He who pays the piper, calls the tune ....
GAPAN (I would like to think) give an impartial view; possibly the only one out there in the UK. The RAF (hence the taxpayer) will be paying for training and therefore, they won't want to waste taxpayers' money in training who may not be up to it.
Airline cadet programmes ... again, who's paying for the training and providing a job at the end of it.
University? Don't know about now but when I did my degree, the taxpayer funded it so the uni has an obligation to ensure that it's not wasted.
Many employers who pay for staff training and qualifications don't want to waste their money and, if after interview etc, find that someone isn't up to scratch, then the employer has to sit that student down and have a difficult conversation with them, usually resulting in a P45.
All of those though, involve a one to one interview (or maybe a board) but an opportunity is given to the prospective student or employee to give a good account of them selves. I cannot think of a similar situation where testing (in groups) is considered the sole method of selection.
However, with flying schools, it's the student who is paying and the student's money to waste.
I am intrigued, not to say a little sceptical, at OAA's business rationale in requiring a test in order to be considered good enough to employ and pay for their services. The only reason I can think of would be to create elitism and, having been through the tests (not to join an airline as I don't want to fly aeroplanes), I came out quite sceptical of the whole process.
An instructor is more likely to be able to judge a student's aptitude and attitude after a few hours in the cockpit than any contrived role-playing scenario. If, after a few hours, the instructors don't feel the student is suitable, then the difficult conversation needs to be had. It's a far more realistic situation and one that earns respect.
Cheers
Whirls