[001sky]

That's not a useful solution. Consider they are trying to get 3 candidates for 1 job promotion; having 6 doesn't help it just dilutes the ability to observe. On the other hand, you now have to manage/babysit double the number of over-qualified, highly ambitious people with too much time on their hands. Thats a recipe for trouble.

Its the same logic as why PhD programs don't simply double their size when there are plenty of people with enough credentials to pass entrace exams. Its a people-management issue, and maintaining the incentives of the rank-higherarchy. It has nothing to do with talent levels.

These positions are only loosely meritocratic. The higher-order filtering is almost always based on some form of social privledge. Its not dysfunctional, at least in a litereal sense. Privledge opens doors and changes the economics (ie, productivity) of the industry materially. That is why it is selected for very heavily.

[stephengillie]

So this is a form of "labor-theater" that signifies a job that shouldn't exist? It's just a show, a play put on, to legitimize the transfer of wealth between the privileged? You make it sound like a false-problem, a social invention where any effort to resolve it is just wasted.

[001sky]

There is a set of legitimate economic issues raised about the cognitive overhead of alternative selection models, etc. Its not like its all in somebody's head. That being said, the trivial view of "meritocratic" selection is not the right model to articulate. These jobs weed out people who don't have a certain level of technical competence, but technical competence (level) is trumped by the speed and consistency (of application) in many cases. Also, the ability to "avoid doing work" is a skill or a feature, not a bug or a liability. Again, this is not really going to line up with the notion of merit being who can do the "most work" at the "highest level". But it turns out one way to test who can "avoid doing needless work" is to force such a high workload that some work must by necessity be avoided. If that makes any sense. I dunno.

[stephengillie]

It sounds like you're describing the Bill Gates quote: "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."

To which others counter: "The lazy person will just not do the job." And you're describing something closer to the ideal of only doing the important part of the job, and being able to discern the important work from the unimportant.