Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Yeah but you're not sitting on the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here...? I don't believe there are any legal grounds to rest on if you're providing information about applicants with their consent, LinkedIn-style.

The Supreme Court decided in 1971 that requiring job applicants to take IQ tests (or any test that can't be shown to measure skill related to the job) violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. To sell such a product is to sell someone a minefield. None would buy!

Using it would be too risky for a company to want to use in any overt capacity, so I don't think it would sell well.

(I assume you know all this and the value add here is "totally doesn't look like an IQ test", but maybe onlookers do not)

Correct

To do this I think most companies are happy writing "4 year degree required" even when its clearly not, because: * it shifts any disparate impact claims onto another entity * terrible/funny plus that instead of hiring departments paying for it, they make the employee pay for it!

If you could devise a system like that, which crucially shifts the blame of any complaints lodged at it, then you might have gold!