All of those are what I would call common knowledge that an average human being should know.
Not that they are relevant in any way to the job Edison was offering - but they would serve as a GREAT way to indicate whatever a person answering these questions is well educated and well oriented in the world surrounding them.
There's an assumption there that there is some reason why some of these are relevant to "common knowledge". Perhaps they had recently been in the news or something...
For example, I guessed that Spitsbergen was in Austria/Germany. It's actually a town of <3000 in Norway. Not significant, until you realize that it was the subject of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty between 41 countries. The Edison list purports to be from 1921.
So yes, you are exactly right... the man wanted people that were actively self and location aware, nothing wrong with that.
Common knowledge as an indicator of business fit has been proven to be useless (and should be obvious on examination). Knowing which small town is in which country is simply irrelevant to whether a candidate apply for a management position can improve morale or productivity, or whether a candidate applying for a marketing position has any idea on how to convince customers to purchase a product.
Common knowledge simply has no relation to actual skill in a set field and neither does it have any relation to intelligence. This is doubly so true today with any of these questions being answerable within seconds on a smartphone, and the thoughts instead turned to actually using the information to accomplish something useful.
It's possibly a good indicator of how well they absorb information and/or how much they read or pay attention to the news, or wherever they are learning these random facts from. I'm not saying that means a lot though, and I definitely would have failed this test.
Not necessarily, there are too many variables. The person in question may not own a radio. He may have spent a number of months in hospital because his wife got sick. An older person may have learned one of the facts over twenty years ago, and has since forgotten it. By random chance, one of the facts may have been heard by the candidate 10 minutes beforehand.
In short: it's a good indicator of so many random variables as to be simply an indicator of chaos itself. Don't use anything like this in any kind of test in which the results count - you will invariably get the short end of the stick with one or more candidates. Stick to measures that directly affect the job at hand, and culture fit.
I'm sure the answers to the questions would correlate fairly well to that even if there is some noise. And since there are a lot of questions that would smooth out the ones people get right or wrong just by chance.
I'd add: Watching the reaction of a person when they don't have one or more factoids at their fingertips is also useful for measuring the temperament of people.
The fact that he torqued a candidate so badly that it resulted in a letter to the NYT tells you that Edison didn't miss too much by passing on that hire.
I don't see why a candidates willingness to stand up for themselves would be a negative trait, per se. If anything, it reflects poorly on the interviewer.
Because it is inevitable that an exec will be in a position where it is expected that (s)he knows something but does not.
There are many execs who will then react with a "willingness to stand up for themselves", and god knows that culture exists at some companies. Screening for people who have a different emotional response results in (imho) a higher-functioning team.
The reactions seem to be to the entire interview process, and not a single question. Thus, we're talking about the "whole package", wherein the interviewer's attitude and demeanor are probably more important than any individual question.
All of those are what I would call common knowledge that an average human being should know.
I don't mean this in a rude way, but if you honestly believe an average human being will/should know all these, prepare yourself for a life of abject disappointment.
I am disappointed every single day. Forget asking people which countries border France, I know people who don't know which countries border their own country. Hell, I even know people who don't know the day the WW2 started/ended. Sure, you can get around it life without knowing these. It will cause you no harm, not knowing how the world works around you. Sure. But I would like to live in a world where people actually put some effort into their education,and not just openly boast around about not knowing stuff. Like it is a competition to be ignorant or something, I don't know.
I agree with the spirit and most of the letter of your comment. But....
Why is the day of the beginning and end of WW2 such a stand-out piece of trivia that you would expect every person who puts "some effort into their education" to know it? You say it as though you find it hard to believe that any responsible adult could lack this particular fact. For myself, I fancy that I know a lot of trivia, including a lot of war-history trivia, but I don't know the day of the year on which that war ended (in fact, the only war start/end date I can recall at the moment is the date of the WWI armistice, because my government reminds me every year).
More generally, I did not see a single question in the list in TFA that I would condemn a person for not knowing that particular question, although I definitely "would like to live in a world where people actually put some effort into their education", and in fact I see some practical value in knowing a lot of trivia.
EDIT: Wait, I just read your top-level comment. You believe that ALL of these questions are "common knowledge that an average human being should know"?? Did you read the list? The AVERAGE HUMAN BEING should know the third-smallest State in the United States of America?!? The average human being should know which country consumed the most tea before WWI? You think it's common knowledge (or was in 1921) who wrote "Home, Sweet Home", and the voltage of street cars, and Lincoln's birthplace, and the wood used in axe handles and kerosene barrels? Seriously? That is batshit insane.
