.

[Roscoe]

.

[Surf78]

Roscoe
With respect, after reading your post I think SAMFS got it right.
From your post you demonstrated that you can't accept decisions, you push your point, you argue your point and state that you will continue to do so with HR because you don't agree and you think their system is flawed, you have bagged a potential employer, you think you are better than everyone else (2,500 applicants) and you come across as complete whinger who is owed answers! I couldn't imagine spending 4 days working closely with a person with these qualities, I would fear for my safety on a big job as you would be likely to question someone else's decision.
If I was you I wouldn't headline and put your name to a campaign that presents information to HR and SAFECOM to improve their process. That would be dumb!

[Roscoe]

.

[beater]

Maybe it's a funding issue with SAMFS recruitment and this is the most effective model for the funding, time and resources they have available.
As for the recruit instructors commenting on the standard of recruits coming through, they may have forgotten what the standards in their own recruit squads was like.
I can see where you are coming from but each year many applicants who would be suitable miss out.
I would like to hear from you how think the process should be run the quickest most efficient way.

[Roscoe]

.

[beater]

So how do you feel about FRNSW dropping beep test, having quotas and a pat2 that goes for about 5minutes?? I know which system will result in a poorer service.
At least Samfs have stood there ground on physical standards

[Left foot snap]

So you like the ASA process as its cuts the number of applicants down to a manageable number to allow for face to face contact with applicants after the personality profiling and ability tests but are unhappy with the SAMFS for doing the same thing?? You just come across as bitter that you haven't progressed.

You obviously have no first hand experience in interviewing in the SAMFS yourself, but there is significant opportunity for applicants to interact with the panel throughout the process from the interview to the offer of employment.

As for applicants not shining in the drill squad, welcome to the real world... everyone brings with them their own strengths and weaknesses at the start of the squad and learn at a different rate but ultimately all graduate. Plus all undertake further learning throughout their careers. I've not heard of anyone not passing their probationary period from the recent drill squads so they must be competent in their positions on shift.

[Roscoe]

.

[Chipsngravy]

Roscoe get over yourself

[beater]

I'm guessing Roscoe got a big thank you from all his "mates" at the training department for putting them in it.

[Roscoe]

.

[Mojo]

.

[beater]

Im sure "left foot snap" has an answer for this.

[Left foot snap]

I wish I had an answer beater but unfortunately I don't. I maintain that it would be unlikely that you would get feedback on the personality profiling as you could alter your responses in future tests to fit the desired profile, not show your own profile which is not what the SAMFS are after.

I don't profess to be an expert on the process. However my tip would be to have a chat with people who have been successful at progressing in previous intake for insight and perhaps compare responses for the commonly occurring questions that are asked multiple times in the profiling.

I do empathise with paying the $100 for the application though and flights to Adelaide for testing . But that's a personal choice you make and no guarantees are made at any point. The only thing I can think of mojo is that there were other applicants with a similar profile who fit into target groups which may have bumped you out.

[Roscoe]

.

[Mojo]

You are correct.

A simple graph indicating results is the least that could be done. Not suitable, suitable, highly suitable response with highlighted result would suffice. This would allow applicants to make an informed decision to apply in the future or stop wasting their money and time.

In my opinion, which I am entitled to, it's a unprofessional approach to recruitment for any organisation not to give any feedback, given the application fee also. Almost worth a letter to the editor.

[musofire]

I will put in my two bobs worth. In my opinion the current procedure with the personality profiling and ability assessment is unfair. It is unfair to expect candidates to pay for their test and refuse to give them feedback on their results! I am not saying that feedback should be supplied for the psychological testing but it certainly should be for the verbal and numerical reasoning sections. Candidates deserve the opportunity to be able to improve, or at least find out where they might have gone wrong ( for example, accidentally marking the wrong answer). How can the process be fair and transparent if results are being "hidden" from applicants. In firefighter recruitment it is common for candidates to try multiple times and by not supplying feedback to candidates after they have payed the fee, stinks of profiteering as those committed applicants will try and try again whilst the organisation receiving the funds go laughing all the way to the bank! Other emergency services supply candidates with results and or feedback. It should be no different for the SAMFS recruitment process.

[Monger]

I will put in my two bobs worth. In my opinion the current procedure with the personality profiling and ability assessment is unfair. It is unfair to expect candidates to pay for their test and refuse to give them feedback on their results!

Well its better than previous years when you had to spend about $2000 on truck license, first aid and a computer skills certificate just to send in your application. The process will never be perfect and unfortunately the job isnt for everyone so a lot of people who dont get through the personality profiling are simply not suitable.

[80224]

Well its better than previous years when you had to spend about $2000 on truck license, first aid and a computer skills certificate just to send in your application. The process will never be perfect and unfortunately the job isnt for everyone so a lot of people who dont get through the personality profiling are simply not suitable.

Well said!

[musofire]

Many of us have spent money on licenses and other certificates when applying for SAMFS but at least those organisations gave results and feedback on our performance. It is not acceptable  and certainly not a fair and transparent  process not to issue applicants with their results. They have the right to know where they went wrong and how to improve!

[musofire]

Well its better than previous years when you had to spend about $2000 on truck license, first aid and a computer skills certificate just to send in your application. The process will never be perfect and unfortunately the job isnt for everyone so a lot of people who dont get through the personality profiling are simply not suitable.

Well said!

By the way, alot of people that DO get through the personality profiling are simply not suitable!

[Monger]

 :-o

[Left foot snap]

Seriously... it's not like people aren't going in with their eyes wide open. The recruitment section of the SAMFS website clearly states the following

"The MFS has introduced a fee to participate in the Firefighter Recruitment and Selection Process. The fee is $100 per applicant. The fee is not refundable and wholly contributes to expenses incurred by the MFS in the administration, testing and processing of applications. The MFS do not retain any part of this fee.

Please be advised that the results of the Personality Profiling and Abilities assessment are the property of SAFESELECT and are not provided to applicants or any other parties. Payment of the application fee does not guarantee employment with the MFS." 

People also sign a consent prior to completi the testing indicating they understand this. If you don't like it, don't apply.

[Monger]

Exactly. Wonder why they weren't suitable.......

[phoenix]

While I agree with you both, Ferret and LFS, I do also agree with the other points raised about feedback having positive outcomes.
I think it would be beneficial for applicants to receive information as to where they can improve their aptitude test score. Surely it would yield a broader range of applicants to choose from relating to aptitude.
There is then the psychometric evaluations, which does produce an indication as to the type of person the applicant is. But progressing forwards does have a certain dependency on what personalities are being focused on.

Ferret- would you definitely say that all people wanting feedback on their tests is a definite sign that they're not suitable for the job? Just because they overlook direct passages of text on the website and test instructions? What if some people are the personality type that is heavily involved with self improvement and wants a distinct aptitude area to focus on? Surely that person can't be ruled out?