Testing during interviews -
Reach
Posts: 107
Ahoy,
I have an interview next week and I need to brush up on my memory because Im going to be tested by a panel of 3 experts. The job is basically a technician working out kinks and reporting them to the engineering dept.
My educated is an electronics engineering technician with a strong background on engineering digital circuits.
Anyone have a link for a test that will allow me to find my weak spots? What topics should I brush up on?
Any info is helpful & thanks in advance.
I have an interview next week and I need to brush up on my memory because Im going to be tested by a panel of 3 experts. The job is basically a technician working out kinks and reporting them to the engineering dept.
My educated is an electronics engineering technician with a strong background on engineering digital circuits.
Anyone have a link for a test that will allow me to find my weak spots? What topics should I brush up on?
Any info is helpful & thanks in advance.
Comments
Generally don't forget that presentation, manner and communication skills are as valuable at an interview as any specific knowledge. Be punctual. It's a cliche but showing you can work in a team, or at least not Smile everybody off, is important.
At this stage they presumably are interested in the skills you have so I would not worry so much about that. Certainly they might want to be sure that what you have written on your application or CV is not total fiction.
In the time available use those skills to research the company and it's products. Put together questions in your mind that you can ask them about those things. That helps drive an interview in the direction you want it to go and shows you have an interest in the company and doing that kind of job.
Review what you have done in your career to date so that when asked you don't have to think too hard and start to forget things under the pressure.
Anyway good luck with that and don't let the "experts" intimidate you.
Oh, and P.S. brush up on your grammar.
Good luck!
I never went to an engineering university, and I got a Bachelors degree in Fine Art, but was able to pass the State of California's Engineer-in-Training certification from the state's Proffessional Board of Engineering on the first try. This is a lot of information and I studied heavily for six months to pass the exam. Many of the people I met had failed it multiple times.
It is no longer called an E.I.T, but each state has the exam and there are textbooks and study materials available. I guess you would just focus on reviewing the maths and the electronics and electrical sections.
If you are just out of university, you may consider sitting for it to make yourself more marketable in the job market.
I especially appreciated the section on Engineering Economics, but actually loved it all -- Metallurgy, Fluid Dynamics, Strentghs of Material, Chemistry, Computer Programing. It is stepping stone to getting your P.E. license.
When I took it, it was a two day exam - one day of general knowledge, and one day of focus on a particular field. Now it is just one day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer_In_Training
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Engineering_exam
http://www.kaplanaecengineering.com/
Thanks for the link ill begin the online testing tonight.
Yes grammar is the worst subject of all time but science, math and logic are the best!
However I would point out that if you want to communicate with humans there is a certain logic to the commonly understood grammar and spelling. There is a reason why "cat on the mat" means something different to "mat on the cat".
It is a bit rude to write whatever you like and expect your readers to parse the thing ten times to figure out what you mean.
I'm not even talking about English language here, I'm sure it is true in any language.
In short, when you write a program in C or Spin or whatever programming language you know you have to get it exactly right else it will not compile or run with the correct result. Why should one treat communication with fellow humans any differently?
P.S. I don't claim any absolute correctness in this, it's a life long study. Especially as language changes so fast now a days.
Maybe I'm old fashioned or out of touch with the job market and how things work but an attitude like that bothers me. If this company hires you, they are making a commitment to you and are taking a gamble on you since you really won't be productive for 6 to 12 months. Your intent is to take the money and leave after 3 months? Go get a job waiting tables or flipping burgers and leave this position to someone who will commit to it and give the company some return on their investment.
Just my 25 years with one employer speaking....
No no its a mutual agreement and besides corporate America is getting away with murder remember these guys. I am very responsible, professional and look forward to the short term job.
Yes I am a tech-drifter.
Many companies do this over here these days. Feels like a step back to victorian days in the workhouse!
Most business aren't "those guys" and have a significant investment and expense when they go after a new employee.
I'm obviously not into job hopping or "tech drifting" or whatever. I've been working since I was 16 (37 years ago) and have had a total of 3 employers.
@Rick: You and me both, Brother. 30 years this November for me!
@Reach: Best of luck on your studies, interview, job blitz, then sailing the high seas!
"In fourteen hundred and ninety three, Columbus sailed the deep blue sea." (sic) Dr. Zachary Smith
How did you "lifers" do it? None of the companies I have worked for over the decades even exist any more.
I left the USA at 47 with $20,000 USD in credit card debit as it was obivious that in San Francisco the corporate employers didn't want career people. Health, dental, and other benefits are mandated by law for permanet employees, and health insurance premiums are double for a 43 years old than a 23 year old. They want temp employees for six months or less, or sub-contract work. Unions lost a lot of ground with the only growth in union membership being in government employees.
I was looking at working self-employed or temporary for the rest of my life. And the self-employed route has already created the $20,000 debt.
