Yes, no test is perfect but I think its better than the alternative. The best part is that its fair in the sense that the person knows what to expect. A lot of

Yes, no test is perfect but I think its better than the alternative. The best part is that its fair in the sense that the person knows what to expect. A lot of people feel disillusioned about processes that have a subjective element, so much so that they don't participate. If I were told the precise steps that all but guarantee an outcome, that person would likely find that preferable to the alternative. It would build trust into the system, even though the objective methods may be too rigid at times. Businesses have all the incentive to create tests that measure real performance. These kinds of problems are best solved in the highly competitive market place for talent. I don't think some politician would do a better job at determining what makes a good employee and how to hire that employee. I've read somewhere that the push for "well-rounded" candidates in colleges was pushed partly to stop the flow of very strong asian candidates displacing others. That's why schools that rely primarily on tests, like the elite Stuyvesant high school, end up with disproportionately asian students (Stuyvesant is 72% Asian). They get criticized for some reason due to the outcome of their selection method. Perhaps going to a school with predominately Asians has downsides for the student, but that's really a judgement call that should be left up to the parents. And the rationales normally used to prove racial bias for a test doesn't really hold water since the groups doing well are usually first or second generation immigrants. I think rigging the system in favor of one group is pretty bad, but rigging it just so that its harder for another group may be even worse.