In reply to BnB:
> I think you could look at the video screening process more constructively.
I’m sure I could, but it doesn’t mean I’ll feel any less cumudgenonly about it.
> It’s difficult to judge the relevance without understanding the nature of the role but a high proportion of intra-office and business to business communication is now carried out over video-link.
Sure; but I imagine using video links effectively is not a part of the essential criteria being assessed, so why muddy the waters by mixing the two? If the video is being watched by a human then the efficiency savings of this method don’t seem that great over a face-to-face video interview. Which is a lot less weird...
> Meanwhile, the use of online tests might commoditise the process for the convenience of the hirer, but it also democratises the application process by offering an “interview” to a wider field.
I agree. There’s a big difference however between online tests and a soul sucking video of you answering questions off virtual flash cards... It just seems wrong - like button mashing to an automated phone system.
> Pity the poor hirer. Over on another thread we’re reflecting on a trebling of potential graduates. 80% of graduates end up with a 1st or 2:1. Employers are overwhelmed at the scale of the task of whittling a thousand down to just one. None of them with work experience to distinguish their talents. Is it any surprise that they seek a technological solution?
These days so many undergrads go for internships each summer as well, it’s a never ending arms race.
The idea of 2000 fresh faced graduates submitting a robotic video interview for longlisting is horrifying. I guess they’ve gone with question-response to prevent people getting coached through a written piece or a non-interactive video.