• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,188
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. AGENDA FOR TODAY Welcome – Simon Rogers The economic forecast – Bryan Finn, Business Economics Ltd A comprehensive analysis of the macro economic factors currently affecting graduate recruitment and summary of predictions for 2013. Changing graduate recruitment algorithms? – Jane Clark, Barclays’Head of Corporate and Investment Banking Campus Recruitment, Europe and Asia & Iain Heath, Head of Graduate Programmes, Centrica AGR monitors its members’ selection criteria and has noticed an upwards trend with the degree class sought. Will the HEAR provide employers with better data on graduate achievements? The old markers are the best – Prof. Adrian Furnham, writer, psychologist & consultant on organisational behaviour ‘Bright, resilient and conscientious’ are the best predictors of educational attainment and they also correlate with success at work. Dump the 2:1 and UCAS points! – Simon Howard, Chairman, Work Group PLC Using a 2:1 as a predictor of success is about as valid as picking Derby winners with a pin. Simon believes that “if it’s more white middle class recruits that you’re after, then probably best stick with it”.
  • 2. Enter one of the nine student judged awardsClosing deadline: 31 January 2013
  • 3. And find out how you didon 3 April 2013 atLondon’s Grosvenor House To buy tickets or a table go to www.targetjobsawards.co.uk or call 020 7061 1927
  • 4. UK economy: GDP growthAnnual % change 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6%
  • 5. UK economy: recruitment cycleAnnual % change 6% GDP 20% Recruit 4% 10% 0% 2% -10% 0% -20% -30% -2% -40% -4% -50% -6% -60%
  • 6. UK economy: GDP & recessions GDP Index1021009896 1980s 1990s94 Current929088 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
  • 7. World economy: oil prices$ per barrel 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
  • 8. UK economy: share pricesFTSE 100 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500
  • 9. UK economy: retail sales Annual % change10%8%6%4%2%0%-2%-4%-6%
  • 10. UK economy: house pricesAnnual % change 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25%
  • 11. UK economy: consumer confidenceBalance 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40
  • 12. UK economy: unemployment% of workforce 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0
  • 13. UK economy: job vacancies000s 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400
  • 14. UK economy: cost of labour
  • 15. UK economy: job vacancies bysectorAnnual % change Aug-Oct 2012 Construction Education Hospitality Health & social Services Retail&Dist Public admin Man Administration Transport Professional Entertainment Financial Info & Comms -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
  • 16. UK economy: new graduate unemployment% of graduate workforce, 0-2 years
  • 17. Future prospects: GDPforecasts 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2012 -0.5% 2013 -1.0% -1.5% -2.0%
  • 18. UK economy: new graduate unemployment% of graduate workforce, 0-2 years 20 18 16 14 12 10 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
  • 19. Pride and prejudice? The Centricadebate•  In 2011, 64% of UK students gained a 1st or 2:1 (HESA)•  In 2011, 4% of UK students gained less than a 2:2 (HESA)•  1980: 3%, 4%, 13%•  2010: 23%, 19%, 23% (The Guardian)•  ‘The Centrica Graduate Programme 2012 – 4% need not apply’
  • 20. Diversity - rarely uniform•  2:2s – 15% of intakes from 2008-10•  Outperformed by those with 2:1s and 1sts whilst on Graduate Programme•  What a difference a Masters makes•  Who are the people behind the stats?•  32% of white students excluded•  49% of Asian students excluded•  62% of black students excluded (Darius Norell, Spring Project)
  • 21. The value of the HEAR•  Provides a broader picture of candidates achievements and full transcript of all module results, which enhances degree classification•  Provides students with an accredited university record, both academic and extracurricular, during their time at university•  Gives visibility to employers of students’ ability to demonstrate academic and non- academic skills learnt at university•  Provides clear, reliable and verifiable information•  Provides a basis for examples or questions in the interview and selection process•  Allows a targeted focus on students’ on- going training and development
  • 22. Jensen Eysenck Cattell Fluid Ability “g” Crystallised Costa & McCrae (Test of Power) Multiple intelligence Eysenck CattellIndividual Normal Traits JungDifferences Abnormal Types Kolb Personality Cognitive (Test of Preferences) Styles Learning Hogan Coping Disorders Lemer Belief & Value Rotter Rokeach
  • 23. Individual differencesPersonality Intelligence 1 “No man’s land” 2 3 Squatters/hot intelligences Behaviour (performance) 4 What 5 next?
