Yes, and they all disagreed with each other. Looking back on them, I concluded that basically anyone can learn any particular skill for a job if they apply themselves to study, but it's the unwritten part of the job description (e.g. "patience of a saint," "junior high social skills," "clinically significant sociopathy") that determine whether or not you will be truly successful in that field.
The first such test I took said I should be a museum curator. Since I really despise working with the public, and I hate kissing butts for money (the actual work of most museum curators), this is clearly not the field for me. However, the Department of Labor and many school guidance counselors mistakenly believe that a museum curator studies various culturally significant items and writes articles about them for National Geographic or something. I really wish they'd put honest job descriptions written by the people who actually do that job in these sorts of tests.
Scientist requirements:
-Reasonable grasp of mathematics and physics
-Can tolerate multiple decades in higher education with low pay
-Problem-solving creative thinking
-Masochistic Type A personality
-Fairly conservative in word and deed. When scientists do something well, we get a Certificate of Appreciation in a handsome plastic frame. When we screw up, it's usually on CNN. Thus we are risk-averse as a rule.
-Ability to be flexible on biological requirements, such as food, drink, and sleep.
-Must not believe in meritocracy as a rule. It'll just make you bitter.
