Wonderlic Sample Test

[R. Richard]

If you are a candidate for first day selection in the NFL draft, you take the Wonderlic test.

Here is a web site that offers a Wonderlic sample test of the type that NFL players take. Try it out and see your score.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/existence/wonderlic.html

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

What it considers as "Correct" for #2 disappoints me. I think most people, too, will be answering that one incorrectly. Bad logic. The test is lame.

 

[alyxen]

What it considers as "Correct" for #2 disappoints me. I think most people, too, will be answering that one incorrectly. Bad logic. The test is lame.

What aspect of it makes it seem odd? The logic is actually impeccable.

 

[JagFarlane]

Wow...Dan Marino is an idiot.

Found these:

2006:
Matt Leinart, USC - 35
Charlie Whitehurst, Clemson - 33
Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt - 26
Kellen Clemens, Oregon - 26
Bruce Gradkowski, Toledo - 19
Vince Young, Texas - 6, 16 (these are disputed, there are no clear reports of what he actually scored)
Marcus Vick, Virginia Tech - 11
2005:
Ryan Fitzpatick, Harvard - 37, 38, 50
Alex Smith, Utah - 40
Aaron Rodgers, Cal - 39
Jason Campbell, Auburn - 14, 27, 28
Charlie Frye, Akron - 28, 38
Andrew Walter, Arizona State - 31
Kyle Orton, Purdue - 25, 27
Chris Rix, Florida State - 22, 26
Brock Berlin, Miami - 13
2004:
Eli Manning, Ole Miss - 39
Craig Krenzel, Ohio State - 38
J.P. Losman, Tulane - 31, 14
Philip Rivers, N.C. State - 30
Matt Schaub, Virginia - 30
Ben Roethlisberger, Miami (Ohio) - 25
Jim "Yes I Will Be Receiving A Super Bowl Ring" Sorgi, Wisconsin - 14
2003:
Drew Henson, Michigan - 42
Tony Romo, Eastern Illinois - 30
Rex Grossman, Florida - 29
Kyle Boller, Cal - 27
Carson Palmer, USC - 26
Byron Leftwich, Marshall - 25
Chris Simms, Texas - 22
Seneca Wallace, Iowa State - 12
2002:
Joey Harrington, Oregon - 32
Patrick Ramsey, Tulane - 32
David Carr, Fresno State - 24
David Garrard, East Carolina - 14
2001:
Sage Rosenfels, Iowa State - 32
Jesse Palmer, Florida - 32
Quincy Carter, Georgia - 30 (This has to be a misprint)
Chris Wenke, Florida State - 29
Drew Brees, Purdue - 28
Michael Vick, Virginia Tech - 20
A.J. Feeley, Oregon - 19
2000:
Tom Brady, Michigan - 33
Marc Bulger, West Virginia - 29
Tim Rattay, Louisiana Tech - 27
Chad Pennington, Marshall - 25
Tee Martin, Tennessee - 11
1999:
Cade McNown, UCLA - 28
Akili Smith, Oregon - 37, 15 (apparently many people feel Smith cheated off of his teammate Jason Maas on his first attempt. Maas scored a 43 that same year.)
Shaun King, Tulane - 25
Tim Couch, Kentucky - 22
Daunte Culpepper, Central Florida - 18, 21, 15
Aaron Brooks, Virginia - 17
Donovan McNabb, Syracuse - 16, 12
1998:
Brian Griese, Michigan - 39
Matt Hasselbeck, Boston College - 29
Ryan Leaf, Washington State - 27
Peyton Manning, Tennessee - 25

And here are some other notable scores we found floating around these here internets:
1995:
Kerry Collins, Penn State - 30
Steve McNair, Alcorn State - 15
Kordell Stewart, Colorado - 12
1994:
Trent Dilfer, Fresno State - 22
Heath Shuler, Tennessee - 16 (Dude is a congressman and he only got a 16?)
1993:
Drew Bledsoe, Washington State - 37
Rick Mirer, Notre Dame - 31
Mark Brunell, Washington - 22
Elvis Grbac, Michigan - 16
1992:
David Klingler, Houston - 30
Jeff Blake, East Carolina - 17
1991:
Brett Favre, Southern Miss. - 22
1990:
Neil O'Donnell, Maryland - 13
Jeff George, Illnois - 10
1989:
Troy Aikman, UCLA - 29
1987:
Rich Gannon, Delaware - 27
Vinny Testaverde, Miami - 18
1985:
Randall Cunningham, UNLV - 15
1983:
Dan Marino, Pittsburgh - 14
1982:
Steve Young, BYU - 33

 

[starrkers]

Guess it just proves you don't have to be smart to play football

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

What aspect of it makes it seem odd? The logic is actually impeccable.