  • 24. Central questions•  Do personality traits predict educational outcome?•  If so, which and how much variance do they account for?•  Is the trait-performance link dependent on discipline?•  To what extent do intelligence test scores predict educational outcome?•  Does crystallised intelligence predict better than fluid intelligence?•  What variance is accounted for?•  Together, how much variance typically does personality and intelligence account for in predicting school examination grades?
  • 25. Personality correlates of psychometricintelligence: the big five and ability test scores n N E O A CGeneral intelligence -.15* .08* .33* .01 .02(psychometric g)Crystallised -.09* .11* .30* .04 -.05intelligence (gc)Cognitive speed -.04 .06* -.05 .04 .04Visual perception -.04* .06* .24* .02 -.10Mathematical/ -.17* .09* .01 -.05 -.15*numerical ability Note. *p < .05. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. Table and results from Ackerman and Heggestad’s (1997) meta analysis of 135 samples.
  • 26. Personality correlates of school grades•  N-- Anxiety inhibits performance at high levels•  E- Extraverts distracted, bored by preparation•  O+++ Intellectual curiosity and adventurous•  A Usually unrelated to grade•  C+++ Need for achievement, diligence important for success
  • 27. Intelligence and educationalachievementIan J. Deary, Steve Strand, Pauline Smith, andCres Fernandes.Department of Psychology, University of EdinburghCentre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research,University of Warwick, UKNFER-Nelson, London, UKIntelligence, Vol 35(1) pp. 13-21
  • 28. AbstractThis 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000 + Englishchildren examined the association between psychometric intelligenceat age 11 years and educational achievement in national examinationsin 25 academic subjects at age 16.The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearmans gfrom CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSEscores) was 0.81.General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects.Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% inEnglish to 18.1% in Art and Design.Girls showed no advantage in g, but performed significantly better onall subjects except Physics. This was not due to their better verbalability.
  • 29. ResultsTable shows correlations betweengeneral cognitive ability and GCSEscores GCSE Subject Correlations: CAT g Science GCSE Subject Correlations: Mathematics 0.77 CAT g Double Science 0.68 Overall Score Single Science 0.60 GCSE total Points 0.69 Physics 0.50 GCSE Best 8 0.72 Chemistry 0.46 Arts and Humanities Biology 0.51 English 0.67 Social Science English Literature 0.59 Geography 0.65 Drama 0.47 History 0.63 Religious Education 0.52 Business 0.56 French 0.64 Information Technology 0.47 German 0.61 Information Technology 0.48 Spanish 0.62 Short Course
  • 30. Big Five personalitypredictors of post-secondaryacademic performanceMelissa C. O’Connor *& Sampo V. PaunonenDepartment of Psychology, Social Science Centre, The University ofWestern Ontario,London, Ontario, CanadaPersonality and Individual Differences Vol. 45 (5) pp. 971-990
  • 31. AbstractA meta-analysis showed conscientiousness, in particular, to be moststrongly and consistently associated with academic success.Openness to Experience was sometimes positively associated withscholastic achievement, whereas Extraversion was sometimesnegatively related to the same criterion, although the empiricalevidence regarding these latter two dimensions was somewhat mixed.Furthermore, personality predictors can account for variance inacademic performance beyond that accounted for by measures ofcognitive ability.
  • 32. Results
  • 33. Conscientiousness andEysenckian psychoticism aspredictors of school grades:A one-year longitudinal studyPatrick C.L. Heaven *, Joseph Ciarrochi, & WilmaVialleDepartment of Psychology, University of Wollongong, NorthfieldsAvenue, Wollongong, AustraliaPersonality and Individual Differences Vol. 42 (3) pp. 535-546
  • 34. AbstractUsing data from the Wollongong Youth Study, we assessed the extentto which psychoticism (P) and conscientiousness (C) (both Time 1)predict academic performance one year later.Participants were in their first year of high school at Time 1(N = 784; 382 males and 394 females; 8 did not indicate theirgender). The mean age was 12.30 yrs. (SD = 0.49). End of year gradeswere obtained for English, Science, Mathematics, Religious studies,Visual art, and Design.C, but not P, significantly predicted Total grade as well as outcomes inEnglish, Religious studies, Visual art, and Design.The impact of P was more modest. Changes in P and C over time werealso related to academic performance at Time 2.
