Are you fallaciously implying post hoc, ergo propter hoc?<p>I can think of a lot of possible causes for that public perception that are more plausible, and have nothing to do with the ability of applicants to perform well on a written examination.<p>I also have a sneaking suspicion that the raw statistical analysis of such a test from the U.S. in 1975 would show a lot of intrinsic racial, gender, political, and age biases.<p>Beyond that, many government jobs in the U.S. <i>still</i> have a qualifying exam.  Even elementary school janitors have to take them.  I have actually taken that particular test.  (Long story.)  The questions cover such subjects as how to properly employ a push broom, identifying cleaning chemicals, and what to do when a kid pukes in the hallway.<p>So what happens is that your exam score establishes a baseline ranking.  Then your preference points are added for race, gender, ethnicity, disability, veteranosity, and any additional job-relevant questions like years of experience or typing speed.  So if you&#x27;re a white, non-veteran, able-bodied, Anglo male with no prior experience that scores 100% on the exam, you may be only #37 on the ordered-strictly-by-government-regulations interview list.  The hiring agency would have to reject 36 other applicants and show good cause for doing so before even calling you.<p>Greater familiarity with that process bred a whole lot of contempt.  Let&#x27;s just say that I shudder to think of what government might have been like now had the federal government doubled down on exams in the 70s instead of abandoning them.