What exactly are you suggesting here? A standardized test that applies to all your job applications? Or, a candidate having to drive to a test center for every company they apply to? Or something else?
but the screening cost for companies is eye watering so something should be done.
It's a common sentiment.
But compare https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decisio... . ("People predicting the future performance of college students state that interviewing the students aids prediction, although in fact the interviews make predictions less accurate.")
This is effectively how Harvard was rejecting Asian applicants. They created a "personal fit" / cultural fit quality that Asians scored low on . Supreme Court found this to be discrimination.
It doesn't matter if you are truly discriminating, it matters how well you have tangible evidence of the employee not meeting the qualifications for the role.
Likely. But haters gonna hate, and lawyers gonna sue.
I'm not sure if you guys have been in charge of hiring, but there's no real alternative. In my most recent experience, we had one open position, and after interviewing 10 candidates, 3 of them were basically identical in terms of technical qualifications. How do you choose one over the other, other than the "vibes"? Anyone suggesting otherwise is either living in a weird alternate reality, or doesn't want to accept that working is a cooperative job and interpersonal relationships are very important.
There always will be exceptions for different type of roles and specializations, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Interviews based on personal feelings have hidden biases not even the interviewer is aware of.
Think of how poor the screening process is at the recruiter & CTS (left side) of the funnel, and how many false negatives there are .
If you could offer standardized test at that level, you may be able to keep viable candidates in the funnel longer.
Big Tech / Unicorn / Wannabe Unicorn prescreens are all basically standardized now anyway.
Of course, they'd miss out on some good talent. But in the article where it shows the quote of someone getting rejected for not inverting a binary tree on a whiteboard, that doesn't seem like a terrible thing to test for.