Testing experienced editors

All-knowing

EditorLive, which appears to be an online term-paper mill, is looking for editors.

Part of the application process involves a 30-minute test which includes questions related to your knowledge of "Chicago, APA, AP, MLA, CSE, and other style manuals."

I have nearly 30 years of editing experience and have worked with maybe half of those styles. I bailed after 10 minutes.

Overkill: Editor Testing, cont'd

In a Craigslist post by Publications Professionals LLC in Fairfax, VA:

"ALL candidates must successfully complete a 3-hour-long battery of tests of their English-language, editorial, and proofreading skills."

I passed PP's test in 2002, which led to a temp-to-perm position. I was hired after three months, worked at that company until 2007, and then quit in a huff over my nonsensical reassignment driven by politics. I evidently have been blacklisted by PP ever since; my many inquiries re temp work have been fruitless.

The never-ending testing of our skills

Regardless of how much experience an editor has, he will usually be required to take an editing test when applying for a job. It's insulting, among other things, in that it effectively dismisses all previous experience.

And what's even worse than being tested is being tested twice.

I sent an email to BARE Intl., a company for which I did some freelance editing in the past. BARE sends out mystery shoppers for its clients, and the shoppers submit reports that are edited before submission to client companies.

Here's part of the response I received:

My records indicate that you have not edited for BARE since January 2010. Based on that fact, I would be happy to process your request to be re-instated as a freelance editor to take on editing assignments (when the next one becomes available), but I would need the following documentation from you first:

1) a copy of your most recent resume [Apparently the resume that BARE has that summarizes 27 years of editing experience won't suffice.]
2) a completed skills demonstration test [I already passed the test.]
3) a signed Independent Contractor Agreement [BARE has my signed agreement on hand.]

I have many lines in the sand that I will never cross. Double-testing is one of them.

Third time a charm?

Next week I'll be taking an editing test for a copy editing position I applied for at The Motley Fool.

TMF is located in an office complex that I've been to before—twice to take editing tests, both of which I failed.

The first time was at the Rand Corp., in the same building as TMF. The test was to edit some report about the Middle East. It was filled with Arabic names. Rather than having my wits about me and inserting a note re "check spelling of names," I looked up as many as I could in the hour (I had access to the Internet), which left me no time to edit the document. Failed.

The second time was at the Society for Human Resources Management, across the street. I was given a sh!tload of related news reports and told to write a summary along the lines of a newsletter briefing report. I had an hour. I couldn't even get through reading the material in that time. Close to the end of the hour I got up and left. Failed.

So it's the third time is a charm vs. things come in threes.

Editing test, a first

I sent a cold letter of inquiry re freelance work to a publishing company in NoVA, after seeing a craigslist post for a managing editor position (I think that's what it was; in any case it mentioned managing freelancers). I got a response today, with an 8-page editing test. Among the instructions was this: 

"3. Please supply a document-specific style sheet; it should show (1) a list of specific vocabulary terms and word spellings/usage particular to this document; (2) conventions for number usage; (3) acronyms used in the document; (4)  hyphenation usage (specific hyphenated terms) in this chapter; (5) special symbols used, if any; and (5) a query list (referencing the approximate line number where the query occurs within your edited file)."

I don't think so.

Exploitation Masquerading as a Job Ad

Editing is one of the few professions that requires job applicants, regardless of their experience, to take a test. Fair or not, that is the reality. Virtually every editor job I've applied for entailed a test.

Tests range from a relatively short spelling and grammar test up to what amounts to the prospective employer taking advantage of applicants by essentially getting them to edit an actual written product—in other words, the editor is providing his labor/editing gratis.

In a recent ad on Craigslist, the employer—a "leading publishing company of Urban Fiction" seeking to expand its "Reader Program"—asks applicants to provide certain material, including:

"An analysis of an Urban Fiction book—preferably a [company] title, but an analysis of any Urban Fiction book will be accepted. An analysis is a minimum 2-page examination of any combination of plot development, character development, writing style or themes that make the title successful. Please feel free to include critiques of the above elements regarding parts of the book that were not successful."

Exploitation by any other name . . .

Drawing a line in the sand

Testing editor applicants is not limited to prospective employers (see "Testing, Testing, 1-2-3," below).

Several years ago, I sent the following letter to the president of an editing agency regarding its testing requirement.

"An Unsolicited Suggestion"

Dear XXX:

I am one of "the 3% who pass ABC tests." [The agency uses this figure in its marketing materials to tout the quality of its temps.] I have previously done successful temp work for a number of your clients, some of whom have requested me back.

I recently submitted my resume in response to your ad for technical editors. I just got off the phone with XXX who told me that, because I haven't done work for ABC in several years, I would have to be retested in order to be reinstated/considered. I told her that I am not willing to do that.

I have been working in the editorial field for almost 20 years, and my editing skills are even stronger today than when I worked with ABC. I find this policy quite literally unbelievable. As someone with extensive editorial experience, I don't have to tell you that the editing skill set is not lost over a period of time when it is in constant use. In fact, it is strengthened. (Please see attached resume.)

ABC is missing out on some significant talent by imposing this draconian requirement. It's bad enough that many employers impose an editing test on experienced professionals; they don't know any better. But for ABC to retest is an insult to our profession.

I would urge you to reconsider this policy out of respect for the professional achievements of those who have been associated with ABC and wish to return, willing and able to solidify your competitive position.

Testing, Testing, 1-2-3

For the most part—and to our endless chagrin—editors are not judged on the value we add to the writings we work on, through the errors we fix and other improvements we make.

No, our performance is assessed primarily on the mistakes we fail to correct. An editor can make hundreds of edits (literally thousands in a book-length work), but his overall contribution might be remembered for the one missing period he overlooked.

This approach to the performance appraisal of editors extends to, or more precisely begins at, the editing tests we are required to take when applying for jobs—regardless of how much experience we have.

How many other professions require a very experienced applicant to demonstrate his skills prior to employment? In the vast majority of cases, it is the resume—and the validation of it through reference checks and other means—that serves as proof of the applicant’s stated experience.

And to add to the unfairness of the testing requirement, editing tests generally are not administered on a computer, which would allow the editor to utilize two of the main tools of the trade—MS Word’s spell and grammar checkers.

Rather, the test involves working on hard copy only. In effect, editor applicants are handcuffed by editing “manually.” This doesn’t simulate the real world we’ll work in because it deprives us of critical resources that normally are at our disposal.