  • 35. Results
  • 36. Fluid intelligence, personalitytraits and scholastic success:Empirical evidence in a sample of Italianhigh school studentsAnnamaria Di Fabio & Lara BusoniDepartment of Psychology, University of Florence, ItalyPersonality and Individual Differences Vol 43(8) pp. 2095-2014
  • 37. AbstractThe aim of the present study was to investigate the role of intelligenceand personality scholastic success and, particularly, verify theexistence of incremental validity compared to cognitive ability.A sample of 286 students were administered Matrices and the Big FiveQuestionnaire.The results confirm the impact of intelligence and personality onscholastic success, underlining the role of personality traits.However, the principal predictor was found to be Conscientiousness,utilizing the end of the academic year GPA as an indicator of success,Intelligence, as an index of performance was indicated by the gradeobtained on the State Exam.
  • 38. Results
  • 39. Self-Assessed Intelligence andAcademic PerformanceTomas Chamorro-Premuzic* and AdrianFurnham***Goldsmiths, University of London, UK; **University College London,UKEducational Psychology Vol. 26(6) pp. 769-779
  • 40. AbstractThis paper reports the results of a two-year longitudinal study of therelationship between self-assessed intelligence (SAI) and academicperformance (AP) in a sample of 184 British undergraduate students.Results showed significant correlations between SAI (both before and aftertaking an IQ test) and academic exam marks obtained two years later.Several continuous assessment indicators (notably attendance, oralexpression, and motivation) were also significantly correlated with SAI, evenwhen IQ scores were controlled.A series of hierarchical regressions indicated that although exam grades werebest predicted by IQ, SAI showed significant incremental validity in theprediction of AP, accounting for an additional 3% of exam, 9% of continuousassessment, and 2% of essay grades.
  • 41. Results
  • 42. Results
  • 43. Correlations between personality scalesand general and narrow ability factors Females Males Personality g g Culture (O) .22 .10 Tidiness (C) .02 .09 Maturity (C) .24 .22 Leadership (E) .12 .15 Impulsiveness (E) .14 .02 Vigor (E) .10 .14 Sociability (E) -.05 .00 Social Sensitivity (A) .18 .19 Self-Confidence (ES) .16 .22 Calmness (ES) .16 .23Note: Due to extreme sample size, all correlations larger than .01 are statistically significant. Correlations are corrected for unreliability in thepersonality scales. (Reeve, Meyer & Bonacciio, 2005).
  • 44. Pearson Correlations between WAIS-R and APM Scoresand Personality Dimensions from the EPQ and the STI(Data from Stough, Nettelbeck et al.) E N P LVerbal IQ -.30 -.20 -.03 -.29bPerformance IQ .08 -.12 -.02 -.01Full-scale IQ .00 .04 .00 -.20APM .04 .02 -.05 -.26aGf .08 .08 .07 -.18Gc -.10 -.19 -.08 -.13ap < .05bp < .01
  • 45. Bandwith-Fidelity Beta values for multiple regressioncoefficients of Big 5 personality factors on fluid intelligence gf β t Neuroticism -.07 -3.32* Extraversion -.09 -3.68* Openness .12 5.51* Agreeableness .00 .14 Conscientiousness -.13 -5.81* Regression Model F(5,2625) = 15.40* Adjusted R2 .03 Moutafi, Furnham & Crump, 2005
  • 46. Worry Low self-efficacy State/test anxiety Low performance Trait anxiety Low preparation (in Low competence future tests)A hypothetical model for the processes underlying the relation between anxiety and test performance (based on Muller, 1992).
