There's been times, in hiring, where I believed the better qualified candidate did not "test" the best. There have been times when a "test" was required, which I believed unnecessary to hire the best candidate. Of course, these were not gov't jobs.
I don't necessarily have issue with a "test", but I believe we do a disservice by only promoting or hiring by a test. Imo, we pass on many qualified people by not going beyond a score on a piece of paper. Consideration should be given thru an interview process, recommendations, past training and experience,etc. A host of qualifications should go into a hire.
We've all known qualified people who may not do well in certain aspects of a job. In the private sector, companies work with employees to strengthen weakness. I believe minorities, heck everyone, would benefit by broadening the decision making process. We could truely get the best qualified.
In the other hand, if you can't score a 66 and need the bar lowered...there probably isn't much to work with.