Nowadays more and more foreign enterprises and companies are no longer relying {{U}}(31) {{/U}} interviews {{U}}(32) {{/U}} recruitment. Years of studying interviewing have made clear that it is not a very objective process. Personnel officers often hire the person they like best,
{{U}} (33) {{/U}} even the one they think most physically attractive. Looking good is no guarantee of doing the job well, however. Uglies or those who are aesthetically challenged, take heart.
To get a more objective view, many companies are also using psychological tests to hire both for relatively routine jobs and for positions {{U}}(34) {{/U}} senior levels of management. It is impossible to say how many employers use tests, {{U}}(35) {{/U}} estimates of test sales in the UK for 1993 were over 1 million.
The basic reason employers use tests is clear: tests claim to be scientific and objective. A large body of research has shown that interviews by themselves are not very reliable {{U}}(36) {{/U}} a method of selection. People's judgment are often very subjective: whether they like the look of someone counts for more than almost anything else. But reliable and valid tests can offer rapid and more objective information about would-be employees. If a candidate talks well in an interview {{U}}(37) {{/U}} his test results suggest that he is a careless person who can not concentrate, an employer is likely to think twice about hiring him.
Taking a serious test for a job is rather different {{U}}(38) {{/U}} taking a game-like test. You can spend just a little time {{U}}(39) {{/U}} answering questions of that kind of test, and you deny the answers and say they are not accurate. But you can not go to a serious test without enough preparation {{U}}(40) {{/U}} you can not afford to be denied and eliminated again and again.