Hi Jessica, amazing I did not know there was someone from GR here, so yes if you would not mind, I would love to take you up on your offer.
I guess the best question I can ask you is from a GR point of view, what is the point of these tests? I speak broadly in terms of WG and game-based assessments. On one hand I can completely see the premise that firms receive thousands of applications and for efficiency I guess a natural filter is required. However, using the S&M example, which as far as application numbers go, is right up there, cant more firms adopt this type of recruitment? If not then why not?
I do feel the assessments where they ask Situational questions is actually a great measure (Allen & Overy) as the firm can see how you would be as a trainee in certain situations. Similarly VI/Telephone interviews are a good way of getting numbers down but I suppose they can eat up time. I am just curious as to if an alternate method is possible and if not then why not.
Feel free to PM your reply if you feel more comfortable!
Thanks!!
What’s the point of these tests? Put simply they assess core skills, values or attitudes deemed relevant to the job, in a consistent and objective manner. If applied appropriately, they can provide one of the strongest predictors of performance in later recruitment stages or on the job than other forms of assessment like CV screening or interviews.
I am assuming Slaughter and May use a pure application screen if they have no testing. This means they are using subjective data and inconsistent data to make that decision. It is likely they put some frameworks around it to try and make it more consistent, but put frankly (and nothing against them as a firm as they are awesome) but their system is likely to have more bias and adverse impact if that’s how they are doing it. For instance, it’s commonly stated that they put a very high weighting on academic performance - that in itself could have some adverse impact against certain demographics of applicants if used without considering other data carefully. It’s also highly subjective and particularly flawed as it benefits those with the most or best opportunities in life.
Situational based questions are known to be one of the most inclusive assessment methods out there. They tend to have less adverse impact than all other methods - although there is little evidence out there, my concern though is that it could exclude those without industry contacts or experience, which is far more difficult to measure adverse impact on.
Telephone and Video interviews still take up an awful amount of time. It’s not feasible for a firm to schedule 2,500 telephone interviews - scheduling alone would need 1 person to manage. To review that many video interviews, you’d need about 830 hours of someone’s time, or 120 working day, or 24 weeks. And that timing is based on only ever reviewing video interviews non stop. Can you see how that it isn’t feasible from a time perspective?
I am a big supporter of video interviews. They have changed the way recruiters screen. It allows them to interview far more many candidates than they could have done previously. It used to be a case that even without any form on online assessment (and sometimes still with one) you were making really what could be seen as arbitrary and harsh cuts based on someone’s application because you knew you could only interview face to face say 100 people max, and you had to cut 2500 people down to that 100. So how would you do that?
Remove anyone with a spelling mistake despite having a well drafted application?
Make a decision to remove anyone who hasn’t got a certain grade in a core law module or an overall degree percentage?
Remove anyone who hasn’t done an internship or open day before?
I must stress not all firms did the above but some did (and maybe some still do). But can you see that relying on those type of decisions is a really crappy way of trying to deem whether someone has to the ability to do the job?
If we rely more on the individual information people present on what they have done in their past, it will mean the system is open to conscious or unconscious bias, and also adverse impact.
Back when I started in recruitment, we didn’t have so many of these forms of new assessments and relied heavily on making harsh cuts because we had to cut application numbers down some how. And law firms were criticised for have undiverse cohorts of trainees. Those two things are not unconnected.
All these type of assessments (if designed and implemented appropriately) are used to ultimately to change that. And in many cases it is working.
People may hate them because they don’t like them, they aren’t very good at them (I’m useless at WG, verbal reasoning), or they don’t understand them, but I can confidently say that they typically provide a much more fairer and transparent system than a CV screen.
