> Interesting bit about the law, there... the thing is, they can essentially use universities as a proxy while maintaining plausible deniability, right?
Not really plausible deniability, but there is popular mythology about general intelligence tests being illegal and not university background, while in either case the rule is that if it disadvantages a protected class, it must be demonstrably a valid predictive measure of job performance to be legal; because of the popular mythology, people are probably more like to challenge use of tests than use of university admissions, so using tests probably has higher expected legal costs even when you are right, and greater chance of getting sanctioned when you are wrong, because if people don't bother to challenge it in the first place, there is no risk of sanctions.
OTOH, for the same reason, people actually using tests are more likely to actually be aware of and guided by the legal rules, so there are probably more cases where university background is being used in an illegal way than is the case for general intelligence tests.
Not really plausible deniability, but there is popular mythology about general intelligence tests being illegal and not university background, while in either case the rule is that if it disadvantages a protected class, it must be demonstrably a valid predictive measure of job performance to be legal; because of the popular mythology, people are probably more like to challenge use of tests than use of university admissions, so using tests probably has higher expected legal costs even when you are right, and greater chance of getting sanctioned when you are wrong, because if people don't bother to challenge it in the first place, there is no risk of sanctions.
OTOH, for the same reason, people actually using tests are more likely to actually be aware of and guided by the legal rules, so there are probably more cases where university background is being used in an illegal way than is the case for general intelligence tests.