How Unfair Is Testing?

Editorial, Computerworld, December 6, 1982.

Sometimes when you protect one group, you ultimately are going to hurt another.

This seems to be the effect, to some extent, of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) regulations as they apply to testing of entry-level programmers. In an attempt to prevent discrimination against minority groups, the EEOC makes it very difficult for a company to use aptitude tests to screen applicants for programmer trainee programs.

Even if a firm is using a well-known test, it must have this test validated for the particular population it will be testing. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that a lot of companies simply cannot afford to undergo.

However, their alternatives are difficult ones. The first is to go ahead and to use the unvalidated test and risk class action suits that could be brought if an applicant who fails the test feels he was discriminated against. The other option is to avoid testing altogether and just hope for the best when choosing programmer trainees.

This latter course is unfair to two groups of people. The first is the employer who is spending substantial amounts of money to bring each programmer trainee up to speed. It is difficult enough for companies to justify training budgets in hard economic times. If they feel their money is not well spent, they most likely will eliminate the training program and opt for experienced DPers in the future, closing off one more door for the person trying to break into programming.

More significant, perhaps, is the effect a lack of screening can have on the potential employee. If a person is hired as a programmer and fails, it is a difficult blow for him psychologically. It also may cause him to give up on data processing entirely, rather than to try to determine why he failed and improve his skills in that area.

Based on recent interviews with individuals responsible for selection and training of DP professionals, a number of companies are using testing, and it is working for them. It is too bad that tough EEOC regulations, however justified, are discouraging other companies from doing the same.