  • 47. Model of the relationship between neuroticismand academic success (Dobson, 2000) Threatassociatedwith testing situation Interference in State Lowered test cognitive anxiety performance processing Trait anxiety
  • 48. Two models representing neuroticism being directly related tointelligence and the relationship between neuroticism andintelligence being mediated by test anxiety affecting IQ testperformance Model 1 Model 2 Neuroticism Neuroticism (trait anxiety IQ Test anxiety IQ test (state anxiety) performance
  • 49. Correlations between neuroticism, fluidintelligence, test anxiety and induced anxiety Neuroticism Intelligence Test anxiety Intelligence -.19* Test anxiety .34*** -.22* Induced anxiety .48*** -.11 .32** *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p < .001
  • 50. The relationship between neuroticism, test anxiety andintelligence (test performance). Neuroticism Intelligence (testTest anxiety performance) Moutafi et al, 2005
  • 51. Correlations between conscientiousness and intelligencemeasures Measure of IQ r p N 1 Graduate Managerial Assessment (Abstract) -.11 <.01 900 Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal g -.13 <.001 900 g -.14 <.001 900 2 Graduate Managerial Assessment (Abstract) -.11 <.001 2658 3 General Reasoning Test Battery 1 – Numerical -.12 <.05 201 Reasoning GRTB 2 – Verbal Reasoning -.23 <.001 201 GRTB 2 – Abstract Reasoning -.26 <.001 201 4 Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices -.02 <.05 182 5 Baddeley Reasoning Test -.21 <.05 100 6 General Reasoning Test Battery 2 – Numerical -.20 <.001 4625 Reasoning GRTB 2 – Verbal Reasoning -.26 <.001 4625 GRTB 2 – Abstract Reasoning -.16 <.001 4625 g -.25 <.001 4625
  • 52. Test related features to high and low extraversion Extraversion level High Low Divided attention + - Long-term memory - + Reflective problem solving - + Resistance to distraction + - Retrieval from memory + - Short term memory + - Vigilance - +Note: Table is adapted from Matthews (1999)
  • 53. Study 1•  Participants: 80 British schoolchildren•  Measures: – GCSE results in various subjects (10th grade) – NEO-FFI – Wonderlic personnel test
  • 54. Correlations between GCSE scores, cognitive ability scores and the big five personality measures. (Partial correlations shown in brackets partialling out sex and age.) MATHS SCIENCE ENGLISH LIT ENGLISH LANG RELIGION LANGUAGE TOTAL WPT 0.46** (0.50) 0.34** (0.33) 0.22 (0.24) 0.22 (0.30) 0.17 (0.15) 0.14 (0.15) 0.34** (0.37) N - 0.26* (0.17) - 0.07 (0.06) - 0.11 (- 0.12) - 0.20 (-0.08) - 0.17 (-0.19) -0.09 (-0.09) -0.26* (0.17) E 0.05 (0.11) 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.03) 0.09 (0.08) 0.02 (0.08) 0.02 (0.02) 0.05 (0.04) O 0.16 (0.15) 0.23* (0.23) 0.31** (0.31) 0.36** (0.36) 0.31* (0.15) 0.08 (0.08) 0.28* (0.28) A 0.07 (0.00) 0.08 (0.09) 0.08 (0.07) 0.12 (0.10) 0.04 (0.03) 0.05 (0.06) 0.06 (0.04) C 0.17 (0.14) 0.29** (0.30) 0.18 (0.17) 0.21 (0.16) 0.22* (0.20) 0.27* (0.27) 0.31** (0.29)n = 79. *p<0.05, **p<0.01N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, WPT = Wonderlic Personnel Test
  • 55. β andt-values as predictors of AP after hierarchical regression.Regressions of total GCSE scores, individual GCSE scores andcombined scores. Total GCSE M/S L/L β t β t β t Wonderlic 0.32 3.16* 0.45 4.46 0.23 2.09 F (1,78) 9.77* (1,78) 19.9** (1,78) 4.35* Adj. R2 0.10 0.19 0.04 Neuroticism -0.16 -1.44 -0.12 1.12 -0.15 -1.30 Extraversion -0.05 -0.44 -0.03 0.29 -0.02 -0.16 Openness to Experience 0.20 1.92 0.03 0.28 0.13 1.03 Agreeableness -0.09 0.66 0.21 0.83 0.08 0.65 Conscientiousness 0.31 3.12* 0.16 1.34 0.26 2.05* F (6,76) 3.58** (6,78) 4.14 (6.78) 2.77* Adj. R2 0.23 0.19 0.12
  • 56. Typical intellectual engagement•  Personality•  Approaches to learning•  Typical Intellectual style•  General and crystallised intelligence Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu,G. (2009) Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 769-782.
