Just found this online test on the MI5 web site which tests your suitability to be an intelligence officer. Took about 5 mins to do. www.cubiksonline.com/SecurityService/Assessment/Start.aspx?testType=S
I'm "moderately well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. There may be some areas where you are more suited for the role than others, and we suggest you take a little longer to think about what you will get from the role. When you have done this, you may wish to consider applying."
I wasn't about to apply anyway...never thought of myself as James Bond.
|
I got the same!
Your responses suggest that your approach may be moderately well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. There may be some areas where you are more suited for the role than others, and we suggest you take a little longer to think about what you will get from the role. When you have done this, you may wish to consider applying.
Pat
|
|
Me too, but that's because I kept ticking the obvious right answer rather than the one I would actually do, even though it told you not to do that. Just a rebel, me.
|
Your responses suggest that your approach may be well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. We encourage you to go ahead and apply.
|
Your responses suggest that your approach may be well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. We encourage you to go ahead and apply.
I told a porky about my age though.
|
|
I got the same outcome: well suited. Obviously they are desperate. I see a trap:) I'll answer as badly as possible later to see if the result is equally barmy.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Fri 7 Jan 11 at 08:59
|
As I was feeling a bit Machiavellian, I subverted the process by playing around with the URL to see what happened, hoping for an instant summons to George Smiley's office.
What I got was a technical error redirecting me to those best able in MI5 to handle web page crashes. Spelling error in the original.
-----------
Error
An unexpected error has occured.
Please try again later or contact your HR representative for help and/or advice.
|
|
My daughter recently tried the proper online tests (for a job in one of the Security Services)... We managed four of their online tests which take about an hour each before they decided that she (we?) wasn't cut out for it! They were damned hard and we'd only done four, there were several more to go! Don't believe the results of simple online tests is my motto!!
Last edited by: hobby on Fri 7 Jan 11 at 09:17
|
>> What I got was a technical error redirecting me to those best able in MI5
>> to handle web page crashes. Spelling error in the original.
>> -----------
>> Error
>>
>> An unexpected error has occured.
>>
>> Please try again later or contact your HR representative for help and/or advice.
Take a look out of your window, any cars parked in the street with men sitting in them? Flash of a camera lens from the closed curtain opposite? I have a devise to detect bugs and trackers you can borrow, I think you are going to need one,.
|
I hate to break this news in a public forum, but in fact I sit all day with the curtains closed, and with my door locked. So tracking me would be very dull, and nobody can see in...
Sociopath? Moi?
|
|
The press would have a field day. Been to Bristol Lately.
|
|
That might require the co-existence of me and natural light. Not a good combination.
|
"Your responses suggest that your approach may be well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. We encourage you to go ahead and apply."
yeah right.
|
This is true.
Helicopter junior went to Cambridge.
His subject for his masters degree was about some aspects of the intelligence services
( I will not give the exact details in case it reveals his identity), his Professor was Christopher Andrew who wrote the history of MI5 .
He spent a lot of time at meetings with members of the intelligence services doing 'research.'
He now purports to be a chartered accountant but whenever I call he is on voicemail and he rings me back at 10 or 11pm saying he is still at 'work' but is very secretive.....
I sometimes wonder.......
|
"Your responses suggest that your approach may be moderately well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. There may be some areas where you are more suited for the role than others, and we suggest you take a little longer to think about what you will get from the role. When you have done this, you may wish to consider applying."
Translation.
"You are a potential maverick, but even complete nutters have their role in the Great Britsh intelligence services. In any case, we are desperately short of even moderately good people, so come on in. If you really **** things up we can always send you on a mission to North Korea and then disown you."
|
I have just tried it and got this response.
"You are clearly a menace to society. Please remain at home until one of our officers can visit and put locks on your knife drawers ad remove all pills and drugs. Your application will be fast tracked and Moneypenny is arranging your office"
|
Moderate for me as well.
Rather disappointing as I was looking forward to receiving the Walther PPK and the Aston with the ejector seat and the machine guns.
|
"Your responses suggest that your approach may be well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. We encourage you to go ahead and apply."
Well - I did lie about my age, but all else was completed carefully.
|
Same for me...... lied about my age but
'Your responses suggest that your approach may be well suited to the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. We encourage you to go ahead and apply.'
...and I always thought MI5 was a furniture warehouse.....
|
I answered honestly but quickly and came up with a moderate rating. I was not expecting the questions to relate so much to standard business/management situations. Given that my answers would have very much fitted a business profile I guess they are looking for the unusual to some extent.
