Though employed as an important approach in the process of recruitment, the interview is nowadays frowned upon by many as unreliable in evaluating the overall quality of applicants, whereas there are more effective methods. From my perspective, it is simple-minded to venerate other measures over the interview without scrutinizing all contributing factors.
Indeed, it is easy to understand why the perception has crept into the thinking of many people. From their perspective, a few minutes of communication is far from enough for employers to fully recognize the background of the candidate – whether it be their expertise or other features like the sense of cooperation and team spirit. Plausible though the logic seems, the protagonists of this are oblivious to the fact that the final job offer does not descend solely from the interview. Quite the contrary, to hunt for an appropriate candidate for a position is a momentous decision that is subject to a repertoire of scrutiny, from the evaluation of applicants’ educational background to the investigation of their former working experience. In this respect, it does not make sense to attribute the credibility of recruitment to interview.
Also, a stronger argument against the opinion in the topic is the so-called ‘better selection methods’: which approach can be deemed more effective in evaluating job applicants is an amorphous notion that varies by the discrete requirement of different positions. For some scientific research-based work, it does make sense that the academic performance or the research achievements of candidates are more persuasive than a brief talk of 20 minutes interview. But for positions like customer service or sales representative, which emphasize more on appearance and interpersonal skills, it is the face-to-face communication that wins the heart of employers.
From what has been discussed, it looks to me that it is irrational to deny the justification of an interview without considering the practical demand of recruitment in the real business world.