There is an ongoing debate over whether the quality of interview is a recruitment method and some believe that big companies should arrange new forms of recruitment. I firmly believe that even with the new forms such as two weeks training and looking at the educational background, face to face interviews are still crucial and irreplaceable.
Proponents who support the notion of replacing interviews advocate the concept of two weeks training in the office. There is a widespread belief that in order to acquire the best and experienced employees some company should apply a new alternative which is practicing and adapting with the workplace environment. In addition, there is a common conception that tracking employees’ educational background is the proper form. A good instance of this is the recruitment method by deep searching and selecting based on the university and the academic experiences and through this new alternative they manage to tackle the problems in the recruitment process.
On the other hand, I believe that even though the interview is a conventional method it is pivotal and serves several merits. First and foremost, an interview is a complex method that involves several rigorous aspects in guaranteeing the quality. For example, interviewing moments involves several people with expertise in psychology and sociology, giving and providing assessment. Moreover, as an old method interview is holistic as a method. There is a fact that interviewing people means looking at the people’s background, personality, relation and interaction with the surrounding as a whole.
In conclusion, although new forms such as indirect training and looking at peoples’ educational backgrounds are new kinds of recruitment, I believe that interviews are still important.