as a regular interviewer for years and years, we are just trying to get the best fit for the job. It isn’t a test. We want to get best possible representation of the individual in that interview
It is a "test" in the sense of assessment of their knowledge and ability, though.
Presumably we are all thinking about the job we do, and / or the job we are interviewing for, and I am aware all jobs are different.
If the role involves problem solving and / or giving advice to people who ask for help, then I would certainly not employ anyone who then couldn't do that (for examples / case studies / made up scenarios) at interview. We need people who have experience, knowledge, confidence, and ability to share that knowledge.
if someone is interviewing you and making it a test - it’s likely to be a shit company who doesn’t value good employees and worse, doesn’t hire particularly well as they’re merely seeing interviewing as a test and not a session to actually get to know that person
I can't agree with that. Unless this is down to using the word 'test' in a different way. If it is a role for which knowledge is crucial, why on earth would it be a bad thing to ensure that person actually does have that knowledge and isn't lying on their CV?
It doesn't mean anyone is "merely seeing interview as a test and not a session to actually get to know that person" at all. That side is very important in my role, and the roles I would interview for, but the "essential" part of the role - indeed the baseline - is having that knowledge at their fingertips.