Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
measures of programming ability, most specifi cally formal training in
mathematics or logic, were becoming ever less relevant to the quotidian
practice of programming. The general lack of consensus about what
constituted relevant knowledge or experience in the computer fi elds
undermined attempts to systematize the production of programmers.
Vocational EDP schools were seen as being too lax in their standards,
and the emerging academic discipline of computer science was viewed
as too stringent. Neither was believed to be a reliable short-term solution
to the burgeoning labor shortage in programming.
In the face of such uncertainty and ambiguity, aptitude testing and
personality profi ling promised at least the illusion of managerial control.
While many of the methods used by employers at this time appear hope-
lessly naive to modern observers, they represented the cutting edge of
personnel research. Since at least the 1920s, personnel managers had
been attempting to professionalize along the lines of a scientifi c disci-
pline.
115
The large-scale use of psychometric technologies for personnel
selection during the fi rst and second world wars had seemed to many to
validate their claims to scientifi c legitimacy.
116
In the immediate postwar
period, personnel researchers established new academic journals, profes-
sional societies, and academic programs. It is no coincidence that the
heyday of aptitude testing in the software industry corresponded with
this period of intense professionalization in the fi elds that would eventu-
ally come to be known collectively as human resources management. The
programmer labor crisis of the 1950s provided the perfect opportunity
for these emerging experts to practice their craft.
On an even more pragmatic level, however, aptitude testing offered a
signifi cant advantage over the available alternatives. To borrow a phrase
from contemporary computer industry parlance, aptitude testing was a
solution that
scaled effi ciently
. That is to say, the costs of aptitude testing
grew only linearly (as opposed to exponentially) with the number of
applicants. It was possible, in short, to administer aptitude tests quickly
and inexpensively to thousands of aspiring programmers. Compared to
such time-consuming and expensive alternatives such as individual inter-
views or formal educational requirements, aptitude testing was a cheap
and easy solution. And since the contemporary emphasis on individual
genius over experience or education meant that a star programmer
was as likely to come from the secretarial pool as the engineering depart-
ment, the ability to screen large numbers of potential trainees was
preeminent.