So I came to Taiwan, started over as an English teacher, and paid off that $20,000 debt while catching up on dental and health with Taiwan's national health insurance. Here I worked for the same employer for 7 years, then started to move around.
If you have an opportunity at a career path with eventual benefits, take it seriously. It is not fun to go from layoff to layoff making ends meet by going deeper into credit card debit.
That's just not true.
I am an employer, it's hard to find good people, especially loyal ones.
We've been in business for 13 years and our longest serving employee has been with us for 12 years.
Then we have a dozen or so that have been with us for more than five but recently we have seen people only lasting 12 months before moving on.
There seems to be a general idea that it's a good thing moving from company to company just to get better wages.
When I see a CV that has more than 3 jobs in the last 5 years I bin it, harsh in some ways but better for my company in the long run.
We spend literally tens of thousands training people who have no loyalty to the company whatsoever, it can be disheartening at times.
I am of the opinion that a large part of the workforce in the UK think they are doing the employer a favour by working for them, they seem to fail to understand the basic 'TEAM' principle.
So now we take on apprentice level and hope that the investment and effort we put into them is rewarded with loyalty.
(I went through a full 5 year apprenticeship, and even though the company is no longer around I still have very fond memories and would probably still be there if it was still around.)
So not all companies are how you described, they are just more cautious because employment law has given most of the power to the employee.
I'm very glad to hear that my observation is not as true as I thought.
Isn't it so though that most kids leaving school have no hope of finding any such apprenticeships? Isn't that why in the past 30 years we have converted every polytechnic, technical school and telephone box into a university and push all the youngsters into them whilst at the same time getting them to borrow huge piles of money to do it.
I do take your point about loyalty, looking around me at the ease with which people are "let go" it's hard to see why people should be willing to offer loyalty to a company now a days.
This "You should be grateful to have a job" attitude baffles me when society expects you to "toe the line" and work and pay your taxes yet allows employers to treat their staff as cattle. The term "use and abuse" comes to mind here.
With the high cost of permanent employees, they go for short-time contracts.
Short-time contracts isn't exactly the greatest incentive to give your best for your employer.
I've been working for the same employer for 19 years 11 months now.
The first 3 years I worked on short-time contracts and I really, really don't want to go through that again. I had no possibility of buying an apartment. Frankly, even renting one was hopeless.
Getting permanent employment was the best thing that ever happened. I could rent a cheap apartment close to work, start saving up money and PLAN my future.
As my employer is a Government organisation, I have very strong protection against being laid off or fired. Decent pension, too, but kind of sucky salary.
But I'll take a sucky salary anytime as long as it comes with a secure position.
The worst companies to work for is 'tech companies' that are young and expanding quickly, or only have one product.
Growing pains tends to... well... end in pain... And a single product tends to be obsoleted...
Service shops wanting certified techs but doesn't offer the same level training is also a bad omen.
EDIT: This was really in response to Loopy's post.
Addendum:
At the office we have one of Europe's best user support Helpdesks(According to Gartner Group)...
But with our salary level it means we take in Greenhorns, train them extensively in the most used SW(Windows, Office and a few others) and on how to work a Helpdesk. They usually stay a year or two, then jump ship for a private business with higher pay. We've actually had a few return to us after the companies they went to went out of business. And this time they swear to stay...
Loyalty goes both ways.
If you had an employee that was productive and contributing to the company in general, what reason would there be to let them go?
Alternatively, if you had an employee that was unproductive, uncooperative and focused only on themselves, what reason would there be to let them go?
The truth, as harsh as it may seem, is that an employee is there to be productive for the company.
Even the receptionist in my company is productive by answering the telephone in a polite and friendly manner.
If the company did not need this function to operate successfully, the position would not be required.
In short, everybody contributes even the tea lady (if you have one).
If you are not contributing then your position may be in question.
Before setting up my company I worked for one of the largest companies in the world (in my field).
They were not interested in the employees, they were not even interested in the product let alone the clients.
The only thing this big global company was interested in was the bottom line.
That is the sort of company I think you were describing earlier.
The globalisation of business these days means the biggest companies will get bigger and bigger, bigger does not always mean better.
The point I am trying to make is that not all companies are bad (nor are their employees all bad), just look at Parallax as an example of a good one!
As for apprenticeships the situation in the UK is dire to say the least.
My nephew recently applied for an apprenticeship and he came to me with the details so I could check them over.
I was astounded by the wage on offer (it was lower than UK minimum wage) and the terms were awful, I looked into it and not only was it was legal it was a government backed scheme.
The government is that desperate to get people off the unemployment figures that they are allowing what is effectively slave labour.
My advice was to find something else.
Now as business slowly turns around these same businesses use these agencies to hire workers so that they are not obligated for benefits, etc. Plus the fact they can easily lay them off if needed without the obligation of "unemployment costs".
Problem is that being loyal, diligent, hardworking etc is no guarantee of continued employment. Even with the best intentions of the employer situations change, the economy forces jobs to be out sourced, automated, or plain disappear. With the rapid pace of change in the modern world loyalty on either side can be a fickle thing.
