Vince Young's Wonderlics Score

I know certain large tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, etc. use tests that I guess would technically be considered relevant to their field, but in actuality measures a person’s IQ. I have no problem with trying to figure out whether you’re hiring a moron or not. I do have a problem with morons making correlations from football performance to tests designed to make test writers money that really don’t hold up.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t lawyers have to pass a test?

Not an IQ test. They have to pass a test that measures their competency in their profession, not one that measures general intelligence. If you want to make that analogy, then football players would need to take a test that measured their professional competency. It might ask them to evaluate plays, or somehow show their ability to make relevant in-game decisions.

So tests of physical ability are fair game also, because, obviously, that is the way in which they have to perform.

But the Wonderlic is a standardized test … an IQ test. And I don’t have the time right now to look up whether it is at the state or federal level, but there is definitely legislation against submitting employees or potential employees to any test of general intelligence. Perhaps the NFL gets a free pass on this. If they do, it isn’t right.[/quote]

I am not a labor lawyer, but my guess is that their ability to administer this kind of test to prospective draftees somehow falls under the collective bargaining agreement with the union. Again, just a guess.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How about SATs, GREs etc?

These are standardized tests that count for admission to college, scholarships, grants, stipends etc.
[/quote]

But not, generally, non co-op employment. I agree with you that they are forms of IQ test, and I probably shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds me. Oh well.

One of the reasons the ETS has been VERY emphatic that their tests are not IQ tests (even though they are) is because of this legal issue. You certainly don’t want to have a system where a child who has never studied or done homework and has a high IQ is preferred to a student who has an average IQ yet has worked to master all of the material he learned in high school. After all, this is not only unfair to the student who worked, it’s also not very practical; even high IQ students who have done no work in high school will have to struggle to fill in their educational gaps when coming in to college.

Since it isn’t easy to assess the value of a GPA/QPA from a particular
school, district, county, or even state, the argument is supposed to be that the SAT is really a measure of how well you’ve learned all the material that is taught in a standard high school curriculum. That is, the SAT is largely supposed to be a stand-in for GPA. Whether or not this is true in practice is a separate matter.

I have never heard of a job that required SAT or GRE scores, however, unless one counts co-ops and internships.

[quote]RickJames wrote:
I know certain large tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, etc. use tests that I guess would technically be considered relevant to their field, but in actuality measures a person’s IQ.[/quote]

True. Microsoft asks all sorts of “brainteasers” etc. to try to guess at IQ… since they are prohibited, by law, from actually giving an IQ test.

Of course, Microsoft has more leeway than most companies, in this regard, as software engineering is such a broad field with many different problem-solving skillsets involved that they can skirt the legal restrictions by simply asking tough questions that would easily relate to the job in question.

[quote]czzc6 wrote:
A big point of the test isn’t just to test the aptitude of a player to learn the NFL’s offenses and defenses, but to also check for common sense obviously. These guys, some of which come from absolutely nothing, suddenly go from being a college student fulltime to getting paid millions of dollars a year. So what they also want to check for with the test is if that person will even be able to manage all their new money they may not be used and their new lives as a professional athlete. Which is what alot of agents have to handle for their players.[/quote]

I wonder what business it is of my employer’s to know how well or prudently I will/do spend my money.

[quote]T-Raven wrote:
So, you want a surgeon who can’t pass an IQ test working on you?[/quote]

If the surgeon was very competent in his field, I would. I would let a monkey operate on me if he was more qualified (displayed more professional ability and aptitude) than a human surgeon.

Further, surgeons are not administered IQ tests. Surgery is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing the same procedure over and over, and learning the nuances of the procedure that produce the best results. It is not, usually, a field that ought to require a lot of innovation at the time of the operation.

And I don’t think playing football compares to surgery in terms of liability for poor performance, anyway.

You also have to realize that of all of the major sports, ownership in the NFL is the most powerful compared to labor. Besides the fact that a contract in the NFL isn’t guaranteed, the fact that the NFL Draft is not an agreement between a player and a team, and the fact that the NFL Combine is optional (Vince Young and Matt Leinart didn’t throw, for example).

ETS may go out of their way to claim their standardized tests aren’t IQ tests, but performance on each is highly intercorrelated. I blew out all my achievement tests, and I’m just not that studious. Also, Mensa accepts standardized test scores as equivalents for IQ test scores.

I have had to take basic competency tests before I was eligible for employment before. I don’ think they were to test intelligence though, probably more along the lines of making sure applicants can apply basic math and read at least a 6th grade level.
Regarding the combine though, would it be illegal for any other employer to check to see how fast you run the 40? Or how many times you can bench 225? I would think the NFL can test whatever they want because 1) The tests are not a condition of employment, and 2) The tests are voluntary.

[quote]zarathus wrote:
ETS may go out of their way to claim their standardized tests aren’t IQ tests, but performance on each is highly intercorrelated. I blew out all my achievement tests, and I’m just not that studious. Also, Mensa accepts standardized test scores as equivalents for IQ test scores.[/quote]

I agree that they have strong correlation, but that is a separate issue from the legal classification of a test that purports to be a measure of acadamic achievement, with aptitude ostensibly being a function of prior study.

