Can't really call it an "interview", though, when there is only one participant.
For what it's worth, I find that approach humiliating to the interviewee. It's a subtle way to tell him that they do not value his time as highly as their own.
For what it's worth, I find that approach humiliating to the interviewee. It's a subtle way to tell him that they do not value his time as highly as their own.
Personally, I find this attitude against automation (where possible, reasonable and useful) to be almost Luddite-like.
In addition, if you can automate the process, you might even be able to extend your candidate pool (i.e. interview a lot more people, and not rely on weakly-correlated-but-almost-arbitrary signals such as premium university name on the candidates' CVs, but instead select the actually good people).