Anonymous wrote:My take on this is different. I have seen beautifully crafted resumes that paints a very different story than I was able to get from an in person interview. Anyone can write anything, and anyone can pay someone else to write anything. A few well-placed questions can tell you quickly whether or not the person has knowledge and context, or if they were just spitting out a few keywords.
I am also in tech, and there is a well-known phenomenon of having someone different apply than the person who shows up at the first day! So visual confirmation of who the heck you’re actually hiring is important.
Maybe I'm just too in love with this term, but I'd say that all falls under vibe check.
You get a resume. That tells you certain facts about a person. You want to meet them in person to see if they are a good fit for you - and you for them - as a holistic person.
And to the PPs saying that this can be a way to discriminate - sure, yes, it can be. You hope that bias training and building awareness, and other things, will help get around that. And yes it can also be a way to discriminate against awkward Americans, people with disabilities, those who simply don't know how to dress themselves in a flattering manner (or don't have the resources to do it), etc. But resumes allow for discrimination, too. If you're picking people from Ivies, you're getting a certain type of person. There is no foolproof way to do hiring - or to look for a job. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to meet the person they are investing a lot of resources into bringing on board - and for whom they are turning away other candidates.
That said I haven't done in person interviews for my last three jobs. But those were all remote jobs, at a fairly senior level, with people I knew based on my previous work. We knew each other's vibes (or thought we did - two of the three jobs turned out to be a nightmare, so go figure - I don't think in person interviewing would have changed that, though).