No more ridiculous than women listing height requirements in their dating profiles, asking about height, and filtering out people with too low a number -- even though they don't actually care, it's not actually a requirement they have[1], it's just one they list and filter against at the online stage, despite not actually caring.
By don't actually care, I mean that when they meet those men in different settings they don't care about height, when very short men decline to mention their height or match with women despite not meeting stated "requirements" it isn't an issue, and indeed some men lie outright about their heigth but women get over it and enter happy relationsihps with them once they actually meet.
In many contexts stated requirements or the hoops applicants have to jump through don't match actual requirements. Fundraising would be another one. VC's don't invest in companies that actually meet whatever requirements the VC's list on their web sites regarding what kind of opportunities they're looking for.
In short, people are lousy at stating their requirements and sabotage processes. For my woman example, the same woman will complain that no good men are available, while having an irrelevant filter in their dating profile: then, when they meet someone nice in real life, they're happy. It does not occur to them that the person they have met does not meet their stated requirements.
That post is titled "Should a girl go on a date, even if the guy doesn't meet the requirements for dating?"
When that person actually meets someone in bible study (say), I doubt very much that the person will meet all of her requirements.
Rather than "Should a girl go on a date, even if the guy doesn't meet the requirements for dating" we might be reading a Quora post about "Should HR still interview a candidate, even if the guy doesn't meet the HackerRank requirements?"
Those requirements are irrelevant and just weed out qualified people. (And the answer is, yes, they still should.)
[1] Example: Tom Cruise is officially 1.7m (which could be inflated, celebrities often pad by a little bit) which is 5'6.9". That is lower than many women's stated requirements, but those requirements are not actual requirements and I doubt he had any trouble dating women he literally didn't meet the requirements of at the time. The requirements aren't real, they're fake and invented, made-up. Not true.
-
EDIT: I absolutely stand by this comment, even though it is being edited to -1 and will likely end at -4. I completely stand behind every word. Lest you think I'm speaking with a bitter tone, I'm not. I'm average height or slightly above, no issues for me or disqualification due to it. I was using it as an example of a "number" that is a requirement, only it's not.
I don't see what relation a person's dating requirements - completely arbitrary requirements for achieving their personal happiness without any requirement for regard to social norms, standards, or economic well-being - has any bearing one what practices are acceptable for hiring people. As such, one is subject to regulation and the other is not. And for the same reason, your analogy is entirely inappropriate for reasoning about how hiring parties should behave.
By don't actually care, I mean that when they meet those men in different settings they don't care about height, when very short men decline to mention their height or match with women despite not meeting stated "requirements" it isn't an issue, and indeed some men lie outright about their heigth but women get over it and enter happy relationsihps with them once they actually meet.
In many contexts stated requirements or the hoops applicants have to jump through don't match actual requirements. Fundraising would be another one. VC's don't invest in companies that actually meet whatever requirements the VC's list on their web sites regarding what kind of opportunities they're looking for.
In short, people are lousy at stating their requirements and sabotage processes. For my woman example, the same woman will complain that no good men are available, while having an irrelevant filter in their dating profile: then, when they meet someone nice in real life, they're happy. It does not occur to them that the person they have met does not meet their stated requirements.
Here is another case of someoen with an impossible laundry list of requirements: https://www.reddit.com/r/dating/comments/58uoo7/should_a_gir...
That post is titled "Should a girl go on a date, even if the guy doesn't meet the requirements for dating?"
When that person actually meets someone in bible study (say), I doubt very much that the person will meet all of her requirements.
Rather than "Should a girl go on a date, even if the guy doesn't meet the requirements for dating" we might be reading a Quora post about "Should HR still interview a candidate, even if the guy doesn't meet the HackerRank requirements?"
Those requirements are irrelevant and just weed out qualified people. (And the answer is, yes, they still should.)
[1] Example: Tom Cruise is officially 1.7m (which could be inflated, celebrities often pad by a little bit) which is 5'6.9". That is lower than many women's stated requirements, but those requirements are not actual requirements and I doubt he had any trouble dating women he literally didn't meet the requirements of at the time. The requirements aren't real, they're fake and invented, made-up. Not true.
-
EDIT: I absolutely stand by this comment, even though it is being edited to -1 and will likely end at -4. I completely stand behind every word. Lest you think I'm speaking with a bitter tone, I'm not. I'm average height or slightly above, no issues for me or disqualification due to it. I was using it as an example of a "number" that is a requirement, only it's not.