There's two things you didn't touch upon with used cars (an area I'm very familiar with although, admittedly, from a while ago, due to working for my cousin's dealership). The first is the Carfax report. Used cars are almost never sold to even remotely savvy buyers without a Carfax report. Leaving aside how people put too much faith in them, I'm curious what the analogous version of that would be here.
The second is the test drive. Again, too much faith is put in a test drive. But the ability to use the product - even if only for 5-10 minutes - is an important factor. I've often thought something similar will be important to hiring in the future. Your (excellent amd thought provoking) article raises my belief in that.
Really, aptitude testing is going to need to be done. Interviewing gives an idea for "will they be a culture fit" but very little for performing the job. In my industry, we go very down the line. The idea being that because the LSAT is akin to an IQ test, employers look for signs someone has a high LSAT - ie, attending a prestigious school or working for a prestigious firm - even if those rarely correlate with improved skills beyond aptitude. Unfortunately, the much more direct route is illegal.
One final thing that seemingly does not apply to the tech sector but certainly applies to my (and I suspect many other) industries: the job market is often doubly harmed by lack of information. Not only do applicants hide much information, but so do employers. Often the idea is get the employee in the door for a shit job because they won't quit (due to the disastrous effect on their resume) so you mislead them about the job they're applying for. It's not particularly relevant to your main points but it's an interesting (to me) part of the analogy for many industries.
Separate question. If it were legal, do you think some firms would just straight up ask for your SAT/ACT/LSAT/etc scores? Much easier than a firm investing in its own test.
I have thoughts on your other comment but this one is easy: some, absolutely.
Speaking only of my field, the LSAT 60% of the time correlates with a student's first year grades, regardless of where they go. I know some firms - particularly for entry level attorneys - highly value this although almost none ask for it. Which makes sense on the former because one of the key traits you want in someone for these roles is the ability to learn things. Incidentally, much of the legal employment model for entry level employees is (or was) based on the test drive model: you intern during law school and get employment from that (it's much more complicated in reality).
I think a lot of places would not though, for many reasons. One, they may feel similarly towards you about IQ. Two, in my experience, many people have internalized the idea that the things we use for proxy (namely, school attended and work experience if applicable) are actually not proxies but what you're hiring for. In other words, a student at University of Texas Law will receive a better education to prepare them for the practice of law than a student at University of Houston Law.
Of course, whether any of these assumptions have merit behind them (even the ones I'm making!) is unknown. It's really just throwing darts at the dart board.
I look back at the first big firm I worked for where they would hire us in bunches (I was one of 3, one of whom has been there 8 years, the other two did not make it 1) and I think they could have found some way superior to just gut instinct in two interviews and a resume to determine who would succeed, and it would probably have saved everyone a lot of time and money.
Carfax was a huge omission on my part, but the article isn't really about used cars (obviously) so I didn't go in depth there.
I already do the "test drive" thing when I interview. I get on a Zoom call and given them a few SQL questions. I don't care if you have a Hackerrank certification, write a query live and I can tell within a few minutes if they understand SQL or not.
As for aptitude testing, I agree that something has to be done. I don't quite think IQ is enough, at least in my experience. I've worked with many people who I'd bet have much, much higher IQs than me. I'd still take me over many of them, though, because I'm better at the communication part. I'm an IQ "moderate," its quite valuable but not as wholistic as some its supporters act like it is.
A few notes:
There's two things you didn't touch upon with used cars (an area I'm very familiar with although, admittedly, from a while ago, due to working for my cousin's dealership). The first is the Carfax report. Used cars are almost never sold to even remotely savvy buyers without a Carfax report. Leaving aside how people put too much faith in them, I'm curious what the analogous version of that would be here.
The second is the test drive. Again, too much faith is put in a test drive. But the ability to use the product - even if only for 5-10 minutes - is an important factor. I've often thought something similar will be important to hiring in the future. Your (excellent amd thought provoking) article raises my belief in that.
Really, aptitude testing is going to need to be done. Interviewing gives an idea for "will they be a culture fit" but very little for performing the job. In my industry, we go very down the line. The idea being that because the LSAT is akin to an IQ test, employers look for signs someone has a high LSAT - ie, attending a prestigious school or working for a prestigious firm - even if those rarely correlate with improved skills beyond aptitude. Unfortunately, the much more direct route is illegal.
One final thing that seemingly does not apply to the tech sector but certainly applies to my (and I suspect many other) industries: the job market is often doubly harmed by lack of information. Not only do applicants hide much information, but so do employers. Often the idea is get the employee in the door for a shit job because they won't quit (due to the disastrous effect on their resume) so you mislead them about the job they're applying for. It's not particularly relevant to your main points but it's an interesting (to me) part of the analogy for many industries.
Separate question. If it were legal, do you think some firms would just straight up ask for your SAT/ACT/LSAT/etc scores? Much easier than a firm investing in its own test.
I have thoughts on your other comment but this one is easy: some, absolutely.
Speaking only of my field, the LSAT 60% of the time correlates with a student's first year grades, regardless of where they go. I know some firms - particularly for entry level attorneys - highly value this although almost none ask for it. Which makes sense on the former because one of the key traits you want in someone for these roles is the ability to learn things. Incidentally, much of the legal employment model for entry level employees is (or was) based on the test drive model: you intern during law school and get employment from that (it's much more complicated in reality).
I think a lot of places would not though, for many reasons. One, they may feel similarly towards you about IQ. Two, in my experience, many people have internalized the idea that the things we use for proxy (namely, school attended and work experience if applicable) are actually not proxies but what you're hiring for. In other words, a student at University of Texas Law will receive a better education to prepare them for the practice of law than a student at University of Houston Law.
Of course, whether any of these assumptions have merit behind them (even the ones I'm making!) is unknown. It's really just throwing darts at the dart board.
I look back at the first big firm I worked for where they would hire us in bunches (I was one of 3, one of whom has been there 8 years, the other two did not make it 1) and I think they could have found some way superior to just gut instinct in two interviews and a resume to determine who would succeed, and it would probably have saved everyone a lot of time and money.
Carfax was a huge omission on my part, but the article isn't really about used cars (obviously) so I didn't go in depth there.
I already do the "test drive" thing when I interview. I get on a Zoom call and given them a few SQL questions. I don't care if you have a Hackerrank certification, write a query live and I can tell within a few minutes if they understand SQL or not.
As for aptitude testing, I agree that something has to be done. I don't quite think IQ is enough, at least in my experience. I've worked with many people who I'd bet have much, much higher IQs than me. I'd still take me over many of them, though, because I'm better at the communication part. I'm an IQ "moderate," its quite valuable but not as wholistic as some its supporters act like it is.