davey wrote:
...it's kind of absurd to think they'd speculate and make trouble for themselves by looking up an online score and saying "this person got a 48 online and a 32 in person, so he must have cheated! We can't use him..."
I respectfully disagree. I don't know why else they would make people take a second test at the live audition after they passed online, if not to look for exactly the scenario you name above. If someone scores 48 online and 42 in person, I call that reasonable variation based on taking different tests or testing on different days. If someone scores 48 online and 32 in person, that immediately makes me suspect the 48, because there simply isn't that much variability in difficulty from test to test. The most reasonable conclusion is he fudged to get the 48 when no one was looking, isn't nearly that good without the help, and therefore isn't really qualified to be a contestant.
And if they did discard that guy from further consideration, how in the world would that "make trouble for themselves?" A candidate has no way of knowing whether he didn't get The Call because he was suspected of cheating or for any of the other reasons people go through the process and don't get on the show. The CCs have no obligation to choose anyone, so what's a guy going to do, sue them for not choosing him?
Whether you believe that cheating the online test is a significant phenomenon, or that the test is mainly an easy way to collect a group of potential contestants and cheating is essentially irrelevant, the reason to give the test in person is because it's part of the audition process. If you can't pass the test in person, why would they want you, no matter how well you did online?
But if a guy got a 35 on the test (assuming that's a real cutoff -there must be one somewhere), and he's lively and has a great story and performs well in the stand-up, why would they want to make assumptions about what his higher online score means? You want them to cut the guy on the assumption that he cheated. But they like him. He doesn't seem shifty. Worrying about a discrepancy that proves nothing is making trouble for themselves.
Last edited by davey on Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Magna wrote:
Btw, there was some concern about whether even talking about using Google or Wikipedia during the online test was somehow polluting the contestant pool. I don't think there's any reason to treat this like the elephant in the room, though. It's an obvious danger. The J! staff makes no secret about it, and they do take steps to guard against it being a factor. It's also casually commented on all over the internet. Here's just one example, where someone (who, imo, wouldn't have passed the test anyway) openly talks about it: http://nachodonut.wordpress.com/2010/01 ... tion-quiz/
The important sentence in that blog is "Well, last year I cheated with someone else rapidly Googling shit for me and I still did terrible." (emphasis added).
davey wrote:The important sentence in that blog is "Well, last year I cheated with someone else rapidly Googling shit for me and I still did terrible." (emphasis added).
I agree. Just my impression, but I don't think that person would have done well, regardless.
I finally got around to taking the other two online tests and discovered that, for me, anyway, the Central version was a good deal harder. I got 5 or 6 more correct answers on the other tests.
Did anyone else have similar results? Just curious.
I was amazed since I have been doing some study and thought I would have done better, although my version of "better" depends on how accurate you've all been in reporting your scores!
I scored a 40 on the online test and was just wondering if anyone could tell me my chances of getting to the next level, and the timeline for getting a call?
golgamax wrote:I scored a 40 on the online test and was just wondering if anyone could tell me my chances of getting to the next level, and the timeline for getting a call?
It depends.
Oh, more detail? Well, your chances are as good as any for getting an audition (they pick a certain number of those who get a passing grade on the test, and it's apparently random). And time frame - usually depends on where you picked for an audition city. It could be anywhere from pretty soon, to much closer to the end of the year (October, November). A little anecdata - my two auditions, both in NYC, were 2008 at the end of May (and I got the email in mid April), and 2010 at the end of April (and I'd gotten the email in mid-February.)
davey wrote:
...it's kind of absurd to think they'd speculate and make trouble for themselves by looking up an online score and saying "this person got a 48 online and a 32 in person, so he must have cheated! We can't use him..."
I respectfully disagree. I don't know why else they would make people take a second test at the live audition after they passed online, if not to look for exactly the scenario you name above. If someone scores 48 online and 42 in person, I call that reasonable variation based on taking different tests or testing on different days. If someone scores 48 online and 32 in person, that immediately makes me suspect the 48, because there simply isn't that much variability in difficulty from test to test. The most reasonable conclusion is he fudged to get the 48 when no one was looking, isn't nearly that good without the help, and therefore isn't really qualified to be a contestant.
And if they did discard that guy from further consideration, how in the world would that "make trouble for themselves?" A candidate has no way of knowing whether he didn't get The Call because he was suspected of cheating or for any of the other reasons people go through the process and don't get on the show. The CCs have no obligation to choose anyone, so what's a guy going to do, sue them for not choosing him?
Whether you believe that cheating the online test is a significant phenomenon, or that the test is mainly an easy way to collect a group of potential contestants and cheating is essentially irrelevant, the reason to give the test in person is because it's part of the audition process. If you can't pass the test in person, why would they want you, no matter how well you did online?
But if a guy got a 35 on the test (assuming that's a real cutoff -there must be one somewhere), and he's lively and has a great story and performs well in the stand-up, why would they want to make assumptions about what his higher online score means? You want them to cut the guy on the assumption that he cheated. But they like him. He doesn't seem shifty. Worrying about a discrepancy that proves nothing is making trouble for themselves.
I'm not sure YOUR example is relevant. If a guy passed the test in person (even though that score was somewhat lower than his online score) he would probably have as good a chance as the next guy to get The Call. I'm talking about a different scenario, in which he "aces" the test online and doesn't even pass the in-person version. My speculation is that no matter how good he looked in the other areas (appearance, energy, ability to generate interest, etc.), the CCs would be reluctant to pick him because he didn't demonstrate the ability to pass the test in a real-life situation that they control. My speculation is that they would disregard his online score as likely fraudulent.
Wouldn't you be likely to do so if YOU were a CC? You're looking for BOTH interesting AND competent contestants, and there are enough of them that they don't need to risk putting somone on the show who is only one or the other.
John Boy wrote:
....I'm talking about a different scenario, in which he "aces" the test online and doesn't even pass the in-person version. My speculation is that no matter how good he looked in the other areas (appearance, energy, ability to generate interest, etc.), the CCs would be reluctant to pick him because he didn't demonstrate the ability to pass the test in a real-life situation that they control....
Well, yes! That's what I said above: If you can't pass the test in person, why would they want you, no matter how well you did online? There's no need to speculate about likely fraudulence. If a score at the audition is below the objective passing grade, I assume that person is cut, even if they don't say so.
Since you ask what I would do if I was picking players: I would consider that, as it did 20 years ago, my job starts in the audition room, and the only scores I would look at would be those earned that day. I would take advantage of an objective standard to make the first cut (grateful that the online test has eliminated most of the poor performers already), and make my subjective judgments based on the people I see in front of me.