>A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.
Of course there are other factors as well, but IQ is one of the biggest factors and it's taboo to even mention it.
1. I could try and attack the evidence, by linking studies such as http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... which found that conscientiousness is better correlated with grades (a proxy for job performance) than SAT score (a proxy for IQ), but that's not a very strong claim considering all the proxy measures involved (and it still does show that IQ matters).
2. I could attack the article you linked: "employers are more interested in employees' social skills than their cognitive ability" seems correct, in that communication is a key difficulty in jobs at large organization, much more than any individual's cognitive capacity. One could claim it's better at a large org to "satisfice" for IQ while optimizing for social skill. "Emotional Intelligence" vs "Cognitive Ability" as linked later in the article also doesn't seem to capture a sufficiently broad space of factors. And what is "culture fit" about, then?
3. We could talk about the taboo on discussing IQ. I could discuss my experience talking with supporters of "human bio-diversity", geneticists who seemed quite interested in discussing correlations between "various socio-cultural factors" and IQ, mostly with the intent of riling up people, or playing a contrarian position. Many people have a weak understanding of IQ and genetics, and end up drawing incorrect and occasionally repugnant conclusions based on the data (typically due to a lack of understanding that, across generations, genetics are malleable, IQ is malleable, etc).
"Some people use the data badly" isn't a strong argument against mainstreaming discussion of IQ. A stronger argument might be that individuals like to feel ownership over their own lives. Telling people that "IQ, which is determined mostly genetically, is the largest factor in your job performance (read: life success)" chips away at the common knowledge that an individual has significant personal agency, which is important as a philosophical basis behind various facets of western culture. Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex tries to synthesize the two sides (one side wants to mainstream IQ, the other feels their self-narrative is threatened, hence the synthesis that it doesn't matter so much on an individual level) here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/27/against-individual-iq-w... but not everyone finds his arguments compelling.
All this isn't to say I agree or disagree that there should be a taboo -- I personally don't have a stance, but would prefer not to hire based on the metric -- but I did want to share some reasons that an objector might give against making it an acceptable measure.
I'm not going to suggest that there's absolutely no bias in the IQ tests themselves, but we've come a long way with them, and they're certainly going to be less biased than the average human who is hiring. Your IQ has no race or gender.
I also did not claim that the IQ test itself was biased. I'm not quite certain which of my claims you're responding to.
If IQ isn't the only thing a college degree is a proxy for, that just means we'd need to offer companies even more than just IQ test if we want to remove the college degree requirement.
>The ASVAB measures cognitive ability like other common IQ test, but it dependent upon the individual’s previous education for successful scores. It removes the individual attention received in common IQ test, but gathers much of the same information.
A college degree shows an ability to complete a specific course of discipline. It does not really even indicate aptitude in the discipline. Just the ability to follow through and complete the requirements. I suppose it shows a minimum level of aptitude in that you didn't give up hope and quit.
ASVAB doesn't indicate the ability to follow through with anything. It tries to hint at aptitude in a wide range of disciplines. It purports to provide your relative capabilities and interest in many topics.
That is why the military relies on ASVAB. They don't need to know your level of stick-to-it-ness or discipline. They will beat that into you or drum you out very quickly. They are more interested in where among hundreds of specialties you are most likely to fit.
I don't know what standards are like in the U.S., but at least where I went to university a good 30% (of those who were in the top 20% of the highly selective entrance exam) ended up getting kicked out because they didn't pass enough courses in their first or second year.
Yes, for some people it was an inability to concentrate, but I also know a few who put in more than the minimum hours but for some reason it just didn't 'click'.
I don't know if the US is suffering from grade inflation which lets through people who should have been failed, or if you are just in a bubble of people who are successful, but what you describe is nothing like what I experienced.
>A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.
Also, don’t actually call it an IQ test. Get a third party that tests IQ and then issues a branded certification named after the IQ tier you fall into. Like CompTIA certifications: you could be a holder of a “FooTesting Genius Certification”, and employers could ask for that.
You know, like a college degree. Except shorter.