Sackett, Borneman, and Connelly argued that several common criticisms of cognitively laden tests are not well supported by the literature. The authors' systematic exploration of research surrounding seven specific criticisms is laudable, and we do not find fault with their conclusions as presented. In evaluating the seven concerns, however, the authors largely neglected the criteria that such tests are intended to predict. As a result, readers may come away with the erroneous conclusion that all is well in the mass testing world of cognitive ability. We wish to expand on Sackett et al.'s review by raising concerns about traditional approaches to defining academic and organizational success. In doing so, we argue for the importance of creativity.