I read through the list. It seems to be standard Meyers-Briggs type questions. I don't think that this is that useful a metric, but I have been given similar questions by private sector companies and was also given a weirder one by the patent office in 2006.
If you look at how they're scored, it's worse than Meyers-Briggs. Wanting a specific personality type for the job makes a lot more sense than many of these. Most don't give any points, many have labels that increase in number but the points aren't logically related to them (unemployed for 3-4 months before this job? No points for you! 1-2 or 5-6? Have a lot of points!). Even ignoring the rest of the story, it's a very flawed test.
Yeah the way the points are arbitrary makes it very clear that the intention is for only people who know the answers ahead of time to pass.
It was an underhanded way to do favoritism (by giving out the answers to the associations whose back you want to scratch) not a complex way to do equity.
* applicants are heavily penalized if they took 1 music class in college (whereas 0 or 2 classes is treated as a good thing)
* Applicants are penalized if science.wasn't their worst course in high school. However they're also penalized if science was their worst course in college.
* It seems wrong that the way you heard about the job is directly used to determine whether or not you'll get it
