You have to consider the perspective of a company or a recruiter. Their goal is not to simply find somebody who is capable, it's to take the hundreds if not thousands of prospective applicants they have and then cull that down to the tiny handful that they advance along for the openings that they have available. You're not looking for reasons to accept people, but for reasons to reject them. It's just the nature of employing for positions when with a large pool of interested and qualified labor.

Should movements such as 'get [anybody with a pulse] into coding' succeed, you can expect to see an ever increasing absurdity in requirements. The reason is not to try to be elite or whatever, but because the reality is you have to get rid of of > 90% of applications, for larger companies it may be > 99%. And so as the number of applications increases, you get an ever larger quantity of people with at least the minimum requirements and so you are forced to be increasingly selective.

Does passing some leetcode task mean you're a good developer? No, of course not. But if you take 100 passable developers and you're looking for the best, are they more or less likely than average to be able to pass such a test? It's the same reason that even though a college degree has absolutely 0 relevance to serving coffee, you're increasingly seeing companies "preferring" college degrees for their barely above minimum wage baristas. [1] If you take 100 potential baristas is that best of the best of those 100 more or less likely to have a college degree? Even though it has nothing to do with the actual job, it's just a decent way to filter 100 down to 1.

[1] - https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/why-that-barista-has-a-col...