From the article. The flip side of the fact that the interviewer has had time to carefully prepare while the interviewee has not is that what you get from that

From the article. The flip side of the fact that the interviewer has had time to carefully prepare while the interviewee has not is that what you get from that inherently contrived, lopsided discussion, kind of a long, drawn-out game of "gotcha." Fun for the <strike>interrogator</strike> interviewer, but tedious and buzz-killing for the interviewee. It provides insight, yes, but a certain cost: many candidates fine this approach simply alienating, and more to the point, it upsets their thought processes (such that they don't really get a chance to shine). As a candidate you can train for this kind of confrontational approach, of course, but I think lrm242 nailed what's most alienating about this interviewing style -- that ultimately the candidate is put into a position that's basically uncomfortable to be in, where they have to _placate_ their interlocuter according to some hidden criteria set -- and mostly they just want that particular thread to be overwith as soon as possible. I just think we can get the same insight into candidates from different ways, where things are more on an even keel, and there's more "flow."[1] It takes more tact and creativity (and perhaps a bit more time), but it's not that hard, is more mutually enjoyable and (I think) ultimately provides a lot more insight. [1] "flow" being of course a very important concept; e.g. in the sense of Murakami.