It often happens that a number of applicants with almost identical qualifications and experience all apply for the same position．In their educational background，special skills and work experience，there is little，if anything，to choose between half a dozen candidates．How then does the employer make a choice？Usually on the basis of an interview．

There are many arguments about the interview as a selection procedure．The main argument against it is that it results in a wholly subjective decision．As often as not，employers do not choose the best candidate，but the one who makes a good first impression on them．Some employers，of course，reply to this argument by saying that they have become so experienced in interviewing staff that they are able to make a sound assessment of each candidate's likely performance．Unfortunately，both for the employers and applicants，there are many people of great ability who simply do not interview well．There are also，of course，people who interview extremely well，but are later found to be very unsatisfactory employees．

Those in favour of the interview insist that the well-structured procedure is valid in assessing a candidate's ability，an essential guarantee for the future job．They also argue that an employer is concerned not only with a candidate's ability，but with the suitability of his or her personality for the particular work situation．Many employers，for example，will overlook occasional inefficiencies from their secretary so long as she has a pleasant personality．Perhaps the real purpose of an interview is not to assess the assessable aspects of each candidate but to make a guess at the more intangible things，such as personality，character and social ability．

Today，interview is still the key section of the entire selection procedure，though different employers have different standards for competence．Generally speaking，candidates who interview well tend to be quietly confident，but never boastful； direct and straight