Originally Posted by Dandy
I thought this article would fit nicely somewhere in this conversation:
Dear Eigth Grader...

Although from 2012, I believe the advice is still relevant.


There is little evidence for the predictive ability of unstructured interviews (although applicants must deal with the system as it is):

Belief in the Unstructured Interview: The Persistence of an Illusion
by Jason Dana, Robyn M. Dawes, and Nathanial R. Peterson
Unstructured interviews are a ubiquitous tool for making screening decisions
despite vast evidence of their invalidity. In three studies, we investigated the propensity
for "sensemaking" - the ability for interviewers to make sense of virtually anything the
interviewee says – and “dilution” – the tendency for non-diagnostic information to
weaken the predictive value of quality information. In study 1, participants predicted two
fellow students’ semester GPAs from background information and, for one of them, an
unstructured interview. In one condition, the interviewee secretly answered questions
according to a random system. Consistent with sensemaking, random interviews did not
perturb predictions or diminish perceptions of the quality of information that the
interview yielded. Consistent with dilution, participants made better predictions about
students whom they did not interview. Study 2 showed that merely watching a random
interview, rather than conducting it, did little to mitigate sensemaking. Study 3 showed
that participants believe unstructured interviews will help accuracy, so much so that they
would rather have random interviews than no interview. Impressions formed from
unstructured interviews can seem valid and inspire confidence even when interviews are
useless. Our simple recommendation for those making screening decisions is not to use