Interviews form the basic selection criteria for most large companies. However, some people think that interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ and there are other better methods. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Live meetings are the ground aspect for several colossal enterprises to employ competent personnel; numerous employers opt a preconceived notion that conventional gatherings are inadequate, and multiple alternatives exist instead. Strongly do I oppose the former statement, and this essay will hold the reasons for my view. To commence, interviews are the ultimate plan to show the mental abilities of the running candidates. This means, recruiters accumulate excessive intellectual databases while leading a face-to-face discussion. Furthermore, an interview affords the owner with the commodity to acknowledge how serious the applicant is. As reported in a study conducted by Harvard University in 2010, an array of commercial and industrial establishments adopted a traditional method in their recruitment process for its efficiency. Hence, the cognitive capabilities of the appliers are demonstrated upon formal meetings. Another compelling reason to support my view is that employers are keen to scrutinize the outer appearance of a nominee. In other words, the body language reveals numerous character traits veiled between the lines. Moreover, myriad communication skills in live interactions are displayed accordingly. To clarify, despite the pandemic, I was required to attend a conventional meeting when chosen for a specific job title. Thus, holding physical meetings permit the employer to examine the presence of a worker. To summarize, diverse business owners claim that implementing evolved schemes of employment is crucial. According to my mindset, I completely revoke this declaration because live job meetings provide recruiters with the mental and physical characteristics of a candidate.