Interviews often aren't fair. However, they don't have to be quiz-style.
When I conduct interviews I simply have conversations to explore subjects as if I were talking about an issue with a coworker. I tell them directly that my goal as an interviewer is to give them an opportunity to showcase something they know so I can say good things about them. I give the interviewee a choice of subjects and I let them change the subject. If the interviewee doesn't know something, I explain it. We work together, as partners, to find their strongest area -- and then we pursue it until we reach a limit.
I also tell them that I will keep exploring the subject in question until we run into things they don't know, or that I don't know. I reassure them that I expect to reach a point in our conversation where we just say "I don't know" and that it's totally OK and expected.
After the interview, I assess the communication. What did they know? What did they ask? And perhaps most important: What did they learn? Were they defensive about the boundaries of their knowledge, and how did they deal with that?
I find I usually have a very detailed understanding about the interviewee's areas of competence as well as their communication abilities. A strong communicator and learner is far more valuable than someone who can recite a few technical details.
I think quiz or challenge style interviews are easier. The interviewee doesn't need to be skilled and doesn't need to risk exposing their own ignorance on a subject - often nontechnical recruiters administer these. They can be used to maintain an illusion of superiority on part of the interviewer and company. It's perhaps a similar defensive dynamic as which keeps peer teams from openly interacting and problem-solving, when teams challenge one another with problems rather than opening up about what they know and what they want to know.
You are criticizing the "quiz or challenge" style interviews, but you are basically describing a quiz interview. I don't think that most people just expect you to know the answer (like they may in other industries or even government). They expect you to don't know the answer, and then they will try to lead you to it and see your thought process. At least this is my style too.
You could call it a free-form interactive essay interview. Pick any subject and converse on it however you like. If it's not going well, pick any other subject.
Is there that much difference between a series of questions and a series of subjects ? I am assuming it's not really "pick any subject you like" , because most subjects are going to be absolutely useless to ranking the candidate -- it's going to be "pick a subject from a list of these subjects".
And there is a reason most _interviewee_ guides tell you to always be honest and say "I don't know". That's to kickstart the discussion/next question as soon as possible rather than unnecessarily get stuck in the "bullshitting" phase that helps no one. It's rather common to encourage this, not a rare thing.
> I am assuming it's not really "pick any subject you like"
It appears your apparent confusion is due to this assumption. It's the opposite of the process I described above.
I meant exactly what I said. The candidate can pick any topic they like. I trust the candidate to pick a topic to showcase their own skills -- and if they don't, that's another useful datapoint for the hiring process.
There's a huge difference between using a predefined process vs letting the candidate drive. It guarantees we won't waste time talking about subjects the candidate isn't familiar with, and that we will focus on their strengths. Figuring out a candidate's strengths is the entire point of interviewing!
It's also relevant to the "fairness" issue mentioned above, for the same reason.
When I conduct interviews I simply have conversations to explore subjects as if I were talking about an issue with a coworker. I tell them directly that my goal as an interviewer is to give them an opportunity to showcase something they know so I can say good things about them. I give the interviewee a choice of subjects and I let them change the subject. If the interviewee doesn't know something, I explain it. We work together, as partners, to find their strongest area -- and then we pursue it until we reach a limit.
I also tell them that I will keep exploring the subject in question until we run into things they don't know, or that I don't know. I reassure them that I expect to reach a point in our conversation where we just say "I don't know" and that it's totally OK and expected.
After the interview, I assess the communication. What did they know? What did they ask? And perhaps most important: What did they learn? Were they defensive about the boundaries of their knowledge, and how did they deal with that?
I find I usually have a very detailed understanding about the interviewee's areas of competence as well as their communication abilities. A strong communicator and learner is far more valuable than someone who can recite a few technical details.
I think quiz or challenge style interviews are easier. The interviewee doesn't need to be skilled and doesn't need to risk exposing their own ignorance on a subject - often nontechnical recruiters administer these. They can be used to maintain an illusion of superiority on part of the interviewer and company. It's perhaps a similar defensive dynamic as which keeps peer teams from openly interacting and problem-solving, when teams challenge one another with problems rather than opening up about what they know and what they want to know.