So is IQ a "largely pseudoscientific swindle" to quote a popular article from a few years ago, or is it not? Because if the consensus is that it doesn't matter, then why bother using it as a metric here?
It's complicated. Firstly because there are a lot of "IQ studies" that cited in places such as The Bell Curve that had utterly horrendous methodology. Second because there is a lot of cultural baggage around the very concept of IQ, as if it were a measure of someone's intrinsic intelligence rather than just measuring the result of the combination of intrinsic and environmental factors.
I think it depends on the scope of what's being addressed as "IQ". As far as I know, there are some fairly robust methods and results around IQ, but it's usually hard to make the leap from those to a sales pitch for any particular product/service/policy/program in a similarly robust way. So any given invocation of IQ in the wider world has a high likelihood of being somewhere between scientifically sketchy and outright nonsensical. It's reminiscent of quantum mechanics and epigenetics in that sense.
Yes and no. IQ isn't useful for saying anything about a particular person. However it is a consistent measure so if one group tests different from a different one we should suspect there is something wrong and look deeper.