Is there a reason interviews with these large companies are not completely anonymous? Given the nature of these interviews, I've yet to see a good argument for

Is there a reason interviews with these large companies are not completely anonymous? Given the nature of these interviews, I've yet to see a good argument for why you actually need to know who the interviewee is. 1) If only pedigree matters (e.g. MIT/Stanford) then why have an interview? 2) If only intelligence matters why not just give candidates an IQ test and be done with it (if you're skeptical of IQ tests there are many proxies: SAT scores, grades in certain subjects, etc)? 3) If only algorithmic problem solving matters (this what big companies currently are doing, AFAIK they used to do the last two, with not success) why do you need to even know who the candidate is? --- For startups and other smaller companies I see the value of knowing who you're interviewing. However, an argument could be made there, as well. As long as you can properly articulate the qualities you want in a candidate, and have a way of measuring said qualities* there shouldn't be any need to "know" who the candidate is. [*]If you don't have any way of measuring the magnitude of the qualities then you're just going off a "gut feeling", the same gut feeling that will likely be biased in one or more dimensions, IMO.