Unpaid internships are not a common practice in this industry like others. The idea of unpaid interns who go into an office and only get coffee for there boss is not something that happens in this industry.
All the internships I know of pay at least minimum wage. Blizzard, Insomniac, SoE blah blah blah. Sure there might be a few small companies that try and sucker you into that, but fuck that. Those internships at those companys are not worth it. Never make artwork for a company that stands to profit off it and not be compensated for your time.
I'm referring to unpaid internships in general. You say that art tests are fine but unpaid internships aren't. But both exploit a candidate's situation. One gets a single candidate to work for free, the other gets a lot of candidates to work for free. One gives the candidate a very high chance of being hired afterwards, the other gives a candidate a very low chance. One gives the candidate studio experience, the other doesn't. One gives the recruiter a clear representation of the candidate's ability, the other doesn't. I think there are a lot more benefits to the unpaid internship. Not that I agree with them. They should be paid for.
And there are tons of people with ok portfolios but are crazy talented. I have seen the art tests here at ND of people who fucking KILLED it but have just ok folios. They would never have a chance to prove themselves. Why would a company try out someone who has an ok portfolio? That would be a huge waste of money.
If an applicant smashes an art test but the rest of his portfolio is mediocre, it's either because their portfolio is outdated, or because the art test is not a true reflection of their ability.
If your portfolio is outdated, then fix it. If an applicant has got their portfolio to a consitently high standard, and in line with the studio's work, they should be getting an interview without needing to do a long test just because there's a chance that someone with a 'mediocre' portfolio hasn't kept it up to date, or that they actually might be passionate about the work that they haven't spent the time to work on.
Call it what you want, but dishing out a load of tests at the start is a cop out. These applications are being judged by art leads, and if they can't judge whether a candidate's portfolio and CV is worthy of an interview, then they can't be capable of their job. The truth is that they can. Just like how those companies which don't require a test manage it. But it's a hell of a lot easier to quickly skim over an application an issue an art test. It takes no time, and it gives them a bit of extra information. But there are just too many factors to make them reliable, and it excludes anyone that does not have a lot of spare time. And it demands that a load of applicants waste a lot of time. It's not a solution.
If a test is needed later in the application process, after the company's already invested time in the applicant and there really is difficulty in concluding, then fine. Test the candidate on something that wasn't evident in their application. And even better, bring them onsite for it. But at the moment some companies issue every decent applicant a test, without using any logic. They just expect them to drop everything, work for free for 1-2 weeks, to show them the same work that can be seen in their portfolio. Either do it or your application is rejected.
I tell you one thing. The companies that treat their applicants well, I'd happily pursue for work. The ones that don't, I wouldn't. It's extremely important to work in a positive environment and, as a previous poster said, that is a good indication.
Replies
A probation period is the period straight after the candidate being hired where they're closely monitored. Just like in all professions.
If an applicant smashes an art test but the rest of his portfolio is mediocre, it's either because their portfolio is outdated, or because the art test is not a true reflection of their ability.
If your portfolio is outdated, then fix it. If an applicant has got their portfolio to a consitently high standard, and in line with the studio's work, they should be getting an interview without needing to do a long test just because there's a chance that someone with a 'mediocre' portfolio hasn't kept it up to date, or that they actually might be passionate about the work that they haven't spent the time to work on.
Call it what you want, but dishing out a load of tests at the start is a cop out. These applications are being judged by art leads, and if they can't judge whether a candidate's portfolio and CV is worthy of an interview, then they can't be capable of their job. The truth is that they can. Just like how those companies which don't require a test manage it. But it's a hell of a lot easier to quickly skim over an application an issue an art test. It takes no time, and it gives them a bit of extra information. But there are just too many factors to make them reliable, and it excludes anyone that does not have a lot of spare time. And it demands that a load of applicants waste a lot of time. It's not a solution.
If a test is needed later in the application process, after the company's already invested time in the applicant and there really is difficulty in concluding, then fine. Test the candidate on something that wasn't evident in their application. And even better, bring them onsite for it. But at the moment some companies issue every decent applicant a test, without using any logic. They just expect them to drop everything, work for free for 1-2 weeks, to show them the same work that can be seen in their portfolio. Either do it or your application is rejected.
I tell you one thing. The companies that treat their applicants well, I'd happily pursue for work. The ones that don't, I wouldn't. It's extremely important to work in a positive environment and, as a previous poster said, that is a good indication.