Stowe Boyd> People who study personnel psychology have long understood this. In 1979, for example, the Texas Legislature required the University of Texas MedicalSee more School at Houston to increase its incoming class size by 50 students late in the season. The additional 50 students that the school admitted had reached the interview phase of the application process but initially, following their interviews, were rejected. A team of researchers later found that these students did just as well as their other classmates in terms of attrition, academic performance, clinical performance (which involves rapport with patients and supervisors) and honors earned. The judgment of the interviewers, in other words, added nothing of relevance to the admissions process.
> [Research](http://journal.sjdm.org/12/121130a/jdm121130a.pdf) that my colleagues and I have conducted shows that the problem with interviews is worse than irrelevance: They can be harmful, undercutting the impact of other, more valuable information about interviewees.
Luzius MeisserThis research is based on a false assumption, namely that unstructured interviews are conducted to assess the skills of a candidate. The main value ofSee more such an interview is in finding out whether one can get along with that person. And in that regard, it is much more effective than screening static information such as a CV.