I will not comment on the very condescending generalization made by this comment. Instead I will ask this: Do you really need employees hired for a specific task to go through rigorous testing which depending on the company you are applying for offers very little real world benefit beyond satisfying HR? I can't count the number of comments here on HN where people were complaining that they didn't get the job even though passing the tech test with flying colors. Isn't it way more efficient to hand someone a real life task and see how he executes it? Also freelancers are expected to be more self reliant then employees who have an immediate superior and a more general role in the company structure.

In my experience there are two types of freelance work, one where you are basically an employee with a different contract (more money, less security). The other is where you are expected to take on as much responsibility as possible and manage yourself (I like to think of it as an one man army). I've been in both roles and neither is inherently better because if you force one role on your client, it is going to end badly and leads to dissatisfaction for both parties (been there done that, went with self reliance mode when employee mode was desired, needless to say I am now much more vigilant and make sure I know what the client wants).

I can't be really angry with the parent comment because I've seen the same kind of arrogance from contractors. The counter to his point could be that employees are afraid of performing or getting tested in the real world, hence they train for a series of theoretical interviews and whiteboard coding and once they land the job they just float along the other employees, stay low and perform as little as needed. This is not my opinion but rather what I have heard from other contractors so don't take offense. Not to mention that one shouldn't be offended by general statements because they offer a modicum of truth at best.