- Reaction score
BeyondTheNow said:I’m not a Recruiter, so this is strictly me questioning the reasoning in general here.
But why is it fair for someone to get to do the test again simply because they want a better score, when the majority of applicants went in for their trade, wrote the test blind and waited? I hardly think it’s appropriate for someone to have the advantage of writing the test more than once when they performed satisfactorily the first time around. If an applicant failed to qualify for any (or all) of their trade selections, or were super-sick and off their game or something, that’s one thing. But being allowed to rewrite solely based on the fact that an applicant wants to try and gain an upper hand on what may, or may not, take place during selection is really questionable, as far as I’m concerned.
I too am not an expert, but I do agree with your sentiment. In my opinion, it's best to avoid creating this scenario in the first place. I feel like the CFAT should be a static bar where you either get a high enough score to pass or fail for the trade you want, and that's that. Especially for trades that require job specific testing, such as the subsequent MOST test or Aircrew Selection. If you have to dynamically raise or lower the cut off threshold of something, it should be the job specific aptitude test. The CFAT should just be used as an indicator for the CAF to see which candidates are worth spending the extra money on for additional testing (e.g. paying for all the expenses to send a candidate to do the two days of Aircrew Selection at Trenton). To retroactively rip a candidate out of the application process who did above average and scored competitively on their MOST or Aircrew selection because they scored 50/60 on their CFAT while leaving another candidate in the pool who got 52/60 on their CFAT, but scored significantly lower than the disqualified candidate on their job-specific aptitude test sure as heck doesn't really seem that fair or help you get the best candidate for the job either.