Tags

,

Yesterday was the strangest “interview” I ever attended.

To be fair, I knew going in that it was not an interview so much as some kind of group testing. I figured it would be one of those fill-in-the-bubble tests with questions like “have you ever told a lie?” and then if you answer “no” they know that you are a liar.

The night before I wondered aloud if I should be boning up on basic animal care stuff, since the “test” was for a position working in an animal shelter (for HELLER good pay – 22 bucks an hour!). But everyone poo-poohed that, saying it would be standard pre-screening psychology stuff.

So I was a little surprised at what I actually got.

They led me into a room filled with desks and women. Each of us had our own desk, and were provided with a pencil, a pen, and an eraser. We were told that extra paper was available if we needed it.

Then they told us that the “exam” was an hour and a half long, and that the required mark to pass was 65%. They said that those who passed would move on to the interview stage, and that the interview would count towards 60% of of our “final mark”, with the “exam” making up the other 40%.

Is this a job application, or a class??

Anyway, I didn’t really care. I’m good at test writing and the questions were fairly simple, although of course I am only guessing at what answers they are looking for. I have always tailored my answers to my professor, knowing the prof’s little quirks and odd opinions. This was completely blind, though.

For all I know, when they asked me for the symptoms of kennel cough, they were looking for an answer of “purple and green spots, a hoarse singing voice, and a tendency to dress in rubber bondage wear.”

On the other hand, considering that this job ad didn’t require any specific education (like my tech diploma) I bet they did weed a lot of people out. But surely more specific credential requirements would have done the same thing?

Advertisements