At their core, job interviews rely on the belief that meeting someone face-to-face can help you figure out if that person is right for the job. In news that will give some solace to those of us who suck at interviews, research conducted by Jason Dana and his team debunks this idea. Over in the New York Times, Dana explains that interviews actually contribute to a less accurate predictor of job performance — and that interviewer snap judgements are often wrong. Basically, he says, job interviews are useless.

Dana and his team conducted a study in which students tried to predict other students' GPAs for the next semester based on course schedules, their previous GPAs, and interview they conducted. Those same students were also asked to make a prediction for a second student, but this time without an interview. Overwhelmingly, the GPA predictions without an interview were more accurate, showing that the interview was unnecessary and actually negatively contributed to their decision.

It doesn’t seem like the traditional interview is going away anytime soon, though. When a different group of students were explained the test's findings and then asked to rank the information they would need to make a GPA prediction, they still chose to conduct an interview — completely disregarding the study's findings and crushing hope that we will all be freed from the pain of bad job interviews.

Read the full article over at The New York Times.

In other job-related news, see what the staff is wearing at NYC’s Kinfolk.

What To Read Next