4 ms·

I really dislike articles like these. It's a well known fact that the interview process is deeply flawed; this study isn't really presenting any new material. W

I really dislike articles like these. It's a well known fact that the interview process is deeply flawed; this study isn't really presenting any new material. What's more, the flaw being critiqued - that interviews are bad for people with performance anxiety - adds nothing to the conversation. What is the advocacy here? That interviews should be abolished? Also, it's social science research with a small sample size, which means that few to no conclusions should be drawn from it (see: replication crisis).

Apocryphon 5y ago
No one says these interviews have to be abolished, but perhaps their formats can be tweaked to reduce anxiety. It could also be an argument in favor of asymmetric technical exercises such as take-home assignments or the mythical paid trial period. It's at least an attempt to apply some scientific methodology to examining the current interview process, and even if this individual research is flawed then it simply means more studies should be done with better sampling.