Some states have GDPR-like laws that will absolutely allow you to request a copy of your assessment. That can be a good way to know exactly what went short (mos

Some states have GDPR-like laws that will absolutely allow you to request a copy of your assessment. That can be a good way to know exactly what went short (most companies don't expect this and will get VERY coy about what they wrote, but the law's the law~) Either way, more interesting is your first line: > Interviews are a joke and are as useless as randomly selecting people. I don't have a source, but I read a study once that showed most engineering interview process is roughly as accurate in assessing success as flipping a coin. I didn't look into the methodology, but based on experience I'm willing to believe it. Other fields don't have that issue because they don't use interviews as a proxy for performance. Either they use portfolios (eg: designers) where you can CLEARLY see the person's skills, either they use credentials (certifications, or just resume). The interview is just to assess those data points and to make sure expectations are clear. In some fields (eg: trades like carpentry), people will look at the person's history and hire them. Then based on actual performance over the first few months, they may get let go or even demoted. Can you imagine a big tech company DEMOTING a software engineer? Blasphemy! But really, that's the only way to properly assess an employee. Hire them based on their experience and claimed skills, have clear expectations, adjust after a few months. Then you can give a shot to the person with low experience who claims they "promise to work very very hard and learn quickly". You can have apprenticeships too! And we can save everyone the trouble of silly useless interviews.