  • 57. English (+Literature) Maths (+ Science) Total (Maths+English) Total(All) Std.B t Std.B t Std.B t Std.B t Age .18 2.66** .13 2.06* .13 1.85 .11 1.62.Gender .25 3.73 ** .35 5.47** .19 2.82** .12 -1.78 F (2, 212) = 13.02** (2, 212) = 20.16** (2, 212) = 7.02** (2, 212) = 3.62*AdjR² .10 .15 .05 .02 WPT .37 5.57** .41 6.24** .35 4.25** .22 2.65** GK .39 5.60** .31 4.43** .21 2.53* .34 3.81** F (4, 212) = 61.23** (4, 212) = 63.26** (4, 212) = 22.79** (4, 212) = 18.7**AdjR² .53 .54 .29 .25 TIE .07 1.27 .09 1.61 .21 3.15** .19 2.74** F (5, 212) = 49.45** (5, 212) = 51.51** (5, 212) = 21.01** (5, 212) = 16.95**AdjR² .53 .55 .32 .27 N .06 1.00 .08 1.44 .08 1.39 .07 1.09 E .05 .97 .03 .66 .04 .61 .02 .32 O -.03 -.47 -.11 -1.92 -.12 -1.63 -.10 -1.34 A .04 .73 .05 1.11 .02 .29 .03 .43 C .07 1.60 .07 1.54 .07 1.21 .10 1.63 F (10, 212) = 25.28** (10, 212) = 27.44** (10, 212) = 11.19** (10, 212) = 9.17**AdjR² .54 .56 .33 .28SPQS .07 1.22 .01 .17 .05 .76 .05 .66SPQD -.09 -1.41 -.09 1.40 -.07 -.82 -.02 -.20SPQA .15 2.01* .18 2.54* .19 2.20* .12 1.37 F (13, 212) = 20.54** (13, 212) = 22.20** (13, 212) = 9.43** (13, 212) = 7.41**AdjR² .55 .57 .34 .28
  • 58. Individual differencesin test taking•  Do personality traits affect intelligence test performance? Self-efficacy, test anxiety, need for achievement, self- regulation, extraversion, need for cognition•  Does intelligence affect personality test responses?•  Dissimulation•  Are there any “pure” measures of either personality or intelligence?•  Can we avoid “noise” in measurement?
  • 59. Mixed, middle-ground, muddled,Mesopotamian constructs?•  Social intelligences, specifically emotional intelligence*•  Self-assessed personality & intelligence (SAI)•  Typical intellectual engagement (TIE)•  Intellectual competence•  Cognitive, learning, thinking styles•  Self-confidence/core self-concept•  Creativity **Measure by both power and preference
  • 60. We know that:•  Intelligence and personality predict school success•  Intelligence is probably more important than personality•  The more salient personality variables are, in order, openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism•  But the power of these factors depends on other things like * The subject being taught * The teacher as his/her preferred method * The learning style of the student
  • 61. A simple modelIntelligenceFluid/Crystallised Learning School Style SPQ SuccessPersonalityOCN
  • 62. The incremental validity question Do typical intellectual learning styles and approaches add enough explicable useful incremental validity in addition to personality and intelligence in predicting school success.
  • 63. N E O A C Topic Teacher Teaching Assessment Academic Style Methods AchievementPreference for...Satisfaction With………Choice of IQ
  • 64. Does learning style haveincremental validity?N = 1581.  Study process questionnaire2.  NEO-PI-R3.  Wonderlic personnel test4.  Baddeley reasoning testExam marks (totalled) 3 years laterDoes personality and ability predict examinationpreference?
