Statics Test for Employment

[Calif]

How many of you have taken a small test for employment? I just finish taking a small statics test in which I think a frame problem but did well on everything else.

Calif

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[Lion06]

I have never had to do a "test" for a job, but would actually welcome it. My technical abilities far exceed my people skills!

 

[AlmostPE]

Well, I can tell you one thing, if your sigma fy is not 0, try again LOL jk. Why would they do that?

 

[frv]

That's funny.

I have heard of companies doing that. Usually it's just to make sure you are not completely devoid of common sense (like, for example, being an OU fan ).

 

[DMcGrath]

We give our prospective CAD technicians a small test - it has helped weed out some folks who have talked a good game but their timed CAD skills showed otherwise.

 

[NS4U]

I just finished a job search, out of about 13 companies 8 of them gave me some sort of statics quiz... it was pretty easy though

 

[whyun]

Mini exams are intended primarily for candidates right out of school or ones with one or two years of experience. It makes no sense for mid to upper level positions.

Before landing my first engineering job, one company that I interviewed required a 30 minute exam involving structural details which I had no clue at the time. They did not offer me the position.

I never required any technical exams for candidates that I interviewed but if I were to give one, it would be beams with some loads (one point load in the middle, three equal point loads at quarter points, uniform load) and ask to draw the shear and moment diagrams for each. Portal frame with lateral and some load on the beam and ask to draw shear, moment and deflected shape. None using numbers.

Though technical common sense is essential to this business, it is only a small portion.

 

[Taro]

I have never taken or given a statics test during an interview for an engineer position. I think it is fairly obvious just from talking to the candidate whether or not they have an understanding of fundamentals like statics. So I don't waste time with something so basic. It sounds like something a human resources manager would use to screen out the totally incompetent before setting up the real interviews with the engineering supervisor.

Instead of a test, I might ask a few questions about more advanced topics to get a feel for the depth of their knowledge. Just how advanced these topics are depends on the experience level of the candidate. For a recent grad, it might be something like "Explain how the fundamental period of a structure influences earthquake base shear." For a more experienced engineer, it might be "Give me an example of a challenging technical issue you faced on a project and how you resolved it." They should be able to explain their answers using simple language without trying to dazzle you with technical jargon. You can tell whether they really know what they are talking about and also get an idea of their communication skills.

 

[frv]

Taro-

I suspect you're located in California (or another seismic area). I would have failed your test, as I never took earthquake engineering in undergrad.. as a matter of fact, it was not even an option at the undergrad level.

 

[MikeHalloran]

For decades, I've given a simple statics problem as part of an interview for both engineers and technicians. Something along the lines of sketching out a simply supported beam with a central point load and then asking what information is required to predict the deflection. A large proportion of alleged engineers don't do well on that problem.

Actually, I _do_ get a lot of phonies. I'm not talking about people who once knew how to do it but are just rusty; they're easy to detect. These are people who have clearly never been exposed to the material.

I've also found that those of us who give difficult technical interviews are soon bypassed by a prefilter, usually without notice. I.e., they send me the losers that HR doesn't want to hire, but doesn't have a legally defensible reason for not hiring.

The losers that HR _does_ want to hire... just show up for work one day, with no warning.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[Taro]

frv, as you point out, the specific questions would have to be tailored to apply to the situation. That specific question might be good for a graduate with a master's degree applying for a job with a large firm in a "seismic area". Might not apply for a small firm that designs lowrise buildings in the midwest.

When I interviewed for my first job, my future boss asked me to explain what could cause a structure's center of rigidity to be offset from the center of mass and what effect that could have on the seismic response of the building. It was at a large structural firm that only hired graduates with master's degrees.

For a job in a non-seismic area, maybe a sample question would be "Explain why a member with a large tributary area is designed for a reduced live load or wind load".

 

[frv]

I would have done well on the alternate question

 

[BRGENG]

We typically ask that younger engineer’s bring in copies of their calculations from a past project for review. Or homework for engineer’s coming straight out of school. You can tell a lot from someone’s calculations, how well they document their calc’s, assumptions, findings, etc. However I judge my candidates mainly on people skills when hiring. All our engineers have plenty of interaction with our clients. I want someone with that can interact well with people in all kinds of situations. By earning an Engineering degree they have proven that they can learn and be taught. I know that my staff can teach they engineer skills if they are not up to par. However I have yet found a way to teach people skills to those that don’t have it.

 

[Qshake]

These days with the computer being so very integral with structural analysis, I like to be able to see that young engineers can still think on their toes and be able to bracket the answers/behaviors prior to getting into the computer.

Also as mentioned above, I gain a great deal of insight by looking at calculations and the written thought process.

I would not give such an exam to an experienced engineer. Though I've met plenty who know one topic so well they've forgotten some of the very basics.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[martin7]

my first post, Hello everyone and sorry for if I'm in the wrong area, I have not any working knollage of this forum yet.

I test all tecnical staff coming into the factory. It's not a pass or fail test but it's a good ice breaker and starts of very easy and is sometimes based around there own cv. This finds out how true the cv is. A person can do poorly on the exam, and its partly practical and come across a honist and relable which in some less tecnical roles mite be just that I'm looking for.
In short lie in the cv, intreview or test and you will be found out.

 

[Calif]

Well, I can see if an employer wants to test an engineer to see what they know but if it is predicated on getting a job then I am not so sure. If a young engineer who is motivated to be an engineer gets a queston wrong or is rusty with some aspects of statics, does that mean he is not capable to learn skill over again to work at the expentation of the employer? We don't know everything and with the age of computers, basics sometimes can be get rusty because of the time due to calculations by hand vs the computer to do it. I remember I asked a structural engineer who is a bridge engineer with over 30 years of experiences in design and I asked him a question about virtual work for deflection problem(simple beam with distrubutive load). He said, I have not seen that in years and we have computers for that. Mind you he was not a bad engineer at all, he was the guy that everyone had gone to if they had questions to solve anything with bridges. Does this mean he is a bad engineer?

Calif

The resisant virtues of the structure that we seek depend on their form; it is through their form that they are stable, not because of an awkward accumulation of material. There is nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual viewpoint than this: to resist through form. Eladio Dieste

 

[LPPE]

My first employer out of school gave a quick engineering test. Three questions. I forget the first one, very easy. Second was draw the deflected shape of a simple frame he drew, and the third was something about shear flow in a C section.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

before i moved, my former employer started to give psychological pre-screening exams for prospective employees. i took the test with a selection of some of the other employees to help establish base lines.

 

[rb1957]

i test interviewees ... people round here call "an inquisition". i started awhile back, and i've been pretty disappointed in how few can solve a simply supported beam without looking up roark. the point is not particularly to answer the question, the point is to plumb the depths of their understanding of structures ... usually it doesn't take much string !

 

[nutte]

I have never had to fill out such a test during an interview.

However, the company I work at does do this for new graduates, just to be sure they know some fundamental concepts. One interviewee had much trouble with the shear and moment diagram. Not a good sign for someone right out of college.