Maybe the whole point of the test is not how well you do, but how you react to being asked to do something you feel is beneath you...
I didn't say I'm too busy to apply, I said I'm too busy to spend 90 minutes on useless tests.
> but how you react to being asked to do something you feel is beneath you...
You know what a great test for that would be? Ask the applicant to wash your car.
These tests aren't useless. Tons of candidates have never seen a REPL before and are totally unable to solve even a trivial coding assignment.
I suppose your company is too clever to waste their time on such useless tests? Who at your firm wastes hours interviewing candidates who have no ability to code?
Going through someone's Github (or any other project they feel is worthy of sharing) and asking them questions about why they made the decisions they made has been orders of magnitude more illuminating than asking them to come up with an algorithm for solving the subset sum problem without Googling.
It's still easy to spot the liars — e.g. I've interviewed people who worked at the NSA and even they could talk about the skills they used, just not which projects or data — and the process of deciding which things to talk about is a pretty good way to explore their communications style, too.