Your analysis of the legality of using IQ tests to hire employees is undercooked.
Two cases of the Supreme Court—Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (which you discussed) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody—helped make the use of IQ tests prohibitively expensive. In Albermarle, the Supreme Court applied the relevant EEOC regulations to a company that used the Wonderlic test, the Revised Beta Examination, and the Bennet Mechanical Comprehension Test for hiring:
"The EEOC has issued ‘Guidelines' for employers seeking to determine, through professional validation studies, whether their employment tests are job related. 29 CFR pt. 1607. These Guidelines draw upon and make reference to professional standards of test validation established by the American Psychological Association. The EEOC Guidelines are not administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to formal procedures established by the Congress. But, as this Court has heretofore noted, they do constitute '(t)he administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing agency,’ and consequently they are ‘entitled to great deference.’ Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S., at 433-34, 91 S.Ct., at 854. See also Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86, 94, 94 S.Ct. 334, 339, 38 L.Ed.2d 287 (1973). Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 430-31 (1975).
The message of these Guidelines is the same as that of the Griggs case—that discriminatory tests are impermissible unless shown, by professionally acceptable methods, to be ‘predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being evaluated.’ 29 CFR s 1607.4(c)." [end of Supreme court quote]
The current rules—see 29 CFR section 1607—make using IQ tests for hiring prohibitively expensive, although the regulations allow their use under certain circumstances. Any company that wants to use IQ tests in their hiring process must rigorously test this process and has the burden to prove that the test works. In other words, IQ tests are presumed to cause an “adverse impact” and discriminate in violation of the Civil Rights Act under the current regulations. And if a company fails to meet this burden in court, it could face severe penalties, such as punitive damages. Given that the Court gives “great deference” to these regulations in interpreting the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act, these regulations are the main hindrance to the adoption of IQ tests in hiring employees.
High-paying tech companies already select for IQ in software engineer hiring. They just launder it as a time-constrained "live programming exercise".
That exercise has the trappings of a work sample test but is very heavily G-loaded.
100 IQ folks can study and study and not pass. 130+ folks can show up and pass
There has been lots of Goodharting on it, but the (hated) practice survives because it works to select for cognitive ability (often called "problem solving ability" by hiring managers).
That was from s a UK-based survey, right? Live programming interview steps are much more common in the US, though more common in the UK than other European nations.
They're also most prevalent at firms paying closer to $200k/yr for senior SWEs than for firms paying closer to $100k, despite BLS data often showing mean programmer earnings closer to $100k. The programming test is how companies stratify, though most don't understand that. You're right that it's mostly spread via memetics.
For silicon valley firms paying $300k+ it is very very hard to find a firm that doesn't do a challenging live programming interview.
“Administering work sample tests” is a little iffy: If I recall correctly from the last time I dug into this, work samples refer to samples produced by people literally already on the job. As in, supervisors using “work samples” to predict job performance would mean they are essentially predicting future performance from past performance.
E.g., your Github repo of code does not, I believe, count as a work sample when applying to coding jobs.
If anything this goes to show how powerful IQ (or “GMA”) tests are that they’re basically as good as past job performance.
I like the idea but certain jobs should be female-based and based on a hotness criteria. Stewardesses, waitresses, secretaries, etc. should all be hired on attractiveness and not I. Q. If anything it should a non qualifier. Instead, we live in a system that prioritizes obese hideous women and gay guys. Where are my ditzy blond bimbo stewardesses!
Your analysis of the legality of using IQ tests to hire employees is undercooked.
Two cases of the Supreme Court—Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (which you discussed) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody—helped make the use of IQ tests prohibitively expensive. In Albermarle, the Supreme Court applied the relevant EEOC regulations to a company that used the Wonderlic test, the Revised Beta Examination, and the Bennet Mechanical Comprehension Test for hiring:
"The EEOC has issued ‘Guidelines' for employers seeking to determine, through professional validation studies, whether their employment tests are job related. 29 CFR pt. 1607. These Guidelines draw upon and make reference to professional standards of test validation established by the American Psychological Association. The EEOC Guidelines are not administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to formal procedures established by the Congress. But, as this Court has heretofore noted, they do constitute '(t)he administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing agency,’ and consequently they are ‘entitled to great deference.’ Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S., at 433-34, 91 S.Ct., at 854. See also Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86, 94, 94 S.Ct. 334, 339, 38 L.Ed.2d 287 (1973). Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 430-31 (1975).
The message of these Guidelines is the same as that of the Griggs case—that discriminatory tests are impermissible unless shown, by professionally acceptable methods, to be ‘predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being evaluated.’ 29 CFR s 1607.4(c)." [end of Supreme court quote]
The current rules—see 29 CFR section 1607—make using IQ tests for hiring prohibitively expensive, although the regulations allow their use under certain circumstances. Any company that wants to use IQ tests in their hiring process must rigorously test this process and has the burden to prove that the test works. In other words, IQ tests are presumed to cause an “adverse impact” and discriminate in violation of the Civil Rights Act under the current regulations. And if a company fails to meet this burden in court, it could face severe penalties, such as punitive damages. Given that the Court gives “great deference” to these regulations in interpreting the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act, these regulations are the main hindrance to the adoption of IQ tests in hiring employees.
The military also, basically, hard selects for IQ for any specific role using ASVAB scores:
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/United-States-Military-Jobs-and-which-ASVAB-Scores-Qualify.pdf
Job knowledge tests beat general intelligence tests. However they usually require specialized skills to make so most companies don't use them.
Love the thumbnail for this one
High-paying tech companies already select for IQ in software engineer hiring. They just launder it as a time-constrained "live programming exercise".
That exercise has the trappings of a work sample test but is very heavily G-loaded.
100 IQ folks can study and study and not pass. 130+ folks can show up and pass
There has been lots of Goodharting on it, but the (hated) practice survives because it works to select for cognitive ability (often called "problem solving ability" by hiring managers).
>High-paying tech companies already select for IQ in software engineer hiring. They just launder it as a time-constrained "live programming exercise".
Empirically, SWEs only have a mean IQ of 111, so it's either not a common practice or an effective one.
That was from s a UK-based survey, right? Live programming interview steps are much more common in the US, though more common in the UK than other European nations.
They're also most prevalent at firms paying closer to $200k/yr for senior SWEs than for firms paying closer to $100k, despite BLS data often showing mean programmer earnings closer to $100k. The programming test is how companies stratify, though most don't understand that. You're right that it's mostly spread via memetics.
For silicon valley firms paying $300k+ it is very very hard to find a firm that doesn't do a challenging live programming interview.
“Administering work sample tests” is a little iffy: If I recall correctly from the last time I dug into this, work samples refer to samples produced by people literally already on the job. As in, supervisors using “work samples” to predict job performance would mean they are essentially predicting future performance from past performance.
E.g., your Github repo of code does not, I believe, count as a work sample when applying to coding jobs.
If anything this goes to show how powerful IQ (or “GMA”) tests are that they’re basically as good as past job performance.
"work samples" and "work sample tests" are different. Work sample test is doing part of the job.
I like the idea but certain jobs should be female-based and based on a hotness criteria. Stewardesses, waitresses, secretaries, etc. should all be hired on attractiveness and not I. Q. If anything it should a non qualifier. Instead, we live in a system that prioritizes obese hideous women and gay guys. Where are my ditzy blond bimbo stewardesses!