Toggle sidebar

Wonderlic for All

I had to take it just to get an interview for a job. 50 questions in 11 minutes!!! My strategy was to complete every question that I didn't have to put pencil to paper first, then circle back and start on those. I think answered all but 5-6 and ended up getting the job. They never told me what I made but you had to have at least a 30 just to interview. Interesting concept on ability to work under pressure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide
Obieone42 said:
I had to take it just to get an interview for a job. 50 questions in 11 minutes!!! My strategy was to complete every question that I didn't have to put pencil to paper first, then circle back and start on those. I think answered all but 5-6 and ended up getting the job. They never told me what I made but you had to have at least a 30 just to interview. Interesting concept on ability to work under pressure.
Click to expand...
My company uses personality tests. Research suggests that they produce much more reliable results than something like this if you really want to understand what you are getting in a future employee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obieone42, cuda.1973 and The Ols
Obieone42 said:
I had to take it just to get an interview for a job. 50 questions in 11 minutes!!! My strategy was to complete every question that I didn't have to put pencil to paper first, then circle back and start on those. I think answered all but 5-6 and ended up getting the job. They never told me what I made but you had to have at least a 30 just to interview. Interesting concept on ability to work under pressure.
Click to expand...
Take it and see...
 
The Ols said:
I didn't pay attention to the time...Think maybe that's why I work for myself???😂
Click to expand...

Well, all of my answers were right...................just took too long! So, must be an idiot.

Of course, I can use the excuse that I am in a fair amount of pain (as usual)*, so that distracted me.

Which is another reason why I don't work for anyone else!

(Tore up my shoulder, back in '65. The day it stops hurting................well, would rather not think about that day. Of course, at that point, it won't matter!)
 
  • Roll Tide!
Reactions: The Ols
cuda.1973 said:
The right type of test would really sort out someone who is applying for a job that is not a good fit.
Click to expand...

In my experience, lack of mental ability causes job performance problems for only a few employees.

Far more often, it's a personality issue (inflexibility, unnecessarily confrontational) or a lack of self-awareness that causes them to alienate colleagues or clients to the point that they won't work with the problem employee.

You can get a handle on mental ability a lot of ways. But a good personality battery will shine a light on the other stuff, and is really hard to fake / game your way through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obieone42, OSUTideFan, The Ols and 2 others
B1GTide said:
My company uses personality tests. Research suggests that they produce much more reliable results than something like this if you really want to understand what you are getting in a future employee.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with that approach. They also asked me a "puzzle question" and I had to talk out my thoughts. Weird! It went something like this:

If you had 9 billiards exactly the same size and weight except one which was just slightly lighter...and an old scale (think scales of justice), what is the least amount of times you could use the scales to find the lighter ball?

Talk about being put on the spot!!!

Now everybody wants the answer, right???
 
Hi
Obieone42 said:
I 100% agree with that approach. They also asked me a "puzzle question" and I had to talk out my thoughts. Weird! It went something like this:

If you had 9 billiards exactly the same size and weight except one which was just slightly lighter...and an old scale (think scales of justice), what is the least amount of times you could use the scales to find the lighter ball?

Talk about being put on the spot!!!

Now everybody wants the answer, right???
Click to expand...
8
 
I say no more than three weighings to determine with certainty. A 1 in 9 chance of getting it right the first time. So strictly speaking, the minimum number of weighings is one. More likely, the minimum number of weighings is 3.

First, put one ball out to the side. Weigh the remaining eight, split into two groupings of four balls each. If the two groupings weigh the same, the 9th ball you initially put off to the side is the lightest one, and you’re done.

Assuming you didn’t get lucky on the first step, the second step is to split the lighter grouping of 4 into 2 balls each, and weigh them. Discard the heavier pair, and take the lighter grouping to the third step.

Third step: Weigh the final two balls one against the other, and take the lighter one.
 
Last edited:
4Q Basket Case said:
I say three weighings to determine with certainty. A 1 in 9 chance of getting it right the first time. So strictly speaking, the minimum number of weighings is one. More likely, the minimum number of weighings is 3.

First, weigh four balls against four balls. If they weigh the same, the 9th ball is the lightest one, and you’re done. If they don’t weigh the same, take the lighter grouping of 4.

Second, split the lighter grouping of 4 into 2 balls each. Take the lighter grouping.

Third, weigh the final two balls one against the other, and take the lighter one.
Click to expand...
The minimum number of weighings would be two as you’d have to weight two sets of 4 if you randomly exclude the lightest ball. Unless you just pick the lightest and then one. If the lightest is among the groups of 4 then the absolute max would be 6.
 
TexasBama said:
The minimum number of weighings would be two as you’d have to weight two sets of 4 if you randomly exclude the lightest ball. Unless you just pick the lightest and then one. If the lightest is among the groups of 4 then the absolute max would be 6.
Click to expand...
I would do it with sets of 3. It is possible to do it in two weighings with sets of 3.

Weigh two sets of 3. You know then which set of 3 has the lighter ball. It is either the lighter of the two sets on the scale, or the remaining set if those 2 sets are equal.

Now you have the set of 3 with the lighter ball - weigh two of the balls. The lighter ball is either the ball which weighs less, or is the remaining ball if the other two balls are of equal weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IMALOYAL1, The Ols and TexasBama
TexasBama said:
The minimum number of weighings would be two as you’d have to weight two sets of 4 if you randomly exclude the lightest ball. Unless you just pick the lightest and then one. If the lightest is among the groups of 4 then the absolute max would be 6.
Click to expand...

That’s not the way the question read.

The goal is to identify the lightest ball, using a scale that compares the weights on two platforms...The scale doesn’t to determine how much ball weighs....only which side of the scale has the heavier load.

I stand by the premise: You could get lucky and ID the lightest ball with only one weighing. You could also gamble on the second round and simply pick one of the remaining four balls.

But if you weren’t dead lucky on the first round, and didn’t gamble on the second, you can do it with 100% certainty with no more than three weighings.
 
B1GTide said:
I would do it with sets of 3. It is possible to do it in two weighings with sets of 3.

Weigh two sets of 3. You know then which set of 3 has the lighter ball. It is either the lighter of the two sets on the scale, or the remaining set if those 2 sets are equal.

Now you have the set of 3 with the lighter ball - weigh two of the balls. The lighter ball is either the ball which weighs less, or is the remaining ball if the other two balls are of equal weight.
Click to expand...


BIG wins!

I never thought about splitting into three sets. Well done!
 
  • Roll Tide!
  • Like
Reactions: The Ols and B1GTide
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back