I question the accuracy of the claims in the article. I've done the recruiting gamut with all the major consulting firms and was never once asked for my scores by any of them. Other things spoke to ability-- winning competitions, scholarships, interesting/prestigious work experience, the ideas I shared.
I would be loath to work at a firm that used such crass and, frankly, uncreative measures as standardized tests to assess me. If they don't have the skills to identify me as a desirable candidate by my burning passion for my subject, my knowledge displayed in heated conversations, or my experience, that tells me that they a) are dull, b) probably don't have much knowledge in the field, which means a low ceiling on growth opportunities, and c) don't share my values.
And as to $$ as a motivator, I think we're all familiar with the literature on extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation above subsistence levels.
