Topic: 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 a common belief that interviews are the most well-rounded tool to assess candidates’ suitability for a position. In my viewpoint, this approach could help recruiters assess candidates’ soft skills and give candidates another chance to emphasise their strong points which may be missed during the curriculum vitae scanning procedure. However, other tools are needed to portray candidates’ abilities fully.

Firstly, an interview seems to be the best way to assess a candidate's soft skills, such as relationship establishment or thought expression. Those soft skills are necessary at some level in order to perform tasks successfully, particularly for salesperson or communication-related occasions. For this reason, regarding recruitment, many employers emphasise the crucial role of interviews. 

From candidates’ perspective, interviews give them another chance to emphasise their skills or experiences suitable for the position but might be ignored during the curriculum vitae scanning procedure. For example, a graduate fresher engaging in volunteering activities may not be proficient in terms of working experiences but may impress interviewers with his enthusiasm. Hence, an interview is a great opportunity to help his strength be bold. 

However, interviews do not yet help reveal other potential interviewees' crucial qualities, such as integrity or consistency. To find out those qualities, other methodologies, skill tests or ability tests for instance, should be implemented to give an all-facet portrait of the candidates.

To sum up, interviews are an effective approach to help employers find suitable candidates. It also gives job seekers a chance to express their strong points. Besides, other tools are also needed to portray candidates' abilities fully.