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. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is a well-known fact that being interviewed is one of the most influential factors in being assigned to a job in renowned organizations. Although several people agree with it, some do not. In my opinion, I believe that despite there being other improved options, being interrogated still the most efficient way. On the one hand, there is an effective reason why the interview is preferred by some employers while hiring new employees because, during a conversation, the employer receives a first-hand impression of the potential employee and gets to know him, not only through his qualifications or past achievements but on a personal level which is crucial for proper work surrounding. Hence, how the individual presents himself and interacts is a direct reflection of his individuality, social skills as well as intelligence. For example, by asking case study type questions they can judge traits like the ability to handle pressure, confidence and ability to think outside the box. On the other hand, Other alternate methods include, written tests, which I do not believe provides sufficient assessment for official recruitment by itself, on the contrary combining both oral and written exam can be an excellent way of measuring one’s abilities. In addition, Assessment through practical field works is one less practised still an effective option, especially for jobs that require both skill and experience, for example, civil or mechanical engineering. However, this method can be time-consuming and financially draining and thus not commonly practised. In conclusion, my point stands that oral meeting is the single most efficient, cost-effective, and practical mean of recruitment, in varying situations. In fact, when these are used in conjunction with other identity tests, they will help industries find the best candidates.