My understanding is you're equating `failing a test` to `lacking the relevant skills and knowledge to do a certain task competently`.

The reality is sometimes tests in academia are just not very well made and don't really test what they are supposed to be testing, and that's usually due to multiple reasons like misaligned incentives, staffing shortages and maybe lack of resources / funding.

I don't think the comparison to flight school is relevant enough in this context because it's a too different of a world to traditional academia.

> Would you want a pilot on your flight who flunked flying school exams, but somehow "really knew how to fly!

Sure, just not in the cockpit

Not really comparable... the overwhelming majority of flight tests involve flying an aircraft. There is no meaningful way someone can be excellent at flying an aircraft but can't pass a test which involves flying an aircraft.

The same can't be said for many other tests. If the test involves the practical application of the very skill being tested, then that test has direct relevance to he competency of said skill.

But many other tests are not like that. A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon. A chef can cook a variety of excellent dishes but fail a written culinary theory exam testing the French names of techniques they perform by instinct. And perhaps more relevant to this audience, a coding interview that relies on whiteboarding algorithms from memory can easily fail an excellent engineer who builds great software every day but doesn't recall the optimal solution to some puzzle on the spot.

I would be much more ok with someone who failed the test but knew how to pilot a plane vs someone who aced the test but can’t figure out how to get the engine started.