Many people think that interviews are not the best way to assess the suitability of a candidate for a position. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is crucial for many companies to ensure

one

's fitness for a job before accepting him. Some people believe that interviews are not favourable for

this

, while others think that they are the best option.

This

essay will argue why interviews are not as precise and effective and suggest other means to estimate whether a candidate suites for a position.

To begin

with, interviews are the most common way to accept someone for a position for a number of reasons, including fast assessment of professional skills and ability to express them in a stressful situation like an interview. The argument goes, that if a person cannot leave a good impression straight away, he would not likely to meet job criteria in future.

For instance

, when a doctor, who apply for a job, fails to perform a simple procedure, it usually means he is not qualified enough for a position.

Thus

, interviews are claimed to access

one

's fitness for work fast and efficiently.

Conversely

, there is

one

substantial drawback in interviews which makes them less precise. They usually do not consider the human factor which is present in many applicants in a day of assessment. To illustrate, the candidate's results may be affected by his stress, and interviewers might make wrong conclusions regarding his professional skills.

Therefore

, for a better accuracy there should be a period of probation, when an employee has a chance to show his fitness to a post.

This

way, the human factor is less likely to influence his results. To conclude, ensuring

one

's suitability is vital for employers,

although

, despite advantages interviews possess, they are not the best way for

this

. The more precise and effective method, in my opinion, is probation, since human factor is likely to be excluded.