> I thought the US A didn't tend to use IQ tests for a number of reasons, also IQ tests are gameable.

The primary reason is that protected minorities score lower than average on IQ tests; without a legitimate business reason to set an IQ cutoff, you can be sued for discriminatory hiring. And because IQ is so granular, you don't want to argue in court that 1 point is a business necessity when you set a threshold of 110, and you reject a minority candidate with a 109 score.

Which college someone went to serves as a decent proxy for min IQ (assuming SAT scores correlate with IQ).

So how come the ones that seem to do well on visa's test come from less stellar backgrounds.

But it's a binary decision -- do they have a degree or not?

That stops working when minority candidates are admitted with lower SAT scores.

> I thought the US A didn't tend to use IQ tests for a number of reason

Any employment requirement that produces a disparate impact has to be proven to be reasonably related to job performance. In practice, that probably means some kind of validation study tailored to each specific job catagory. That’s expensive.

if you can game raven’s progressive matrices i’d love to see what that even means

Practice lots of practice

Not even that much. Once I knew what those specific matrices were and how they are usually made, it was so much more straight forward. Immediately crushed all of those.

Not sure why I got marked down here the Debenhams PE issue I mentioned was reported with more negative slant by the Daily Telegraph (a Right Wing Paper) in its business section.