  • 65. Learning approaches, personality andintelligence as predictors of exam marks B Std.Error Standardised β tModel 1Surface -.38 .21 -.19 1.87Deep .63 .17 .37 3.64**Achieving .24 .15 .17 1.58Adj.R2 = 17 F (3, 78) = 6.58**Model 2 .04 .14 .03 .34Neuroticism .15 .16 .12 1.01Extraversion .30 .11 .27 2.64**Openness -.10 .12 -.09 .88Agreeableness .33 .08 .40 4.04**ConscientiousnessAdj.R2 = 35 F (8, 73) = 6.43**Model 3 .04 .09 .05 .45 IQ .18 .06 .28 2.72**gfAdj.R2 = 41 F (10, 71) = 6.63**Note. N = 284. * p < .05, ** p < .01. IQ = Wonderlic Personnel Test. gf = fluid intelligence
  • 66. Does typical intellectual engagementhave incremental validityN = 1041.  NEO-FFI2.  Typical intellectual engagement3.  Wonderlic personnel test4.  Baddeley reasoning test5.  Raven’s advanced progressive matrices
  • 67. Hierarchical multiple regressions: cognitive ability, personality andtypical intellectual engagement as predictors of academicperformance FINAL PROJECT ESSAYS EXAMS St. β t St. β t St. β t 1 Psychometric g .10 .97 .15 1.49 .26 2.72** Model F (1, 100) = .96 Model F (1, 100) = 2.22 Model F (1, 100) = 7.43** Adj.R2 = .01 Adj.R2 = .01 Adj.R2 = .06 R = .10 R = .15 R = .26** 2 Psychometric g .07 .67 .12 1.19 .23 2.39** Neuroticism -.14 1.24 -.16 1.44 -.12 -1.11 Extraversion -.03 .25 -.06 .54 -.01 .04 Openness -.19 1.84 -.06 .53 -.18 1.80 Agreeableness -.09 .81 .02 .19 -.03 .35 Conscientiousness .21 2.02* .19 1.74 .31 3.06** Model F (6, 95) = 2.10 Model F (6, 95) = 1.56 Model F (6, 95) = 3.98** Adj.R2 = .06 Adj.R2 = .03 Adj.R2 = .15 R = .34* R = .30 R = .45** 3 Psychometric g .04 .38 .08 .77 .18 1.95* Neuroticism -.11 1.03 -.13 1.17 -.08 .77 Extraversion -.01 .11 -.04 .32 .02 .23 Openness -.22 2.10* -.10 .94 -.22 2.36* Agreeableness -.11 .99 -.01 .06 -.07 .69 Conscientiousness .15 1.43 .10 .91 .21 2.10* TIE .20 1.92* .30 2.90** .34 3.54** Model F (7, 94) = 2.39* Model F (7, 94) = 2.64** Model F (7, 94) = 5.62** Adj.R2 = .09 Adj.R2 = .10 Adj.R2 = .24 R = .39* R = .41* R = .54**
  • 68. Preferences for universityassessment methodsN = 120 studentsNEO – FFIWonderlic personnel test
  • 69. Correlations between PAMI factors, IQ, big fivepersonality traits and gender Multiple Essay-type Viva Continuous Final project Choice exam Oral Exam assessment (dissertation) IQ .23* -.03 -.22* .01 .02 N .04 (.01) -.21* (-.21*) -.24* (-.22*) -.10 (-.10) .09 (.09) E -.06 (-.06) -.04 (-.04) .27** (.28**) .16 (.16) -.05 (-.05) O -.02 (-.02) -.05 (-.05) .10 (.10) .01 (.01) -.02 (-.02) A -.06 (-.06) .22* (.22) -.03 (-.03) .16 (.16) .05 (.05) C -.06 -.01) .08 (.08) .16 (.11) .25** (.25**) .02 (.03) Gender -.21* (-.15) .01 (.03) -.07 (-.12) .11 (.13) .13 (.21*)
  • 70. Hierarchical regressions, academic perform. IQ, personality,gender. Essay-type Exam Viva st.β t st.β t WEM -.06 .51 -.03 .26 SB .16 1.42 .05 .42 Adj.R2 .03 .01 IQ -.10 .97 .08 .77 N -.28 2.28* -.23 1.94* E -.06 .47 .17 1.30 O .10 .92 -.12 1.12 A -.19 1.79* -.15 1.44 C .01 .13 .14 1.22 Adj.R2 .07 .10 Gender -.07 .59 -1.06 1.82 F(1,101) 1.68 2.00* Adj.R2 .06 .09n = 93. WEM=Written exam marks, SB=Seminar Behaviour, IQ=Wonderlic. High on PAMI factors, e.g. Multiple Choice, Viva, refer to preference,whereas low scores refer to dislike. Gender codes 1 = males, 2 = females, * p <.05
