The psychology of recruiting is that once a candidate is rejected, the interviewers and company have lost any sense that the potential employee is competent and

The psychology of recruiting is that once a candidate is rejected, the interviewers and company have lost any sense that the potential employee is competent and their opinions at that point are of little value. I'm yet to encounter a company that thinks their interview process is anything but awesome. Companies really aren't interested in feedback. This is human nature - pretty much anyone, when given "feedback", it is taken as criticism and the status quo is defended and the feedback disregarded. Companies who say they want feedback I think like the idea of asking for feedback but not acting on it or internalising it. If a candidate was not good enough for a job with a company, why would they be qualified to advise that company on how to improve? Don't believe me? Run an experiment - next time a candidate is rejected, ask them to give feedback to other members of your team, and in the unlikely event you get considered feedback, observe what happens to that feedback - don't intervene - just do the experiment to see whether the above assertions are correct or not.