Mensa does NOT accept the newer SAT scores as equivalents for IQ tests. They do accept them before a certain date. At any rate, this only addresses the dubious status of the SATs, not the Wonderlic, which openly claims itself to be a measure of general intelligence.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
czzc6 wrote:
A big point of the test isn’t just to test the aptitude of a player to learn the NFL’s offenses and defenses, but to also check for common sense obviously. These guys, some of which come from absolutely nothing, suddenly go from being a college student fulltime to getting paid millions of dollars a year. So what they also want to check for with the test is if that person will even be able to manage all their new money they may not be used and their new lives as a professional athlete. Which is what alot of agents have to handle for their players.

I wonder what business it is of my employer’s to know how well or prudently I will/do spend my money.

[/quote]

Most companies do credit checks as part of your pre-employment verification these days anyway.

[quote]Kayrob wrote:
I would think the NFL can test whatever they want because 1) The tests are not a condition of employment, and 2) The tests are voluntary.[/quote]

Microsoft cannot, I believe, even give employees the option of submitting an IQ test. Whether or not the tests are voluntary is probably irrelevant, since failure to take them probably amounts to a 0 percent chance of employment, and the results factor into the proffered pay.

Again, testing basic competencies required for a job (having to be able to read or do basic arithmetic, for example), including physical competency (having to get through basic training or the police academy, or even be able to run a certain distance within a certain time for an athlete) are generally ok.

But again, I am not a lawyer; I assume that the NFL has very high-priced legal minds on their payroll that make sure all this stuff is kosher, or they have paid the congressmen necessary to get an exclusion.

[quote]Kuz wrote:
I am not a labor lawyer, but my guess is that their ability to administer this kind of test to prospective draftees somehow falls under the collective bargaining agreement with the union. Again, just a guess.[/quote]

Can agreements with a union supercede legislated fair-employment practices?

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Most companies do credit checks as part of your pre-employment verification these days anyway.[/quote]

Hmm, the only time I’ve had this done was when I was applying for a clearance. But I’ll defer to you, as you actually have legal training, whereas I have none.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Kuz wrote:
I am not a labor lawyer, but my guess is that their ability to administer this kind of test to prospective draftees somehow falls under the collective bargaining agreement with the union. Again, just a guess.

Can agreements with a union supercede legislated fair-employment practices?[/quote]

There may be some potential for that kind of thing. Again, not my specialty, but part of me is thinking that if the Wonderlic tests are in place, this may be the reason it was allowed. Obviously you cannot make agreements that supersede any law, but in this case, there may be a proviso such that it is an allowable piece of the pre-employment consideration to have such a test provided there is a collective bargaining agreement in place.

Heck, having a union negotiated collective bargaining agreement in place is the reason Major League Baseball is allowed to maintain its antitrust exemption.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Most companies do credit checks as part of your pre-employment verification these days anyway.

Hmm, the only time I’ve had this done was when I was applying for a clearance. But I’ll defer to you, as you actually have legal training, whereas I have none.[/quote]

I think the rationale behind the check tends could be related to the fact that you may have some kind of company credit card at some point, so they don’t want to have some yahoo with the outlandish spending habits with any kind of control over company funds. Part of me wonders if the other reason is that companies have somehow made a case that your credit rating is some kind of indication on your fitness as an employee (which seems a little tenuous).

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Part of me wonders if the other reason is that companies have somehow made a case that your credit rating is some kind of indication on your fitness as an employee (which seems a little tenuous).[/quote]

That’s interesting. When getting a clearance, they check that sort of thing to make sure you don’t have huge debts that your salary can’t support; i.e., you don’t have a major incentive to sell out your country for 50K.

A simple Google search revealed the following:

Check out the last few paragraphs for the msot relevant information. I’ll check for other sources as well.

Well, I’m a very long time lurker who rarely posts, but I suppose I’m uniquely qualified on this one. I’m a labor attorney with a graduate level education in psychology. A few points:

  1. IQ tests, or any test for that matter, are not per se illegal. If challenged, the employer will eventually have to prove that the test predicts job performance to a certain level of acceptability. They will also have to show no “disparate impact” - that the test doesn’t have the statistical effect of screening out minorities, etc.

  2. I’m familiar with the Wonderlic test - I used it in a battery of tests years ago to screen management candidates. How it correlates with pro football success is beyond me. But then, I don’t think the physical ability tests are well designed either.

  3. If a guy scored a 16, he’s not too bright. I would have had concerns about his potential as a restaurant manager. I’d suggest that it has zip to do with his ability to throw a football 30 yards while being hammered by an NFL linebacker.

[quote]RickJames wrote:
A simple Google search revealed the following:

Check out the last few paragraphs for the msot relevant information. I’ll check for other sources as well.[/quote]

Sorry for not doing a “simple google search.” I didn’t find your source to be very conclusive.

What I am reading in my own simple google search is that IQ testing has been held to be illegal if it has the effect of discriminating against minorities, and is therefore an excuse to not hire them. I don’t have time to do any further research today… although I should apologize for hijacking the thread.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
RickJames wrote:
A simple Google search revealed the following:

Check out the last few paragraphs for the msot relevant information. I’ll check for other sources as well.

Sorry for not doing a “simple google search.” I didn’t find your source to be very conclusive.

What I am reading in my own simple google search is that IQ testing has been held to be illegal if it has the effect of discriminating against minorities, and is therefore an excuse to not hire them. I don’t have time to do any further research today… although I should apologize for hijacking the thread.[/quote]

No reason for the attitude…I was just sharing what I found quickly. Read the post above yours for the most thorough explanation on this thread, though.