Dude. Obviously you need to translate some of these question for modern times - it's hard to know who used most tea before WW2, but it's a fairly common statistic nowadays. Think about it for a second. At the time, when you actually had kerosene barrels laying around, you would know what there were made out of. There's nothing extraordinary to know where Lincoln was born. Home Sweet Home was only getting popular at the beginning of the 20th century, it's like asking somebody today whose slogan was "Change". Obviously everyone will answer Obama,but in a 100 years that will be of no meaning to anyone.
Sure, questions like the one about a lightest/heaviest wood is not so easy,but for a well educated person it should be of no issue. We have this issue nowadays where we don't remember anything - because our brains know that we don't need to. We are always a few clicks away from knowing anything we might need. We read an article and we don't actually remember any solid facts,because we know we can just come back and find them again. 100 years ago people were actually amazingly good with remembering shit, much much better than we are now. They would read something and that would stay in their brain.
WWI ended on the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. The dickhead statesmen came up with this time to make it memorable. Do you know the hour that any other war ended? Unless it was tied to a mnemonic? If you do, shut down your computer and get some fresh air.
Sure, questions like the one about a lightest/heaviest wood is not so easy,but for a well educated person it should be of no issue
Are you trolling? I'd make an honest bet that less than 1 percent of people holding masters degrees could answer this. People would just guess (incorrectly) mahogany and get on with their non-trivial business. Hell, forget 1 percent. Less than .01 percent more likely. Harvard graduates can't even tell you why we have seasons.
> Obviously you need to translate some of these question for modern times - it's hard to know who used most tea before WW2, but it's a fairly common statistic nowadays.
I was not aware that Edison survived past WW2... Maybe you need to review the facts a little more. FYI, generally, in the time period that this article was written, the war referred to the great war, aka WW1
I am not completely sure what countries bound France nor the exact date of D-Day, because I don't value rote learning of insignificant stuff. Memorization of random facts is as useless as knowing nothing. I would appreciate much more if you can talk at length about one single topic and if you understand it pretty well.
I do agree that some people boast about their ignorance but that is another problem entirely.
Really? You think the voltage on a street car and the wood that kerosene barrels is made of is common knowledge? I would say that I knew maybe 1/3rd of the questions in that list.
Yes. Will I boast if I say that I honestly don't know just 3 things on this list?
Back when I was at school, we had all the subjects as mandatory, chemistry, physics, biology, history - there was no choice like you get today. So yes, I happen to know the weight of the air,or the lightest/heaviest types of wood. And if you like researching things(in my case - spending hours on wikipedia) questions like the one about optical lenses are easy.
And I am pretty sure that's what Edison was looking for - people who are curious about stuff and research it themselves. Common knowledge in my opinion,because in an ideal world I would like everyone to be that curious about the world that surrounds them.
I wouldn’t say you were boasting, I’d say you were lying. You happen to know off the top of your head that:
African black wood is the heaviest lumber. That’s the first thing you thought of? Really?
What wood kerosene barrel would have been made of in the 20’s.
What the voltage of a street car was in the 20’s.
Where Spitsbergen is (unless you have been there or in the area).
What war material Chile exported to the USA in WW1.
What the highest rise of tide is in North America .
What state has the largest amethyst mine.
Who invented the modern paper making machine (modern in the 20’s).
What ingredients are in the best white paint.
What the populations of Germany, Japan, England, Australia, and Russia are.
What part of Germany you get toys from.
Uh-huh. You should go on Jeopardy, you would make Ken Jennings look like a clown.
First one,yes.
Second one - I actually used to work in a wolframium mine in Panasqueira, Portugal,when I was 17 and learned A LOT about mines in general in my spare time. Kerosene has been used a lot in mining lamps,so yes, I did read about it.
I did research about one of the first electric cars in the UK,that was used widely as a milk delivery truck - back from the same period, so I happen to know the voltage.
Why did I need to be near Spitsbergen to know where it is? I used to know a guy who was a fisherman on the Barents Sea - he would tell stories of where they went, hence Spitsbergen. Also, I live in Europe, so I am fairly comfortable with pointing out where stuff it.
I mentioned before, we had all the subjects at school, there was no choice like you get now. Write a couple of essays about WW1,you will come across random stuff like the war material exported from chile, guaranteed.
Highest rise of tide I remember from looking up the tides when I was wondering as a kid how comes that Netherlands is not flooded by tides constantly, so I read a lot about it.
