[SamReidHughes]

If Mike Mamula can get 49/50 I'm sure you can improve your score. Reading, understanding, and answering those sorts of questions under time pressure is a learnable skill. For example, part of it is learning to read the question just once, or maybe just twice, instead of rereading it multiple times, mentally double-checking your answer, like you would on other tests -- there just isn't enough time.

[fsk]

Are you serious? Not only are people expected to know algorithm brainteasers for interviews, they're also expected to practice every stupid IQ test ever invented?

Instead of studying for interviews, focus on something useful, like learning a new language or framework.

[SamReidHughes]

First of all, I am serious, because I don't think flipping the tech interview justice warrior switch is a useful way to respond to questions by people asking about getting a job.

Second, not everybody needs to practice for some stupid IQ test. Only the would-be false negatives (bad time-sensitive test takers) benefit from practice. IQ tests are a very good way of evaluating applicants. The Wonderlic test might not be the best choice, since it's calibrated towards people of average intelligence and towards more menial facets of cognitive ability, but maybe the company applies the test across all its hiring positions. Maybe ten minutes of its interview process are suboptimal. Of all the reasons not to work at a company, that's a really bad one.

Also, programmers aren't such special people that they have the right to feel insulted for being presented with a ten-minute intelligence test that has the gall to be calibrated towards the average population.

[fsk]

If more people said "This test is insulting!" and walked out, then employers would eventually get the hint.

Also, I'm saying that, if an employer uses the Wonderlic test (or any other 3rd party test), it's negatively correlated with being a good job, based on my experience and evaluating other factors of the interview.