> Who's morals are they using for the "correct" response?[...]There's too much subjectivity in a question and response for this. Except we don't even know if t

> Who's morals are they using for the "correct" response?[...]There's too much subjectivity in a question and response for this. Except we don't even know if the question was about morals, if there is a "correct" answer. In particular, as it's an online form there's a myriad of things that can be gained from this that aren't directly related to the content (from the top of my head, how long it takes the candidate to answer, how much back and forth happens etc). Coupled with follow up questions, this could tell a lot about how the person comes to a decision, does it incrementally or not, deals confusing situations etc. I mean, that's basically what we do in our field with whiteboard sessions. Throw a potentially random question and work with the candidate to see how they handle it. PS: > it's about guaranteed that someone will get hurt/offended/feel like a fool Taking your correction on them applying for an admin related role, if they're offended by seemingly absurd question, I think they'll have a hard time dealing with many of the checklists they'll have to fill in their role. Otherwise if a candidate isn't comfortable with a test or question I'd expect them to discuss it with the interviewer. If that exchange can't happen, the relationship is already in a bad place and I see that application as dead (whoever's fault it is). Imagine entering salary discussion when you can't even ask what an interview question is about.