All of this is explained in the article: - interviews are inherently more stressful than even a very busy day at work, - they cover topics unrelated to wh

All of this is explained in the article: - interviews are inherently more stressful than even a very busy day at work, - they cover topics unrelated to what you'd do as part of your job so if you're good at the job you might still fail the interview - people with time (==money) to prepare for interviews will come out ahead of those who don't have that luxury, despite the fact they may be far better prepared for the actual job. So you get a bunch of false positives, a bunch of false negatives, and on top of that you're discriminating against people who are in a worse financial situation or have interview anxiety. I can hardly think of a worse outcome for a seemingly sensible hiring method.