No, I don't know which state has the largest amethyst mine, one of those 3 I didn't know from the top of my head.
I know what is used in the white paint nowadays - I guess that counts,since I have no way of knowing what could be the best answer in the 1920. The same goes to population - but again, living in the middle of Europe helps with that. And toys are easy if you live in a country that imports loads of things from Germany,having a border with it.
It wasn't about what you know it was about what he knows. The problem in judging people the way you do is that you assume that everybody else lives like you do and spends their time like you do. Some people digest facts for a living, some people digest facts for a hobby. Some consider learning a life long vocation, facts, skills the lot. So don't be surprised if someone has an encyclopaedic knowledge about seemingly (to you, at least) useless facts.
Apropos useless facts, did you know shellac was made from insects?
I love researching things. I spend way too much time on Wikipedia and watching documentaries. That doesn't mean I remember small details about everything.
For example: I remembered reading about the topics relating to some of the test questions, but was unable to answer most of them.
Remembering a bunch of relatively useless facts does not make you a capable professional.
Given some of them are disputed (heaviest type of wood is one of about three depending on who you ask and when (some are nearly extinct and like all natural things, vary considerably)), some require knowing knowledge from Edison's timeframe (what planet was recently found to be enormous size - certainly wasn't Jupiter - possibly Neptune) and a couple are opinions (what country and city produce the finest china), I feel like there is a lot of leeway in the answers, but knowing all but three seems unlikely.
Considering in the 1920s the US was in the middle of converting horse drawn street cars into electric, and this is an application for EDISON, I certainly hope you would know that answer.
Kerosene was the most important fuel used up until the 1920s, so I'd imagine most people would have seen kerosene barrels personally. A few would have derived the type of wood via curiosity.
A street car? What's that? I've seen them in movies. I guess in the nineteen-twenties, knowledge about street cars might have been much more likely to have been in the minds of engineers that Edison would want to hire.
Common knowledge now with the Internet? Yes. At the time? No.
Those were difficult and discriminating questions at the time.
This is a time when poor girls who couldn't afford stockings wouldn't be allowed to go to school and the majority of people didn't have indoor plumbing let alone the luxury of books. Heck, 6% of possible candidates of the country were immediately eliminated because they would have not been able to read or write in any language, let alone know the arithmetic, physics, etc, required.
They're significantly less discriminatory than you would think.
Keep in mind that he's not interviewing every single person in the country, he's interviewing college graduates.
Not only was having a college education not as prevalent as it is now, the sole fact that the people who are taking this test have graduated from college eliminates every single one of the "discriminatory" accusations you are making. If anything, the college admissions process (an obvious prerequisite of the test) is discriminatory, not the test itself.
What is the point that you are trying to make? If somebody did not know how to read or write, they were not a suitable candidate anyway, and that's not discriminatory against illiterate people, like looking for someone with a maths degree is not discriminatory towards people without one.
I don't think you know what the word "discriminatory" means:
Adjective
Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things.
You may say that it is not practical to not be discriminatory. You can also say that it is not immoral to be discriminatory. Both of those may or may not be true.
However, it is certainly discriminatory to use a test that is biased towards educated white men with college degrees and access and time to read newspapers.
Yes it is, if you're hiring them for shoving shit around. If you hire for an engineering position (what was this Edison guy doing anyway?), then those fancy writing and math skills and whatnot might be quite necessary.
I don't see how being able to recall on demand who Leonidas was indicates education or being well oriented with the world. I know, but discovering that someone didn't know wouldn't change my evaluation of how educated they are unless they claimed to be a historian.
I read through half of them and completely disagree. Most of the ones I saw had to do with history and geography. Those are the two subjects you'd learn from a formal education that I care the least about. They have no bearing on your ability to manage a team or run a profitable business (unless the business has something to do with those topics).
Where is my time better spent? Reading the biography about an ancient historical figure or reading a programming book relevant to my profession (and passions)? I argue the latter, especially since I don't care about said historical figure.
"Should know", "well educated", "well oriented." All these qualifiers are subjective and are consequently meaningless. I could say the opposite of what you said and I'd be just as right (only taking into account what was written by us both).
You'll need to operationalize what you mean to make any sense, and then to be right you'll need to provide evidence.
"... but they would serve as a GREAT way to indicate whatever a person answering these questions is well educated and well oriented in the world surrounding them."
So then you have to decide, is having a person that is "well educated" and well oriented preferable to one that isn't?
