Wonderlic for All

[The Ols]

See if you can top Vince Young's 6!!!

I took it...made it through just over half of the questions before time ran out...pulled a 26...

Job IQ Test | *2020 Update* Learn about the Wonderlic® test and how to prepare for it!

samplewonderlictest.com

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I took it about 10-12 years ago and scored a 40. I don't want to take it again because I might learn I am not as sharp as I used to be.

lsu's Maurice Claiborne scored a 4.

 

[OSUTideFan]

I got a 36 last time I tried. Still not elite.

 

[The Ols]

I got a 36 last time I tried. Still not elite.

It tells you what percentile you made...With 26 being in the 80s, I'd say a 36 is elite...and I'm feeling dumber by the moment...

I got them all right, just only finished 26...

 

[Obieone42]

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.

 

[B1GTide]

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.

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.

 

[The Ols]

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.

I didn't pay attention to the time...Think maybe that's why I work for myself???

 

[The Ols]

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.

Take it and see...

 

[cuda.1973]

I didn't pay attention to the time...Think maybe that's why I work for myself???

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!)

 

[cuda.1973]

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.

The right type of test would really sort out someone who is applying for a job that is not a good fit.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The right type of test would really sort out someone who is applying for a job that is not a good fit.

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.

 

[Obieone42]

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.

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???

 

[TexasBama]

The right type of test would really sort out someone who is applying for a job that is not a good fit.

I’ve taken several and there are some good ones out there. OTOH, horoscopes would be better than some.

 

[UAllday]

Hi

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???

8

 

[B1GTide]

Hi

8

Nope - there are a number of ways to do it in fewer steps, putting more balls on the scales at one time.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

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.

 

[TexasBama]

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.

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.

 

[B1GTide]

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.

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.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

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.

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.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

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.

BIG wins!

I never thought about splitting into three sets. Well done!