Of course people know interviews aren't the greatest, but it's the best tool they have right now. What people are pushing back against is criticism without solutions.
There are a bunch of other testing methods that are illegal in the USA too, such as IQ tests.
When users of code I've written complain that something sucks to use, I don't demand they come up with a better solution. Probably I don't even want to know what they think the answer is—unless they design user interfaces for a living, odds are their answer will be terrible and they won't even be happy with it if I build it.
This is as it should be—I'm paid to solve problems.
Why is this different?
The more I read about interviewing, the more I realize too many people think they have this problem solved—their amateur psychology is impeccable and their technical screens test for exactly the right things, no more and no less. Did they do a bunch of controlled studies to convince themselves of this, or are they taking sounding good, or intuition about the statistical outcomes of different techniques, to be equivalent to truth?
Maybe the first step is to collectively realize we have close to no clue what we're doing, and are being asked to solve a hard problem: individually, to talk to someone for an hour and make a hiring recommendation. In aggregate, to make the decision based on a handful of these one-hour conversations.
Maybe the first step is to realize this is a problem worth trying to solve.
> What people are pushing back against is criticism without solutions.
Which is bullshit. It's perfectly reasonable to criticise something without proposing an alternative. It's especially ridiculous to reject criticism provided without alternatives, when it's literally your job to do the work being criticised.
"Hey the way you're doing this part of your job produces results no better than random selection."
There are a bunch of other testing methods that are illegal in the USA too, such as IQ tests.