> Nowadays, it is illegal in the U.S. to give IQ tests to job applicants
Citation needed.
It is legal (at least based on the guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor: http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf) to give people all kinds of tests as long as (a) they do not select against certain protected traditionally disadvantaged classes more than it does for the average applicant or (b) if it does, there is a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions (so, for instance, a test of strength in a job that involves lots of lifting may select against women, but if strength is highly correlated with job performance, that is OK).
IQ tests are actually a fairly poor test for many jobs, and they can test many things besides just intelligence (for instance, knowledge of the English language or cultural trivia). For a blue-collar job, an IQ test may disadvantage people from a different cultural background or who don't speak English as a native language, without actually being particularly relevant to job performance. One of the cases that has come up many times is in fire departments, in which written tests are given and used to screen out applicants who score below a certain level, when much of the knowledge tested is not actually all that important to the job.
These days, for a programming job, you would give a more specific test of programming ability. At the time, given that there probably weren't a lot of people with training or experience programming who could be hired, an IQ test was probably a reasonably good generic stand in for the aptitude to learn and think critically.
We still give IQ tests, they are just IQ tests that have a cultural background required. When we ask an applicant to solve a problem we do not expect them to have seen before, we are testing their intelligence, even if we then proceed to expect them to turn this into code.
Even then, plenty of the Google interview questions aren't really any different from the test she received. IQ tests have sections that it doesn't sound like that test included, such as analogy tests or word memorization. The test she received was tailored to the logical, computational thinking required for programming, not generically designed to measure "intelligence".
The major difference between then and now is that they were willing to train people with no prior experience.
Even in this story, I note they were screening a very limited pool of applicants. I wonder what would happen if we went into high schools and conducted universal tests of potential: could we find (and possibly hire) large numbers of people with enormous aptitude who had never considered programming?
"Good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups" - Warren Burger, Chief Justice.
Yes, and in that ruling, as in my comment, the crucial part is that the IQ test is not necessary for the business. "The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited."
IQ tests in general are not banned. IQ tests are not allowed when they disproportionately impact certain protected groups, and are not shown to be necessary for screening applicants. Sure, that means that IQ tests will have a lot of problems these days, because they are not very specific for particular business needs.
But if today, you were to invent an entirely new field of work, and needed to hire people who had an aptitude for grasping something new and solving abstract problems without being able to depend in prior training or experience, then an IQ test might very well be relevant.
The key is whether there is a business necessity for this test or other requirement. It sounds like general intelligence test was necessary in hiring people in a completely new, and intellectually demanding field, where there were no other educational, training, or experience qualifications you could rely on. It is not necessary when hiring firefighters or workers at a power plant. From the article you link to: "It was found that White people who had been working at the firm for some time, but met neither of the requirements, performed their jobs as well as those that did meet the requirements."
It really depends on the job doesn't it? Google doesn't get sued for making logic puzzles part of the hiring process just as Hooters is free to exclusively hire buxom young women for their floor staff. Like many of the complicated regulations in the US there is no clear line and many loopholes to be exploited.
This story about a guy who was denied employment as a police offer because he scored too high on an IQ test is a sufficient counterexample to disprove the assertion that IQ tests are strictly illegal (the decision was upheld in court): http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95836#.T3V6K3lRyxN
I've edited it to read "effectively illegal", but the essential point remains. In practice, any company using a straight-up IQ test in job interviews is practically begging to be sued.
It is legal (at least based on the guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor: http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf) to give people all kinds of tests as long as (a) they do not select against certain protected traditionally disadvantaged classes more than it does for the average applicant or (b) if it does, there is a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions (so, for instance, a test of strength in a job that involves lots of lifting may select against women, but if strength is highly correlated with job performance, that is OK).
Imagine trying to apply these hilariously vague "guidelines" as a hiring manager. Then, imagine being sued for applying them wrong. Then, you'll realize why almost no one uses IQ tests for employment screening.
Oddly enough, the main exception I can think of is the NFL:
Citation needed.
It is legal (at least based on the guidelines provided by the US Department of Labor: http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf) to give people all kinds of tests as long as (a) they do not select against certain protected traditionally disadvantaged classes more than it does for the average applicant or (b) if it does, there is a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions (so, for instance, a test of strength in a job that involves lots of lifting may select against women, but if strength is highly correlated with job performance, that is OK).
IQ tests are actually a fairly poor test for many jobs, and they can test many things besides just intelligence (for instance, knowledge of the English language or cultural trivia). For a blue-collar job, an IQ test may disadvantage people from a different cultural background or who don't speak English as a native language, without actually being particularly relevant to job performance. One of the cases that has come up many times is in fire departments, in which written tests are given and used to screen out applicants who score below a certain level, when much of the knowledge tested is not actually all that important to the job.
These days, for a programming job, you would give a more specific test of programming ability. At the time, given that there probably weren't a lot of people with training or experience programming who could be hired, an IQ test was probably a reasonably good generic stand in for the aptitude to learn and think critically.