Not any better than mine ;-)
Being British we are not taught the real value of learning another tongue, French is taught in secondary schools but it is entirely optional.
Hence why most Brits go on holiday expecting the locals to speak English :frown:
The economy puts pressure on everything but it doesn't help when we do less and less manufacturing and more service type industries.
The cost of getting things manufactured here in the UK is enormous that's why most things are made in China these days, I'm sure that's the same the world over.
Take prototype PCB's, Newbury Electronics quote is £176 for 100mm*100mm 2 Layer PCB (Qty 10) in 10 days, in comparison PCBCart in 8 days is £91, nearly half the price.
I'm glad in some ways that the only things we manufacture are on a small scale and not price sensitive.
The amazing exception to this trend is that Raspberry Pi's are assembled by the million in Wales in a Sony plant.
When I was young, San Francisco refused to have franchise restaurants in order to support more service jobs. Cafes and restaurants alike had waiters or waitresses, bus boys, and dishwashers .. a lot of service jobs. And the banks had rows and rows of bank tellers ( a great place to meet a girl that might marry and manage your money well). Service stations didn't have self-service pumps. And when you called a business, your call was answered by a person, not a machine.
The same forces are at work in the service sector as the manufacturing sector. Recently, big sushi franchises are making there way into Taiwan. Why? Well, someone perfected a machine that makes the rices balls for suchi, so the cost benefit of the lessened labor is right. And of course, they don't serve you, they have a conveyor that just sends dishes by you to grab.
If anything, the world has become too efficient and too willing to increase the bottom line by lessening the human input into a business.
So I have to get my coffee at Starbucks, stand and wait in a long line rather than be seated while it is prepared, and I have to pretty much clean up my own table. I won't go to McDonald's as the kids in the play area are too noisy. But both do have one thing right --- a clean bathroom.
If you want a future in a secure job, clean bathrooms. It is the keystone of franchise restaurants bringing in foot-traffic. Window-washing in retail shops might fillin as an alternative.
Not only did San Francisco require the restaurants to provide all those jobs, the restaurants had a custom that while you tipped 15% for the table sevice, there was a counter service for those that couldn't afford or who didn't want to tip.
Oh, and we used to have newspaper boys that delivered to your home that even had a special exemption from paying Social Security Taxes. After all, if a kid needed to deliver papers, things were likely very tight at home.
Business cannot prosper without people having jobs that allow them to buy their products. Economics is very big on studying 'supply and demand' as a means to price things; maybe they should really start Economics 101 with 'give and take'.
Potentially we could automate pretty much every job a human does. Machines and robot's doing the physical stuff. A cloud full of AI and funky algorithms to run it all. Clearly if no one has a job any more as a result then they have no money to buy anything and all that super efficient mechanized production output cannot be purchased. With no customers we have supply but no demand and the whole system falls down. Capitalism fails.
I think of it like this. Capitalism starts as a simple mechanism of trading. You grow potatoes, I grow cows. If we a agree to exchange some potatoes for some beef we both benefit and life is better.
Mechanize all that and your robot's grow potatoes and my robots look after cows. Neither of us works as hard as we did. We still exchange produce and life is even better as we now have time for other pursuits.
So far so good.
Problem today, is that most of us don't own the robots, or even the land or resources to use them on. We have nothing to trade. Meanwhile the owners of the robots will have no customers.
Capitalism cannot fix this problem.
I think the Thatcher/Reagan idea of "service economy" was a bit more ambitious than waiters and toilet cleaners. They were thinking in terms of replacing steel making, ship building etc with global banking, insurance and other "intellectual" services.
That plan worked out just fine for those at the top of banking, insurance and so on. Not so good for everyone else.
Besides, when Thatcher was around I immediately thought that if the means of wealth creation, like actual work, moves to Asia and such then it won't be long before the means of managing that wealth moves there as well. I suspect that is going on as we speak.
If you haven't had the interview -
Remember to say "I can't tell" and I don't know" when appropriate. At least one one question should not supply enough information to made a definitive answer; and/or be beyond your ability.
If you try to bull through, and make something up, they will notice. This often creates more problems than it solves. Correctly identifying unknowns is much more useful, and any competent outfit recognizes this.
Look the interviewer in the eye and be convincing when you say it. More than likely the interviewer has never seen someone that is ready to go to work before.
~~~~
Capitalism is too simplistic to provide a solution to the world's problems. It just helps the greedy justify winning.
Oops, sorry about that. It's a continuing nightmare I know.
Reach,
As the head of the maths department at my technical college said when I was about to go to an interview for a university place: "Look them straight in the eye and shake them firmly my the hand".
That is the same guy who accepted me for a place to study at his college two years before but having said so he said "One thing I ask is that you lose your off hand manner of speech".
Make of that what you will. He was the best maths lecturer I ever experienced whilst also being serious about communication skills.