Chinese Company Seeks US Workers With 125 IQ 553
CWmike writes "A Chinese IT outsourcing company that has started hiring new US computer science graduates to work in Shanghai requires prospective job candidates to demonstrate an IQ of 125 or above on a test it administers to sort out job applicants. In doing so, Bleum Inc. is following a hiring practice it applies to college recruits in China. But a new Chinese college graduate must score an IQ of 140 on the company's test. The lower IQ threshold for new US graduates reflects the fact that the pool of US talent available to the company is smaller than the pool of Chinese talent, Bleum said."
Re:World is changing (Score:5, Informative)
Percentage of people with an IQ higher than 140: 0.31349%
Percentage of people with an IQ higher than 125: 4.15182%
(Based on Wechsler)
Article missing it's mark (Score:5, Informative)
I think the article missed the reason they are hiring US people. "To speak English"
They aren't hiring people from the US to do CS jobs, they are hiring them to train their mainland China employees on how to communicate in English on the specific topic (computer science) that otherwise would be completely lost on regular "GREAT ENGLISH JOBS IN CHINA TESOL" type of people who may know English but know little about computer science.
Re:Ok, this is stupid (Score:4, Informative)
IQ is highly overrated
In practice, it's almost useless...
Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.
I'll quote [friendfeed.com] the original source of that claim, Peter Norvig, and his refuting of that interpretation:
What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do...
(emphasis mine)
Eivind.
Re:Ok, this is stupid (Score:3, Informative)
What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do... - Peter Norvig from Bookmarklet
http://friendfeed.com/peternorvig/7a110005/google-broken-hiring-process-gawker?embed=1 [friendfeed.com]
Re:let creation of a new nigger begin (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IQ isn't everything (Score:4, Informative)
Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance.
Citation needed in the same way that citation is needed for water not being wet.
This is similar to college only accepting students with a score in the top 1% on the ACT/SAT - they can do well on a test, but that doesn't mean they are a good student.
That's true, though it also does not mean that they won't do well. It's a correlation - it doesn't automatically imply any specific outcome, just makes it more likely.
Re:Ok, this is stupid (Score:5, Informative)
(Repeat of similar post above, where you made this misinterpretation too.)
http://gawker.com/5392947/googles-broken-hiring-process [gawker.com]
And I quote Peter Norvig
One of the interesting things we've found, when trying to predict how well somebody we've hired is going to perform when we evaluate them a year or two later, is one of the best indicators of success within the company was getting the worst possible score on one of your interviews. We rank people from one to four, and if you got a one on one of your interviews, that was a really good indicator of success.
I'll quote [friendfeed.com] the original source of that claim, Peter Norvig, and his refuting of that interpretation:
What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do...
(emphasis mine)
Eivind.
Re:IQ isn't everything (Score:5, Informative)
> Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance.
IQ does correlate with job performance, especially for higher-complexity jobs.
See, for example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/mdj3/MGMT580/Readings/Week%202/Schmidt.pdf [washington.edu]
Re:World is changing (Score:1, Informative)
Kind of one-sided. The Chinese government is authoritarian and increasingly brittle on account of it; they have a huge pollution and environmental degradation problem, not to mention encroaching deserts that periodically whip up sand for Beijing to enjoy. And on the economic front, more Chinese workers are now demanding higher wages as the country develops; and they're becoming more materialistic; and the Chinese government keeps its currency artificially low, which is a long-term losing solution.
Re:World is changing (Score:1, Informative)
I think at least one in five Americans likes to have fun with silly surveys.
Re:World is changing (Score:2, Informative)
When you take the exam, you have to write down that you promise not to disclose anything about it to anyone else. If they found out that you cheated or gave answers to others, you might have something bad happen, like have your score revoked. But my colleague said in China, "everyone does it".
And it shows too, since grad committees won't even consider a Chinese applicant unless they have a near-perfect score, since they know they all cheat. In a sick way, though, if the Chinese student doesn't have a high score they aren't considered at all because they didn't even bother to try cheating.
One of my Chinese peers showed me the Chinese website that compiled questions as well as the pile of questions they used to study for the exam. It kind of pissed me off because I studied for months and months for hours a day to do well, while they just studied for a couple weeks, and got a much better score.
Re:World is changing (Score:2, Informative)
"They don't let banks cheat and collapse the country like in the US where everyone must get the latest HDTV, big cars and just spend money on non-important items and entertainment. That is how US has been doing for many many years and loaning more and more money along the way."
Except they allow the government to put them in jail for practicing free speech, organized religion, or anything against the best interest of the top members. The government has been known to "acquire" private property as they see fit and there is a one-child rule where you need to get a license from the government to have more than one.
Have you ever been to China? The people in the big cities (IE: making a living that is as much as or more than people in the US) buy just as many "useless" gadgets. The rest don't because they are more worried about getting enough food to eat.
Re:World is changing (Score:3, Informative)
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Chinese banks can get away with being quite a bit more abusive than American banks. Get into debt and collectors will start calling your family, friends and employer in order to intimidate you into paying. Debtors have been known to have their homes defaced. That's when they don't hire a thug to physically rough you up. It's like dealing with gangsters.
There have long been concerns about various economic bubbles there. Either the Chinese government has done an impressive job of keeping their economy in check or they've managed to hide the cracks from the west. There's a crazy real estate bubble growing there and banks have generally been loose with lending standards, although the government has kept that in check to some extent.
Chinese are just as materialistic as the rest of us and I'd argue that they love to flaunt their wealth even more than most Americans outside of Hollywood. Everyone's got to have Louis Vuitton bags, wear rolex watches and drive around in a black S-class Mercedes.
Of course, what the hell do Americans know about how the average person lives in China when news gets filtered through the perspective of wealthy Chinese or politicians?
I don't understand why some many Americans have this stupid tendency to place foreigners on this pedestal, like they're somehow more noble and enlightened than we are and that we're the source of all evil in the world.
Re:IQ isn't everything (Score:3, Informative)
Re:World is changing (Score:1, Informative)
Correct! As any D&D player can (or should be able to) tell you, wisdom and intelligence are not the same thing.
Re:Article missing it's mark (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, this isn't just localized to China.
Japan has the JET [jetprogramme.org] program which just requires you to be a college graduate with decent English skills. You don't even need to speak the language, although you'd probably want to. They pay 3.6 million yen which works out to $40,700 dollars (or around £27,000).
There's also the Korean version, the EPIK [epik.go.kr]. Again you don't need to know the Korean language, and you get paid varying amounts based on how long you've been at the program/how educated you are. You get 1.3 million won in the first month to get you settled, then anywhere from 1.8-2.7 million won a month. 2 million won a month = 24 a year + 1.3 = 25.3 million won, which translates to about $21,000 US (or £13,800).
Before you get all uppity about how much less that is, the Korean one supplies free furnished housing (although utilities must be paid out of your own pocket). On the off chance they can't get you free housing, they tack on an additional 400,000 a month for rent. ($330 US or £220 British)
Still less than the Japanese one, but it really depends on how much rent is. Asian countries really seem to want to pull in English speakers.