We will see the debate go on as long as humans are working. The problem is hiring is reflexive. Hiring is a marketplace, not a static measurement. Human behavio

We will see the debate go on as long as humans are working. The problem is hiring is reflexive. Hiring is a marketplace, not a static measurement. Human behavior changes in reaction to other human behavior. If someone found a foolproof method of hiring once it become widely known, it would no longer foolproof. Either employers would all try to hire the same employees or employees would find out which signals mattered and tried to game them. This already occurs to some extent with the Ivy League hiring approach. The general “college degree” part has already been over-gamed to the extent it is meaningless. What employers should be doing is measuring the long term success and failures from interviews and seeing if the interviewer even has an above random chance of selecting good employees. If it’s worse than random than the interviewer is probably just terrible at what they are doing. This would also require the employer to agree on what makes a long term successful employee, something I’m not sure many people even agree on. At minimum, I’m presuming you couldn’t make a judgement on a hire in less than 5 years.