Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Alta testing now proctoring

So I am not sure if folks working in foreign language docume richardparker12/26/17
This is a good idea. Too easy to cheat on an online exam, tedandlisa12312/26/17
Do you even speak a foreign language? I doubt it. Are you a richardparker12/26/17
Yes, I work on them every so often. If it bothers you, donâ tedandlisa12312/27/17
Ok but Alta tests are not typically a reasonable measure to richardparker12/27/17
ALTA tests basic reading comprehension. I know there are pe tedandlisa12312/27/17
This is not a bug, it is a feature. Firms pay you to not triplesix12/27/17
ROFL. Maybe it works exactly it is supposed to. tedandlisa12312/27/17
Ok you are either a troll or agency recruiter, or I don't kn richardparker12/27/17
What is exactly the problem with a “legal reading” test tedandlisa12312/27/17
Native speakers ROUTINELY flunk this thing, from a variety o richardparker12/27/17
I have never seen a “native speaker” fail a basic readin tedandlisa12312/27/17
I am not even reading what you wrote. F*ck off. richardparker12/27/17
Getting a little, uh, "testie" here? Haha wutwutwut12/27/17
You mad? tedandlisa12312/27/17
For those joining the program in progress, there is this lin richardparker12/27/17
OP natives who flunk the test are actually pretty dumb to be triplesix12/27/17
Hire counsel does alta proctoring in their nyc offices. They goptaxlawyer12/27/17
OP is correct when he states native speakers often fail this nyclawyer12/27/17
I am a native speaker of a medium-to-hard language who went wolfman12/27/17
Hire Counsel makes you take the ALTA test at one of their of dieter12/28/17
If there are objective defects in having answer sets that ha richardparker12/29/17
Literate native speakers do not flunk this thing. I have ta tedandlisa12312/29/17
You stupid fvcking twat--did you even check out the link I p richardparker12/29/17
It's hardly an invasion of privacy if you give consent. If y goptaxlawyer12/29/17
Consent coerced by one's monetary needs so they can pay rent richardparker12/29/17
This is the most comical post I've seen on this site in awhi thirdtierlaw12/29/17
Nothing comical about it. If you don't have enough money to richardparker12/29/17
RichardParker (aka Anakin), you are now banned in the law fo admin12/29/17
haha, didyareally? Your rules, man! ETA: Okay, I hadn inho2solo12/29/17

richardparker (Dec 26, 2017 - 3:09 pm)

So I am not sure if folks working in foreign language document review have experienced this, but the most recent job I applied for required me not only to take one of the Alta foreign langauge tests, but that I also consent to doing it with a proctor--ie allow some unknown third party remote access to my computer, a webcam session, and move the webcam around my living room. Of course, at least one of these tests, the so-called legal reading test, is so highly defective, that native speakers routinely flunk them.
I have had varying success talking recruiters out of that, and that is bad enough. Now with this proctor requirement, I think we have reached a new low. Here is a link I found to it:

http://www.proctoru.com/portal/altalang

If you google proctoru, you will discover an almost universal set of negative reviews and reactions.
Interestingly, the review in question has a brand new listing on craigslist, so they are still unable to find someone to do this. My hope is that everyone just says no. But people should have said that to Alta tests from the get-go. If every attorney doing foreign language said, I am sorry but I will not take the so-called legal reading test, they would have to back down because in the end they need to staff these things to get the job done.
The very idea of offering remote access to one's computer is just beyond the pale. Beyond that, as I described before, the beginning of the session requires you to move your webcam around the room. In effect, this means letting a stranger snoop around your apartment or home via webcam. To think people have undergone many years of advanced education to be treated this way. And it would be one thing if if it were for an actual job, but for some temp job that might last two weeks, might last four. How did things get this bad?

RICHARD PARKER

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 26, 2017 - 5:07 pm)

This is a good idea. Too easy to cheat on an online exam, If you can’t read the language, you shouldn’t be on the review.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 26, 2017 - 5:09 pm)

Do you even speak a foreign language? I doubt it. Are you aware of the myriad, infamous defects of the socalled legal test?
And would *YOU* allow some third party remote access to your computer. This entails browsing history, passwords, financials, all of it?

