Let's unpack that for a second. "Skill" is probably one of the least valuable metrics of a given hire's performance over time for an employer. Yes, being able

Let's unpack that for a second. "Skill" is probably one of the least valuable metrics of a given hire's performance over time for an employer. Yes, being able to effectively select for the people most likely to develop a competitive non-extant algorithm is an important metric for certain employers that skill tests will assist with. However, it's as niche to general society as academic studies are. This is not to say that it's unworthy of practice or attention. In some cases, it's absolutely justified. What I'm advocating for, however, is skewed towards the broad middle of employment cases - people who are competent, able to solve most day-to-day problems, and not adverse to new practices. In most cases, people aren't looking to advance the knowledge of a particular field of study. They're just looking to solve problems for their day job while earning appropriate compensation. The employer gets a satisfactory advancement of their capabilities, and the employee gets to enjoy a quality of life they're used to. The "broad middle" is much messier, but also easier to filter for. As a hiring manager, I would look for people that are A) not obvious assholes, and B) likely to improve my team's performance in some measurable way. In other words... Company X, which lives and dies by having the absolute latest technology available to humanity, may well need to use code interviews to even establish a baseline performance metric. Company Y, which is just interested in appreciably improving its market share versus a wide cohort, is probably better served by "softer" hiring metrics.