  • 71. Hierarchical regressions, academic perform. IQ, personality,gender. Continuous Assessment Final Proj. Dissertation st.β t st.β t WEM -.10 .83 -.05 .23 SB -.00 .03 .10 .94 Adj.R2 .02 .02 IQ .10 .95 .06 .66 N .09 .70 .08 .67 E .10 .75 -.17 1.39 O -.22 1.96* -.14 1.40 A -.15 1.43 .01 .13 C .24 2.13* .36 3.36** Adj.R2 .04 .19 Gender .18 1.50 -.10 .89 F(1,101) 1.58 3.45** Adj.R2 .05 .19n = 93. WEM=Written exam marks, SB=Seminar Behaviour, IQ=Wonderlic. High on PAMI factors, e.g. Multiple Choice, Viva, refer to preference,whereas low scores refer to dislike. Gender codes 1 = males, 2 = females, * p <.05
  • 72. ConclusionPersonality and intelligence and… predict:•  Exam marks•  Project marks•  Term essay•  General Knowledge•  How students like to be assessed•  How students like to be taught
  • 73. A write of passageMy graduate recruits are really fantastic------------------------------------------------------
  • 74. Nobody does that any more… “Candidates are asked to complete and return a handwritten application form to us (unless you have a relevant medical condition) by no later than 31st October 2012”
  • 75. Thicker than water
  • 76. What it means? Type ABest traits Earnest, creative, sensible, reserved, patient, responsibleWorst traits Fastidious, overearnest, stubborn, tense Type BBest traits Wild, active, doer, creative, passionate, strongWorst traits Selfish, irresponsible, unforgiving, erratic Type ABBest traits Cool, controlled, rational, sociable, adaptableWorst traits Critical, indecisive, forgetful, irresponsible, "split personality" Type OBest traits Confident, self-determined, optimistic, strong-willedWorst traits Self-centered, cold, doubtful, unpredictable, "workaholic"
  • 77. High achievers“…each inch increase in height results in a predicted increase in annual earnings of $897 in Study 1, $728 in Study 2 and $743 in study 4”“Even in the case of objective outcomes, however, the validity of height was comparable to other bellwether predictors of job performance, such as the personality trait of conscientiousness” The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and Income Judge, T.A. and Cable, D.M Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428-441
  • 78. The graduate bar “What happens if I set a 2:1 bar?”
  • 79. What does 2:1+ mean anyway?The students who come top on each course.But is it a good proxy for ability?
  • 80. 5 target groups of engineers…Averag 600e entrygrades 540 88 AAA 480 87 71 A AAB 420 B AAA 360 140 BBB 300 62 CCC 240
  • 81. What we might be doing… Top Tier 2:1+ Top tier 2:2- Mid tier 2:1+ Mid tier 2:2- Bottom tier 2:1+ Bottom tier 2:2-
  • 82. Degrees of differenceSubject Group % 2:1+ % you rejectHistory/Philosophy 77% 23%Languages 77% 23%English 76% 24%Maths 66% 34%Engineering 63% 37%Law 60% 40%
  • 83. Buy degrees 2:1+ 2:2- Privately educated 73% 27% State educated 65% 35%
  • 84. Degree class 2:1+ 2:2- Socio-economic group I/II 71% 29% Socio-economic group III/IV 66% 34% Socio-economic group V/VI 62% 38% Socio-economic group VII/VIII 59% 41%
  • 85. Gender 2:1+ 2:1+ 2:2-Male 61% 39%Female 67% 33%
  • 86. Ethnicity 2:1+ 2:1+ 2:2- White students 69% 31% Non-white students 53% 47%
  • 87. Key conclusions1.  It’s discriminatory. A 2:1 bar favours: – Candidates from privileged backgrounds – White candidates – Subjects you may not really prefer – Female candidates2.  You are excluding some of the best candidates3.  There is no credible evidence showing it’s an effective predictor of career success
  • 88. Thanks for listening Simon Howard Chairman, Work Group plc Simon.howard@workcomms.com BA Hons (2:2) Exeter 6 feet 1 inch Blood Group A-