[floodyberry-]

That situation should be added to the Wonderlic!

"When evaluating candidates who will be working with large amounts of money, should you give them the Not-IQ-but-we-all-know-that's-what-it-is test:

a) before you weed out the minorities, who by definition cannot be trusted around nor deserve large amounts of money

b) after you weed out the minorities, who by definition cannot be trusted around nor deserve large amounts of money

c) I find this question offensive and would like to out myself as either a minority, who by definition cannot be trusted around nor deserve large amounts of money, or a minority sympathizer

d) An IQ test is not needed because there are other, more legal, ways to weed out minorities, who by definition cannot be trusted around nor deserve large amounts of money"

d) is the trap choice, as the IQ test is entirely for the benefit of the candidate so they feel like they're part of the "exclusive club" of smart non-minorities who by definition can be trusted around and deserve large amounts of money. b) is then the obvious answer as there is no risk of a non-minority complaining because only an asshole would apply to work at a big hedge fund.

[Brian_K_White]

I feel like the test is only one bit, did they cooperate and take it or not?

For me that would be the only piece of information I'd find interesting,

but before that could happen I'd have to be willing to inflict that kind of nonsense on someone in the first place.

"I asked you to perform a demeaning task just to see if you would do it, not because I actually need it done. I wouldn't have done it. This is how the best relationships all start."

[tick_tock_tick]

Yep it's so racist the NFL uses it yearly....