It is okay in the industry to discriminate employees based on whether they just graduated from a top tier school like Stanford. Or whether they have years of experience at a top tier company like Google. Or answer absurdly irrelevant puzzles, or implement red-black trees from memory on a whiteboard. Or whether they can answer aggressive questions demanding to explain their business value. Or whether they are a "culture fit" (too black, too old, too female, etc.) Or whether they have enough names of technologies you use in the resume. Or whether their resumes are well-formatted.
In short, throw people out for almost any reason you want, and HN will defend your right to do so. But suggest that we could ever choose employees based on measures of "intelligence" or academic performance, and you are obviously doing something horrible and nobody should see your post.
There's at least one good thing about standardized testing: at least it's standardized and objective rather than being based on vague emotional criteria - how well you can con the interviewers, or whether they think you're just like them, or whether you present social proof that you convinced sufficiently many other companies in the past, or whether you are literally a friend of an employee.