[nevermindiguess]

The goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities. Henceforth, cheating cannot be justified.

[fauxpause_]

If the assessment has no relationship to the job requirements then the test assessment cannot be justified either

[JohnFen]

That might be true, but is a different issue. It's certainly doesn't justify dishonesty.

[aidenn0]

That's a silly argument. There are many jobs at which being smart is an advantage. IQ tests correlate fairly well with being smart. Giving an IQ test could then give you a group of people that are more likely to be smart than the initial interviewing population. Assuming the job is not "taking IQ tests" is the assessment unjustified?

[John23832]

As much as I hate the current interview process, this isn't true.

The justification foe the assessment is that the assessment is the defined set of hoops that the company who you are trying to get paid by has assigned.

[HDThoreaun]

> The goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities.

Maybe to the interviewer. But for the applicant the goal is to achieve an outcome.

[11101010001100]

Why not just literally take the job?

[surgical_fire]

As an interviewer, I don't care if the candidates cheat.

I can assess his abilities either way.

[tourmalinetaco]

When presented with a problem she not only found a solution, but shared that solution with her peers. And has been promoted at her jobsite. As far as I can see, the interview properly assessed her abilities and found her qualified for the job.

In short, the interview process worked as intended.