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 27, 2017 - 7:26 am)

Yes, I work on them every so often. If it bothers you, don’t do it. Maybe they are tired of bringing on people who supposedly receive a 9 on the test, who then come on and have trouble translating a simple sentence.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 27, 2017 - 9:24 am)

Ok but Alta tests are not typically a reasonable measure to address what you are talking about. And again, remote access to one's computer. Just, no.

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 27, 2017 - 12:57 pm)

ALTA tests basic reading comprehension. I know there are people who can claim to speak very well, but their passive vocabulary understanding and ability to read materials that are slightly more complicated are pure garbage. Doc review is reading comprehension. I don’t see how a test that tests basic reading comprehension is unfair. As for the remote access thing, if you have an issue with it, refuse to do it. There are others who won’t have an issue with it and will gladly jump on the next foreign language gig. btw, I also think ATLA needs to change the test more. Too many fakers take the same test from multiple agencies and game the exam. If there is one problem with ALTA, it is this. I don’t see what good a “proctor” will do if people are able to take the same test 5 days in a row and look up all the answers.

Reply Like (0)
triplesix (Dec 27, 2017 - 1:12 pm)

This is not a bug, it is a feature.

Firms pay you to not find "hot" docs haha. Take note of who is always last standing on those reviews. Speaks volumes for what a law firm wants from a foreign speaking monkey.

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 27, 2017 - 1:26 pm)

ROFL. Maybe it works exactly it is supposed to.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 27, 2017 - 2:34 pm)

Ok you are either a troll or agency recruiter, or I don't know what. The problems with the socalled "legal reading" test are well known and legend, and if you aren't aware that puts your language skills in question. Dunning-Kruger effect maybe?

And how the f*ck do you "look up" answers on something like this anyway.

People not having a problem with this sort of invasion of privacy is of course exactly the problem.

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 27, 2017 - 2:52 pm)

What is exactly the problem with a “legal reading” test where you have to read a few paragraphs and answer three or four questions. If you can’t read in a foreign language and answer a few basic reading comprehension questions maybe you shouldn’t be performing foreign language review work, where you will be expected to read in that language all day. The fakers just deflate the rates for those who can legitimately read in the language. It’s easy to look up the answers when you have taken the same test five times in a row. Plus, if you taking the test at home, who is to say that you aren’t just getting your Russian girlfriend or escort to take it for you. A proctored exam seems like a reasonable request IMHO. You sound like those trolls who say we shouldn’t give kids math tests because they don’t really math skills and testing is racist. Let’s just have kids self-certify their own scores and give themselves their own grades.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 27, 2017 - 3:18 pm)

Native speakers ROUTINELY flunk this thing, from a variety of languages. There are even blog posts and articles about this if you bothered to use a search engine. Please piss off.

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 27, 2017 - 3:33 pm)

I have never seen a “native speaker” fail a basic reading comprehension test. Maybe they aren’t really native speakers, or if they are, maybe they are illiterate.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 27, 2017 - 5:28 pm)

I am not even reading what you wrote. F*ck off.

Reply Like (0)
wutwutwut (Dec 27, 2017 - 6:17 pm)

Getting a little, uh, "testie" here?


Haha

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 27, 2017 - 9:46 pm)

You mad?

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 27, 2017 - 5:30 pm)

For those joining the program in progress, there is this link for starters:

https://wordstodeeds.com/2012/08/07/4026/

Reply Like (0)
triplesix (Dec 27, 2017 - 5:39 pm)

OP natives who flunk the test are actually pretty dumb to begin with. Just because you speak the language doesn't mean you have read comp skills.

That said... I know what you are talking on Alta, they are not good test. They are not normalized or curved properly.

I taken close two 10 alata in two lanuages. Never scored below 88.

I am a decent test taker tho.

Reply Like (0)
goptaxlawyer (Dec 27, 2017 - 6:34 pm)

Hire counsel does alta proctoring in their nyc offices. They make you take it in their computer lab.

