PLC test

[Batton]

I agree with geniusintraining

 

[Steve Bailey]

He's a recruiter , his job is to recruit, not repair, install, etc.

IMHO, a recruiter should know enough about the postions for which he/she is recruiting to be able to make an informed judgement about the candidates. The client is paying the recruiting firm to screen out unqualified applicants so that the candidates who are invited to interview have a reasonable expectation of being able to do the job. I don't believe that administering a standardized test and calculating the candidate's score fits the definition of "informed judgenment". If it were that simple, there would be no need for a company to outsource the screeing process to recruiting firms.

 

[doug2]

We are in a very specialized field. When I speak to engineers (managers included) that are not controls guys I am pretty impressed if the even know the buzz words let alone any details about what we do. Now if the head hunter only deals with integrators and controls engineers that may be a different story. I would expect more out of him in that case.

 

[Batton]

This thread will probably veer off into a list of reasons why recruiters are *******s

I am trying to add a tool that will help save my clients time during the interview and screening process. It's something to evaluate along with a resume, references, etc.

 

[Steve Bailey]

I have no intention of dumping anything onto recruiters. At their worst, they earn whatever scorn and ridicule comes their way. At their best, they provide a valuable service. The majority fall somewhere in between.

In my opinion, trying to find a standardized test for the controls field is an exercise in futility. For one reason, the test you would give for a Controls Engineer in a wastewater treatment plant would be different than the test for a Controls Engineer for an OEM of capital machinery. For another, the field is constantly changing. Questions that were important a year ago may be less so today and totally irrelevant a year from now.

In my opinion, the most important thing you, as a recruiter, can do to add more value to the services you render to your clients is to develop enough understanding of the fields for which you are screening candidates to be able to make that informed judgement I mentioned in my earlier post. I applaud your initiative and apologize that my inner curmudgeon got the better of me in my first response.

 

[akreel]

I'm not sure I'd be upset if I didn't get hired at a company that tried to hand me a test for an interview. It shows me that they have no appreciation or understanding of what controls engineers do.

Few people get what we do. They don't understand what it takes to write or design controls that work almost all the time and crash safely when they fail. I used to think that I could teach anyone to do my job, it seems so easy. I've seen enough really bad code to know better now.

I like Peter's approach. I'd also give the candidate an opportunity to talk about their past successes and failures. I'd be listening to see if this person has a genuine interest in the work. I'd also be trying to establish how determined they are to solve problems.