As a traditional way to test applicants' abilities, interview plays an important role in recruitment. But there are some arguments for or against it. Some people believe taking an interview is beneficial to both the company and applicants. While some others think there can be unfairness behind interview procedure for someone may tend to bribe the interviewer , and it's wasteful to spend a lot on dressing during the interview. As far as I'm concerned, I don't doubt that there can be some better way for company to select good employers in future. But I hold that, so far, the interview must be the fairest and the most useful method.

             Without interview, employees go mad. Because company doesn't know how to gain more information about its applicants besides resume.This is similar to a school but with no exams. Teachers can be confused. They can't see which student is better in math, or which student has any problem in learning. So neither the company. Generally speaking, company's needs or requirements to its applicants can be fully reflected by interviews. And with the types and forms of interview diversifying, interviewers can use all kinds of  tests to evaluate the capabilities of their applicants, such as personality test, pressure test and EQ test and so on. So we can see interview is still useful and important to employees.

              From another aspect, I do believe interview is good for applicants too, irrespective of the deflects. When all candidates face the same condition, the similar questions, and have the same time to show themselves, I think the fairness can be ganranteed. When candidates have to react to all sorts of tricky and unexpected questions, they will learn a lot.

              In summary, I think the advantages of interview out weight its disadvantages. Interview provieds a good chance for employees and applicants to get the information they want. And it also make sure the fairness.