Re: Brainbench C++ test (OT?)
* Mark (newsgroups):
This may be slightly OT, but is is to do with C++. I've been asked to
take a brainbench C++ test with a prospective contract opportunity.
Having been travelling for several months since my last job, I was a
little wary how my current knowledge would be. I also dislike these sort
of tests a lot because I have a poor medium term memory, and find I
forget stuff that I'm not using weekly. This unfortunately reflects
poorly when I do have to take this sort of test. It hasn't stopped me
being an excellent developer (not to sound too immodest), and I've
always been highly regarded at previous positions.
Anyway, I took a practice test today so I wouldn't go in to the test
completely in the dark, and also to get an idea if it was worth me just
forgoing it altogether. It was 40 questions, 3 minutes each, and I
scored decently, 78% (better than 78% of people it means) which is
probably better than I expected, but worse than where I should be if it
was fresh in my mind. I'm just wanting to know how similar the practice
test will be to the "real" one the company has asked me to do. Will the
questions be similar? I even read someone say some are reused. Has
anyone ever taken one of these tests?
Also, since it's a good idea for me to freshen up anyway, could anyone
recommend any good resources for this? Online is great, but a book that
I could read is also good. Obviously there is a lot of stuff out there.
I recently interviewed for a position with a company that had first
"courted" me to sign as C++ expert, because they are trying to change
over from C to C++ where possible. The last interview (of 3) was about
technical ability. I suspect the company had not-quite-perfect internal
communication because the interviewer asked very basic hardware-oriented
novice-level questions, not anything that could tell whether I fit into
any position as C++ expert/guru/teacher, which was a bit provocative,
and didn't seem to understand all my responses because he didn't seem to
recognize e.g. constructor initializer lists, and told me at the end
that he didn't have to search very far to find someone who knew more
about C++ than I thought I did -- in fact, "Tore" down the hall, who
did Fourier transforms (i.e. implicitly, "Tore" did only math, no C++),
was an example -- and one doesn't say such things for fun.
A Brainbench test would probably have given much more accurate results
for what was asked about, and to guard against the interviewer having
his/her own incorrect ideas about "right" answers and so on, I suspect a
Brainbench test of the interviewer would be a Good Idea(TM).
I took a Brainbench test last last year, and it covered a lot more than
that interview. I thought I flunked it because I knew I answered
incorrectly on a few questions (that I also did on the interview above
;-)), and thought I was very slow in answering (I don't know whether
that counts or not), but surprisingly ended up with "Expert (Master)":
<quote>
Test Taker : Alf Steinbach
Email : alfps@start.no
Test : C++
Overall Score : 4.69
Date : 28-Jul-2006
Weights : 100% C++
Elapsed time : 53 min47 sec
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Module : C++
Score : 4.69
Proficiency Level: Expert (Master)
Percentile : Scored higher than 97% of previous examinees.
Demonstrates understanding of most advanced concepts within the subject
area. Appears capable of mentoring others on the most complex projects.
Strong Areas
Basic Structure and Syntax
Class Member Functions
C++ Class
Templates
Weak Areas
None noted
</quote>
Note: I don't think that in reality there is such a thing as "expert" in
C++, with the possible exception of Andrei.
Also, I think it's impossible to answer correctly on all questions,
except by chance, because at least one question had only incorrect
answers. So one must guess a little. But based on that test, which is
my only Brainbench test, I think it's not possible to "read up" on C++
in order to prepare: even if not entirely perfect, the test covers a lot
of ground, and includes reasoning questions where you need understanding
(I hate those questions because I'm very slow at reading code and very
bad at memorizing what foo1, foo2, foo3 etc. stands for, yes they used
such names, except when presented in Visual Studio, I don't know why).
Anyways, I think it's best for both applicant and firm that the test or
interview accurately reflects & communicates the general abilities of
both, not a "read up on it", because a relationship based on incorrect
perception of the other is most probably doomed and can hurt both.
Cheers, & hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?