> Really? I think most people go to college to get a good job before all else. With that line of thinking, an interview is just another of these “tests”.
That's called credentialism, and it's a perversion of what universities are supposed to be.
> But you make a good point about these arrogant companies administering tests. College faculty are never arrogant, but always humble
What a red herring.
> College faculty are never arrogant, but always humble like this guy in the article who just can’t chalk his failure up to being a human being.
Let's review that professor's story:
> Jacobson has no trouble admitting he totally blew a basic test at the beginning of an interview for a fairly elite job at Google. He has no expectation that had he passed the test, he would have earned a place at the company down the line. He has a problem with the fact that a company with the power, prestige and wealth of Google has developed a recruiting process that is so large and systematic that it can both ask for large amounts of time and energy from prospective candidates and then easily or accidentally hurt or dismiss those same qualified candidates because of a difference, like Jacobson's cognitive disorder.
Does that sound like arrogance to you? Ignoring the sarcasm for a moment, there's a difference between being humble and being a pushover, and it's more of a pushover thing to overlook glaring problems in a process in order to blame oneself.
His story also brings to mind another salient difference that undermines your attempt to compare a Google's interview process to the ACT/SAT: if you flub a standardized test, you can easily retake it. That's not so much the case with an interview.
