Merit Without Interviews and Interviews Without Merit

Those who are deeply unhappy with the direction of the country I live in have recently been constantly using the words "mülakat" (interview) and "liyakat" (merit), both of which passed into our daily language from Arabic via Ottoman Turkish. In short, they argue that if interviews are abolished and merit is restored, many of our problems will be solved. I am sorry, but I cannot quite join the group of those dissatisfied with the current situation on this particular point.

Let us first look at the dictionary definitions and usage of these words. "Mülakat" entered Ottoman Turkish from an Arabic root meaning to meet and talk, and from there it settled into our modern language. The word is used to mean an oral evaluation by an employer to determine the suitability of a job candidate for the position in question.

"Liyakat" also entered our language through the same paths. In short, it denotes suitability for a job, or in other words, being worthy.

Now, let me elaborate a bit on the relationship between interviews and merit in a region where things are running properly. The English equivalent of "mülakat" is "interview," and the exact meaning of this word is to see, talk to, and get to know one another. What must never be forgotten is that in regions where things run more smoothly, the interview is not used solely to evaluate a candidate's suitability for a job, but also serves to help the candidate understand whether the job they are applying for is suitable for them.

Let me give an example from my profession. In the US, for instance, if a physician who has completed their internal medicine residency wants to pursue fellowship training in rheumatology, they apply to one or more institutions that provide such training, go for interviews there, and thus complete their fellowship at an institution that they want and that wants them as much as possible.

The closest English equivalent for "liyakat" is "merit." Let me immediately note that the word "liyakat" carries a meaning beyond just showing suitability for a job. For example, a casino operator who does their job well, keeps their casino clean, pays taxes properly, and earns good money for their country is not necessarily called a "meritorious" operator. Furthermore, possessing "liyakat" often implies a skill and dedication to one's work that goes beyond just performing the assigned task. Another very important point is that knowledge accumulation and merit may sometimes not align. Therefore, sometimes the grade received in a written or oral exam alone may not fully show how meritorious a candidate might be in their job. This is where a skillfully conducted interview is quite a guiding tool. In summary, the interview is an important and well-tested measuring instrument for achieving merit.

There was once a very apt observation. People who did not see what was happening around them and yet pontificated were told, "I guess they work for Japanese TRT." No, I do not work for Japanese TRT. I fully agree that in my country, where unemployment is rampant, cronyism in hiring has reached its peak, and many incompetent people are being appointed to positions they are not at all worthy of.

Besides this, I also agree and am outraged by situations where, for example, in a state institution with 50 vacancies and 5,000 applicants, all 10 of the candidates who received the highest scores in the pre-interview exam can be eliminated after the interview. However, the point I do not agree with and am also outraged by is our constant search for shortcuts, such as completely abolishing interviews, to solve current chicanery. What we forget is that there are few shortcuts to civilization.

I repeat. When conducted properly, the interview is essentially an indispensable method for selecting the meritorious. So, what should we do?

Before deciding on this, one must also know a completely different dimension of the current interview problem. It had been applied in medical schools for a long time. In my opinion, very wrongly, the interview for entry into fellowship training had been abolished for a long time. I just learned that the same practice has started in other faculties as well. It is permitted to hold exams for research assistants applying for vacant positions, but interviews have been strictly forbidden. To me, the situation is unfortunately, and very unfortunately, clear.

Nowadays, the interview is used as a social engineering method where the main goal is to understand the candidate's worldview and to see their attire. Shame on them. On whom? Both on the authorities who turned interviews for civil servant appointments into this, and on the university administrators who have not understood what a master-apprentice relationship it is to train academics, who have taken away the right of professors to choose those they will train, and who are not complaining much about this. Have you forgotten that the entire history of science is, in one way or another, a master-apprentice story, or do you prefer to forget?

I return to my question. What should we do?

I. In almost all universities, especially for applications to positions that will lead to an academic career, interviews should be brought back at the discretion of the institution. However, these interviews must absolutely be recorded on video, with a copy provided to the candidate.

II. Outside of universities, for the recruitment of civil servants, conducting an additional interview alongside the exam should again be left to the discretion of the institution. In the event that an interview is conducted, it should similarly be recorded on video.

III. Again, outside of universities, a law should be enacted as a matter of urgency regarding what can and cannot be asked in these interviews for civil servants, prepared by a commission consisting of an equal number of representatives from all parties with a group in parliament, naturally in consultation with academic experts on the subject.

Finally, I cannot help but add. Please, do not ask me, "Professor, isn't such a law also necessary for universities?" and make me die of shame, as you would be rightfully asking.