This seems like a fair deal. No notes or devices of course.

Alternately a test the old fashioned way. I applied for and took a test for a substantive legal job with a solo's office.

The test was the interviewer picking a random story from a foreign language newspaper on her desk then asking me to summarize it after 5 mins. In English. Eg. Main pts raised, criticisms, etc.

Bonus pts for writing a brief summary on a notepad.

Reply Like (0)
nyclawyer (Dec 27, 2017 - 8:32 pm)

OP is correct when he states native speakers often fail this test (for different languages too). And by native I mean immigrants who basically studied in their native countries and later did their LLMs here in the USA.

It seems that the tests are bad translations from English. That's the complaint I've heard.

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Dec 27, 2017 - 9:00 pm)

I am a native speaker of a medium-to-hard language who went to college and LS in the US; I also made my living as a foreign-language JD doc reviewer for a number of years before leaving for gubmint work. I am also a pretty good translator from said language (which is a different skill from review) to the extent of having done quite a bit of translating, including for publication. Here are my observations:

Yes, ALTA isn't ideal but I think like it does an OK job overall. I've seen not-so-good ALTA multiple-choice questions (where arguably there is more than one right answer) as well as some bad ALTA questions (where the right answer is wrong). The thing is, in my experience, there is never enough of these to make you fail if you are really fluent and sharp/good at standardized tests.

Native speakers who fail ALTA are often terrible test takers, have attention/concentration problems, can't follow instructions, or are just too damn stubborn to do so... I'm sure there are exceptions, but that is what I've seen, on the basis of people I met on reviews (who by defition did not fail, since they got on the review, but who complained loudly about the test and/or had borderline scores).

For example, there is something like a 1 correlation between you complaining about ALTA on day one and my having to explain some feature of Relativity to you on days 1 and 2 or having to fix things you horribly botched up on days 3 and 4, or having to redo all your work after you left the project on days 19 and 20... not because you didn't speak the language, mind, but because you aren't able to follow basic instructions in English and do the opposite of what you are told... so the problem, Horatio, is most often not in ALTA but in ourselves.

And, no, I've never been a recruiter or a permanent doc reviewer, or even a team lead, though I've done QC/QR work a bunch of times.

Reply Like (0)
dieter (Dec 28, 2017 - 10:25 am)

Hire Counsel makes you take the ALTA test at one of their offices.

I've heard of several native speakers failing the ALTA reading comprehension exam, but obviously haven't seen it happen. Like Wolfman says, there are many questions with more than one correct answer. The test has its flaws, but I'm unaware of any better mechanism for testing reading comprehension. My Holy Outrage meter isn't exactly jumping at the idea of proctoring the exam - I'm pretty sure a lot of people cheat on it.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 29, 2017 - 1:36 pm)

If there are objective defects in having answer sets that have one right answer and other wrong answers, then the dig that native speakers who flunk it are just stupid does not hold water.

Also, this idea that someone should be able to take any bizarre, esoteric or specialized subject matter and be able to know specialized terms--some of which are not in standard dictionaries--is the height of absurdity.

Many times some of these words and concepts are challenging in one's own language..

The way it works is you encounter a specialized vocabulary set--for example in the technical aspects of laminate floor products--acclimate yourself to the vocabulary which takes maybe a day or two of reading with an online dictionary, and pretty soon you know the words.

The alta legal reading test in particular does not just involve legal terms that fluent non native speakers will be unlikely to know, but imperfect or flatout wrong translations of American common law terms that simply have no counterpart in this or that language. And this-- coupled with poorly written answer sets that have either no right answers or list the right answer as wrong--is why native speakers flunk this thing.

Finally, I have no problem with proctoring per se. I do have a problem with demanding I give remote access to my laptop--with browsing history, passwords, financial etc- and webcam access to my living room. I cannot imagine a more spectacular invasion of one's privacy.

Even presupposing someone looks up a word here or there, if you do not have strong proficiency in the language, you are not going to pass with time constraints.

