrishaK wrote: »

Well I just logged on there to do it. I dont really know what to make of those situational judgement tests. It was ok, nothing too out of the ordinary. Just a waiting game now and more than likely it will be...... please try again later 😄

Hi, how long did it take? Was it timed etc..

and did you have to do that ID test during it?

Thanks a million

Dee

insert name here 123 wrote: »

Hi, how long did it take? Was it timed etc..

and did you have to do that ID test during it?

Thanks a million

Dee

It can take up to forty minutes. This part is unsupervised so no camera or no checking. But it does say they may do a supervised one at a later date in the info booklet

Rabaen wrote: »

I'm afraid that's flawed logic as well. The only way to really know if anything is discriminatory is if PAS release percentages on gender participation in the competition as well as their desired gender split for proceeding to the next stage.

The funny thing is, if PAS came up with this system at the beginning because of some studies done elsewhere, they would now be in a position to know if it was really true because of the massive amount of data they have accumulated over the years. Not only that but they would also have reliable data on gender performance in verbal and situational as well.

Any researcher in this field would love to get a hold of a data set that large.

Anyway, good luck to all in the next test!

Well there is nothing stopping a researcher putting in an FOI request asking for that.

Also, afaik there have been a lot of studies done on large demographics that have showed males perform better in numerical tests.

Augme wrote: »

Using a recruitment practice that disadvantsges one gender vs another is discrimination.

It would be like that garda, army etc having only one fitness test measurement and having one that faovurs men. That wouldnt be allowed and there is a reason there is a sperate fitness test for men and women in recruitment processes like that.

It's the same principle here.

As a woman who's better at maths than verbal, it doesn't bother me, even if it should. There's proof that girls are taught maths differently than boys in school because they're given different messaging around the need to apply themselves. This impacts on their numerical literacy. It might not continue into adulthood but it might, who knows.

mdwexford wrote: »

This is hilarious.
Last line is comedy gold.

I don’t think there is any need to make fun of this person’s statement.
It is exactly what I understood happens from previous competitions.

It is known as positive discrimination and is used all the time as a method for inclusivity and equality.