This is a legal problem for large, stupid slow companies. The beauty of tests is they're hard to sue over. I used to do this for a multi-national tech conglome

This is a legal problem for large, stupid slow companies. The beauty of tests is they're hard to sue over. I used to do this for a multi-national tech conglomerate. Everyone else did technical interviews. I gave a laughably easy tech test (few binary operators). If you mentioned a technology I knew well on your resume I asked you a question about that. After that, "Tell me about your favorite book, author, movie, album, musician, hobby, magazine. Anything. There's no wrong answer." Just to get a conversation going. I had a number of questions like this. The point was to get them talking. The most memorable was a Bukowski fan. We talked about his novels and the employer happened to be just a mile from where some of the scenes were set. It was cool because the guy lit UP when he got to talk about it. The guy who made the worst impression said Freebird was the only thing he could think of, and the last album he could remember buying... when it came out... in 1973... I observed no correlation between test results and whether the person turned out to be a good hire. There was also an inverse correlation between competency and "gotcha" questions. One of our least competent engineers was vicious and mean-spirited during interviews. In the 100 or so interviews we did together, the only person he ever liked was his friend. Ironically I fought hard against hiring the interviewer himself but was explicitly instructed that we were seeking "moderately competent" individuals for his role. Then HR found out about it somehow and forbade me from asking "personal questions" because we "might get sued." I had to stick to a script. So I quit giving interviews, and we hired people who were good test takers from then on.