However I did it again giving answers that would be regarded as poor management sense... scored moderate. Tried a 3rd time answering C to everything and again came up with a moderate.
Odd.
|
My dilema with some of the questions was whether to go along with the caring PC office role we are all supposed to adopt now, or to emphasise that I was the sort of person who could make hard decisions even if they upset my staff or my boss. It seems from the less than totally enthusiastic way they responded that even James Bond has to make concessions to PC-ness nowadays.
Fair enough, when I apply again using my other false identity I can slant the answers in the opposite direction.
|
I got the 'well-suited' response, which surprised me.
Most of the questions were about meetings, which I don't do.
I was losing the will to live half-way through the questionnaire.
Typical public body, spend all day - and lots of money - writing reports and talking to each other rather than actually doing the job.
Don't think I would prosper in that environment, so the safety of the nation will have to be maintained without my help.
Incidentally, quite a few posters say they 'lied about their age', when the instructions clearly state those details - if given - are irrelevant to the feedback.
Perhaps I am good at quickly processing information so might be suited to the job after all. :)
|
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, quite a few posters say they 'lied about their age', when the instructions clearly
>> state those details - if given - are irrelevant to the feedback.
>>
>>
When you are given a piece of information the interpretation of which may be vital to your presentation, do you:
A) Unquestioningly accept the information as correct
B) Make more enquiries to try and verify the information
C) Suspect a trap and reject it out of hand.
|
...When you are given a piece of information the interpretation of which may be vital to your presentation, do you...
In the case of a daft internet questionnaire you take it on face value, there's no point in looking any further.
As with this forum, I post that I own a Focus CC3 and members take it on face value that I do.
It matters not to them whether I do or not, but for the purposes of participating, that information is taken as correct.
Same as I take what other posters present as facts at face value.
|
>>>Same as I take what other posters present as facts at face value.
Very dangerous!
|
>> for the purposes of
>> participating, that information is taken as correct.
>>
>> Same as I take what other posters present as facts at face value.
>>
>>
>>
Yes, that's true, but this was different. The whole point of the questionaire was to assess your handling of information. Indeed some of the questions themselves mentioned the need to verify information, and the conflicting interests of urgency and accuracy.
I imagine an intelligence officer has to be alert to the possibility of incorrect or deliberately misleading information at all times, even (especially?) at job interviews.
They probably pull a gun on you as you walk in, to see how you react to the unexpected.
|
What a ridiculous list of questions. The answer always has to be "it depends".
You are working on a case and want to recruit somebody else to the case but they're not keen. Do you
1. Tell them to join you
2. Negotiate so they join you
3. Accept they won't join you.
It depends, doesn't it, on, inter alia:
1. Your ability to "tell somebody" based on your seniority
2. Local working custom
3. Relative importance of the cases
Anyway, they've invited me to apply, hurrah.
|
Input "bad"/non-corporate type answers, derived from my chosen career of avoiding team-work and responsibility:) This was the result "Your responses suggest that there are a number of areas where your approach may not exactly fit the role of an Intelligence Officer in the Security Service. We suggest you consider the requirements of the role carefully before deciding whether or not to proceed with an application."
So it does have some criteria. Form-filling didn't really appeal anyway.
|
|
Perhaps after all the whole result is finally biased from age/sex/ethnic answers??
|
Having applied for Civil Service jobs before, it's just a weeding out of those with bad mental attitudes and un PC..
In reality, if someone refused to provide data needed for a vital job, you would approach your boss, who would tell the other's boss etc.
Maybe the CS does not work like that? If not, it should.
Judging from the review, I reckon they are probably overpersonned (manned is not PC) by 50% as all too polite and lots of meetings...
|
|
Bosses in the CS do not like to be given bad news, or anything really except reassurance that all is on schedule:) That is, anything that might be contentious or cause a fuss. You are expected to sort these things out by yourself. In extremis, yes, but its not expected to be repeated. As for overmanning, I can't speak for other bits of the CS but the poor sods working close to Ministers on delivering policy were virtual slaves. 5 day, 37.5 hour week? Thats for the Daily Wail leaderwriters to believe.
|
|
A for effort, FA for performance then?
|
|
Disappointed that I wasn't asked whether I could shoot a pistol while performing a J-turn in a Lotus Esprit, or if I would be prepared to take out one of my relatives with a poisoned dart from an umbrella should national security depend on it. I mean, I like my relatives, but a job's a job...
|
|
Is that the minister or the minion? Remember its the minister who sets the tasks and the direction. E.G> the Quango fiasco - inadequate preparation by the politicos, because they have never run anything before, for the most part.
|
Could you be a spook? - Pat