MUCH disagree. Its leaving out an important component; without it, the answer is "C".

 

[Katyusha]

MUCH disagree. Its leaving out an important component; without it, the answer is "C".

Which is...?

I answered that one correctly.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Which is...?

I answered that one correctly.

Its going to seem overly picky, but when you break it down to purely symbolic logic (best way to boil away all the predication and look at the science of the relationships), we haven't established that all people who play football are football players. There's an ambiguity in the domain: action, occupation, event, etc. Sort of like "not everyone who plays football is a football player" pending what you mean by "football player".

Blah. Its probably not that interesting for anyone else.

 

[starrkers]

But you forget, Joe, this is a test for football players. Higher logic isn't expected. I recognised the ambiguity and then factored in the intended subject.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

But you forget, Joe, this is a test for football players. Higher logic isn't expected. I recognised the ambiguity and then factored in the intended subject.

Oh, I know what it WANTED me to answer. I'm just saying its wrong.

Its like getting the geometric word problem of

"Two lines that never intersect, are not perpendicular, are (always, sometimes, or never) parallel".

I got that in highschool geometry. I know what it WANTS me to say, but its wrong.

 

[Katyusha]

Its going to seem overly picky, but when you break it down to purely symbolic logic (best way to boil away all the predication and look at the science of the relationships), we haven't established that all people who play football are football players. There's an ambiguity in the domain: action, occupation, event, etc. Sort of like "not everyone who plays football is a football player" pending what you mean by "football player".

Blah. Its probably not that interesting for anyone else.

Two problems, though, when it comes to our chosen specialties: we expect everyone of reasonable intelligence to see/hear/analyze something the exact same way we do, and to the same degree we do, even though that's a very unrealistic expectation. By the same token, we tend to expect it to be easy, and to make perfect sense to, everyone else, simply because it comes so easily to us.

I simply ignored the ambiguity of the question.

 

[Edward Teach]

What it considers as "Correct" for #2 disappoints me. I think most people, too, will be answering that one incorrectly. Bad logic. The test is lame.

I agree that #2 could be misinterpreted. It is poorly worded and forces you to decide what the correct answer was intended to be, not necessarily what it is.

Years ago, before some of the employment laws were enacted, almost everyone gave Wonderlics to job applicants. Once, when looking for a job, I had taken so many Wonderlics that I knew all the answers (they only had a total of about two hundered or so questions) and would score 50 on every test. They thought I was a genius.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Two problems, though, when it comes to our chosen specialties: we expect everyone of reasonable intelligence to see/hear/analyze something the exact same way we do, and to the same degree we do, even though that's a very unrealistic expectation. By the same token, we tend to expect it to be easy, and to make perfect sense to, everyone else, simply because it comes so easily to us.

I don't think I agree with either of those two statements. I think it strongly depends on how you think analysis works. I don't see them as problems, though. Maybe I'm missing your point

I simply ignored the ambiguity of the question.

I figured most people were going to.

 

[fifty5]

Its going to seem overly picky, but when you break it down to purely symbolic logic (best way to boil away all the predication and look at the science of the relationships), we haven't established that all people who play football are football players. There's an ambiguity in the domain: action, occupation, event, etc. Sort of like "not everyone who plays football is a football player" pending what you mean by "football player".

Blah. Its probably not that interesting for anyone else.

In what sense, Joe, is "not everyone who plays football is a football player" valid? Surely playing football is identical to being a football player. No? Or how not?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

In what sense, Joe, is "not everyone who plays football is a football player" valid? Surely playing football is identical to being a football player. No? Or how not?

If the domain of "football player" is someone whose occupation is playing football, then there are some players of football that aren't football players. If the domain of "football player" is someone who has, at any time, played football, then there are no players of football that aren't football players.

It may seem like an easy discarded technicality--and it truly is one--but it doesn't hold up when we take it to QL or PL (sort of, on that one).

I'm not saying its not a functional question, just that its missing a proposition in there that makes it perfectly sound.