Sitting in judgment of cvnty recruiters who have never had the intestinal fortitude to even study a foreign language, let alone master proficiency, and thus who do not understand and refuse to listen to such reasoning is bad enough. Giving up remote access to the most intimate aspect of one's personal life--one's computer--just takes it to a whole new level. Which is why they are doing it, because it is really about denigrating and degrading those so disenfranchised.

Reply Like (0)
tedandlisa123 (Dec 29, 2017 - 4:30 pm)

Literate native speakers do not flunk this thing. I have taken the ALTA test dozens of times. Topics have ranged from biology, law, fashion to current events. Nothing too esoteric that a literate high school student couldn’t handle. If you have a large enough passive vocabulary, the ALTA test isn’t that difficult. I can’t even speak my language that well, but I have no problem reading it because I have been reading and listening to it for many years. On certain reviews, when they are desperate for bodies, you don’t even need to score that high on it. As for feeling denigrated and disenfranchised, I am sure if you express your moral outrage about your computer, the agency will have no problem if you volunteer to come take it down at their office. I’d rather not have to pay for parking and deal with the hassle. I am glad they are finally cracking down on the fakers and the cheaters. Higher rates for me. If you aren’t willing to put in the years of work necessary to develop a strong enough passive vocabulary, you shouldn’t be on the review. Winging it and faking it and then whining about a basic reading comprehension test isn’t going to cut it. Special snowflake America.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 29, 2017 - 5:23 pm)

You stupid fvcking twat--did you even check out the link I posted above? ANd to be clear, this is NOT a basic reading comprehension test, which multiple other posters have confirmed above, no matter the degree you insist otherwise, for whatever reasons you have.

And reading piss poor translations of evidentiary phases regarding American criminal proceedings of DUIS not only has no bearing of one's proficiency in a language, precisely because one is not likely to read something like that in French or Spanish or Japanese because these countries do not have this system, it is wholly irrelevant to an FCPA investigation into this or that company or contract litigation matter about software licensing or whatever case one is handling.

And yet you persist.

Go douse yourself in gasoline and light a match, or drink a big swig of liquid drano. In other words, fvck off and DIE a horrible death, or at the very least just piss off, you twat!

Reply Like (0)
goptaxlawyer (Dec 29, 2017 - 4:40 pm)

It's hardly an invasion of privacy if you give consent. If you don't agree to their terms then there is a long line of others who will.

Why not be reasonable and counter offer to come take the test on site or have a telephone interview in the native language with the recruiter. Unless of course you are not as fluent as you think.

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 29, 2017 - 5:24 pm)

Consent coerced by one's monetary needs so they can pay rent or buy food is not really consent. Try reading Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor of Man, and who those who wield bread enslave the masses.

Reply Like (0)
thirdtierlaw (Dec 29, 2017 - 6:54 pm)

This is the most comical post I've seen on this site in awhile. I hope you're trolling.

I'm going to start ignoring my state's supreme court's obnoxious formatting rules. When they kick back my brief, I'll just send them your post.

Better yet! These whole rules of professional responsibility has been making it harder to win cases. Sure I consented to following them when I applied to the bar, but I needed to get paid! That wasn't real consent!

Reply Like (0)
richardparker (Dec 29, 2017 - 7:32 pm)

Nothing comical about it. If you don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, or you do but are hemorrhaging cash because unemployment will run out, you really do not have a choice. Especially with various barriers and conditions in the market whereby doing this work renders it that much more difficult to find an alternative.

That is why there needs to be a blowback to stop agencies from doing this, or the short or shenanigans that Epiq or FTI pulls.

Reply Like (0)
admin (Dec 29, 2017 - 7:41 pm)

RichardParker (aka Anakin), you are now banned in the law forum. Please proceed to the dome. We eagerly await you there.

http://www.jdunderground.com/dome/

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Dec 29, 2017 - 7:50 pm)

haha, didyareally?

Your rules, man!

ETA: Okay, I hadn't seen the 5:23 post before. A lot of that was over the top.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread