[tyvkiuiyi]

Pure genius!

I had a lecturer (a Brit) who would insert the phrase 'Rule Britannia' into lecture notes to see if anyone ever read them.

There is also an urban myth about some entrance exam for Police/Army/Pilots etc where the instructions say read all the questions first. And the last question says, do not answer any questions just 'do some arbitrary thing' - to check wether you follow instructions properly.

[hieronymusN]

Not an urban myth - that little joke was pulled more than once in US grammar schools in the 70/80's

[snprbob86]

I've had several teachers pull that crummy joke when I was in grammar school in the 90s too. This is more or less the test: http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24333&star...

Personally, I don't think there is a lesson to be learned here. It amounts to nothing more than a lame practical joke.

[boredguy8]

The lesson is: some people really like hierarchy and bureaucracy. Probably appropriate for pre-flight checks. Probably not appropriate for children in school.

[neoclassical]

It's a cheap shot, but it does cut down on obliviously repeating the process you've been taught. We want people to read directions for any new process, no?

[cakesy]

It teacher you to follow instructions.

The one we had was a set of increasingly complex instructions, and the last instruction saying to just sit there quietly. So you would be working hard at solving the problems, and various people would just be sitting there with a smile on there face. You knew these people, since they were your classmates, so they weren't savants, so how did they get through these problems so quickly. Eventually each one of you realise, and look for the trick, getting to the last question. There is always someone who just keeps going.

[snprbob86]

1) No, it doesn't. The wording is typically "read everything before doing anything". That completely ambiguous. Most exams start with meaningless instructions about which pages you can and can't write on. How to fill in bubbles completely. What type of writing implement to use. It is a complete waste of your time to read initial instructions on exams, just as it is a complete waste of your time to read the initial remarks in most other aspects of life.

2) Even if it did teach you to follow instructions, is that a good lesson? I think I've only gotten to where I am in life by explicitly NOT following instructions.

[derefr]

#2 is not the lesson actually learned. The high-level instructions contradict the low-level instructions, and the lesson is on how to handle that (usually by following the high-level instructions.) This is the lesson that the Swedish military qualification exam posted here earlier tested (with "orders of a superior" as the low-level instruction and "Human rights" as the high-level instruction.)

[steveplace]

Had a college professor do that to me. Said to read all the instructions-- instructions said skip #3 (4 question test).

#3 Just happened to be the toughest material of the class, where a mastery of both Haitian witchcraft and the Coriolis effect were needed.

[jamesbritt]

Yeah. I got that, and learned, once again, that RTFM was not part of my skill set.

[JDigital]

It's a serious usability fault, not a clever hack. This test paper fails to comply with the user's expectations, like a webpage that breaks the Back button.

[benmathes]

This all depends on where the onus lies. If you're developing a consumer-focused web application and your instructions are extremely complicated the onus is on the app creator to simplify. There are plenty of situations, however, where the relationship is really a partnership, and both sides need to fully get up to speed with each other. The Van Halen Case appears to be the latter.

[philwelch]

Sometimes people have habits, like following their own expectations and assumptions rather than paying attention to detail and accurately comprehending clear, simple, literal instructions. These are good habits to test for, and good habits to break, in many instances. Not everything in the world neatly maps onto people's assumptions and intuitions.

[vaksel]

Not sure if that rule britania story is applicable, what was being tested? For students to stand up and start yelling U - S- A - U - S - A - U - S - A.

[jonny_noog]

There is also an urban myth about some entrance exam for Police/Army/Pilots etc where the instructions say read all the questions first. And the last question says, do not answer any questions just 'do some arbitrary thing' - to check wether you follow instructions properly.

I have actually experienced this kind of test. in my case, it was coupled with telling the test participants that they only have a short amount of time to complete the test, thus making it even more likely that the test participants would start answering questions immediately rather than following instructions to the letter.

Particularly when this extra time limit trick may be used, I'm not sure what value the test really had. Supposedly, even the police and armed forces are looking for people with initiative who can think creatively and not just mindless automatons who follow orders without question. This kind of test would not seem to align with that goal.

[rosser]

Being able to notice little details like that is completely orthogonal to an individual's relative initiative and creativity vs. automaton-hood. It's probably often enough that those very details you were "too rushed to notice" are the ones that could kill you in that kind of work.

[jonny_noog]

I see your point but thinking back on the situation as it was framed, it still seems to me that it was a direct test as to whether one will follow the procedure as it was stated or opt to stray from it. What conclusions could then be drawn from that are up for speculation I suppose.

Perhaps creativity vs. "automaton-hood" is not the dichotomy being tested and the value of the test really is more to do with following instructions when not doing so could kill you. But the sceptic/rebel in me wonders about those situations where following the instructions may well get you killed. I am not in the military or law enforcement and for better or worse, past experiences have taught me to be suspicious of both.

[DougBTX]

If you only have a short period of time, even better to skim through the test: to look for the easy questions to start with.

[wallflower]

The anxiety of one-off offset mistakes (e.g. filling in the Scantron incorrectly) aside, I think computer based testing makes it harder to do random access of questions during a test.

[miked]

When I was an undergrad, one of the sharper students wrote a paper for a teacher who was famous for not reading the homework. In the middle of the paper he wrote a page or two extolling the virtues of the "come from" statement, and why it was superior to the "goto" statement. She gave him an 'A' on the paper.

[philwelch]

My dad gave a test like that to people when he was in the Marine Corps. I'm not sure when he did it or in what unit but he says it was a test of their ability to follow directions. Since my dad had a lot of commands over maintenance, support, and engineer units it makes sense.

[dangoldin]

I've had that done to me on a test in elementary school. After going through a third of the test doing the most menial problems, I read the last question and realized what my problem was. At that point it was just entertaining watching everyone else struggle through with it.