 

[jomar]

This rings a bell...oh, yeah it's a 1939 test. Might have been updated, it would have an '-R' in the name.

 

[Edward Teach]

If the domain of "football player" is someone whose occupation is playing football, then there are some players of football that aren't football players. If the domain of "football player" is someone who has, at any time, played football, then there are no players of football that aren't football players.

It may seem like an easy discarded technicality--and it truly is one--but it doesn't hold up when we take it to QL or PL (sort of, on that one).

I'm not saying its not a functional question, just that its missing a proposition in there that makes it perfectly sound.

I don't mean in any way to speak for Joe, but to me the trouble with a question like this is that it punishes anyone who is completely, technically correct.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't mean in any way to speak for Joe,

Joe ain't no bitch, Ed.



(I don't know why that amused me like it did, but it did)

 

[jomar]

never mind.....

 

[fifty5]

If the domain of "football player" is someone whose occupation is playing football, then there are some players of football that aren't football players. If the domain of "football player" is someone who has, at any time, played football, then there are no players of football that aren't football players.

OK as such, but why do you introduce "whose occupation is playing football", particularly in contrast to "whose means of making a living is playing football"? If the occupation in question was playing chess, or cards, to me at least, the implication that these were the livelihood of the person in question wouldn't even arise. My son plays poker. He is a poker player. The stakes he plays for are trivial: completely inconsequential as far as feeding himself and his family are concerned. He isn't a 'professional poker player." Now if the question had included the word 'professional' I'd be right with you, but it didn't.

What does "completely, technically correct" mean? To me, the "completely, technically correct" meaning of "X player" is just "plays X", not "plays X as a means of making a living", which "completely, technically correctly" would be "professional X player".

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

How do you define football player and "football player?"

How do /I/ define it? Like, shooting from the hip gut reaction?

I think of it like "Billy was playing football afterschool the other day, is he a football player?" with "I don't know, is he on the school team?". Or "Wow, Steve is really good out there, is he a football player?" with "He used to be before he blew his knee out."

Or do we mean something more formal?

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

I took the real deal for a job interview one time and got a 32. It tests mental speed a lot more than intelligence. Can you come up with correct solutions to relatively simple problems quickly?

As far as testing for inventiveness, creativity, complex analysis, finding novel perspective, empathy, or social intelligence, it's utterly worthless.

 

[fifty5]

How do /I/ define it? Like, shooting from the hip gut reaction?

I think of it like "Billy was playing football afterschool the other day, is he a football player?" with "I don't know, is he on the school team?". Or "Wow, Steve is really good out there, is he a football player?" with "He used to be before he blew his knee out."

Or do we mean something more formal?

Personally, I didn't play football (or, more strictly - at my school - rugby). Sometimes I was compelled to go through the motions. I wasn't a 'football/rugby player" I was dumped on.

On the other hand I am a computer programmer - entirely and essentially because I program computers. The fact that with notable exceptions I haven't been paid for that activity has no relevance at all - I do do it.

 

[alyxen]

Its going to seem overly picky, but when you break it down to purely symbolic logic (best way to boil away all the predication and look at the science of the relationships), we haven't established that all people who play football are football players. There's an ambiguity in the domain: action, occupation, event, etc. Sort of like "not everyone who plays football is a football player" pending what you mean by "football player".

Blah. Its probably not that interesting for anyone else.

Now see, I at least thought you were going to argue that the boy certainly does not always wear the helmet, making the generalization that he wears a helmet a bit ambiguous. It would be better if the last statement included 'while playing football'. But then if too much info is included, it also pretty well defeats the purpose of making it a multiple choice question, IMHO.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Personally, I didn't play football (or, more strictly - at my school - rugby). Sometimes I was compelled to go through the motions. I wasn't a 'football/rugby player" I was dumped on.

On the other hand I am a computer programmer - entirely and essentially because I program computers. The fact that with notable exceptions I haven't been paid for that activity has no relevance at all - I do do it.

It might have relevance. It entirely depends on how we're defining things.

Now see, I at least thought you were going to argue that the boy certainly does not always wear the helmet, making the generalization that he wears a helmet a bit ambiguous. It would be better if the last statement included 'while playing football'. But then if too much info is included, it also pretty well defeats the purpose of making it a multiple choice question, IMHO.

If the boy plays football,
and all boys who play football are football players,
and all football players wear helmets,
then the boy wears a helmet.

That would be fine.