Steel man argument for the opposing position: At a certain point, no matter how well paid, you're going to want your future employee to do something that seems

Steel man argument for the opposing position: At a certain point, no matter how well paid, you're going to want your future employee to do something that seems pointlessly redundant to them, and to do it as conscientiously as possible in spite of not knowing the importance of the task you want them to do. Might as well get that test out of the way as soon as possible, with their own document that they can supply to cross-validate it, right? /steel man argument Is this actually good? Are you going to needlessly turn away really smart people who should be objecting to seemingly pointless tasks? Should really good employees object outright to doing things they think are a waste of time? Maybe they should? Or maybe they should acquiesce after a bit of pushback even if they don't understand it? Maybe this is an adequate speed-bump for applicants - if simply accepting resumes means that you get a much greater percentage of unqualified applications, perhaps it's worth it to select for those willing to tolerate the exercise?