I agree here - but only to a point. At an interview you have to demonstrate some ability, and as there are so many idiots with bullshit CVs, you have to give some sort of test. Fortunately the tests don't (and should not) be very hard.
However, one test I had given to me a while ago was a code review. They gave me a visual studio project and said "review that, tell us what you think", and of course it had a couple of glaring bugs, a bit of very lazy coding, duplicated code that could be refactored into a common function, and similar. It wasn't about what variable names to call things (except the file called MyClass1.cs). It didn't require me to remember all the stuff I've consigned to Google's stewardship over the years and gave me the opportunity to explain my thinking.
I think such tests are vastly improved over coding tests that you end up writing differently to what the interviewer expected (and therefore he considers "wrong"). When you did tests at school, the teacher never really cared about the right answer - they cared about the working. An interview test that asks you to review code is pretty much the same principle.