What an incredibly bad faith reply. Candidates should always be given an answer within a few days of finishing the interview. But it’s not good for a candidate to think they’ve bombed during the interview.
If someone fails my interview, it is completely possible that they’ll still get an offer. I have one data point, and my colleagues are going to collect more. I’ve changed my vote from no to yes in debriefs many times once I saw other feedback. But that’s a lot less likely to happen if my interview wrecks their confidence.
Nope, this is as straight forward as it gets. There are only two ways not to know if you're failing or acing an interview:
1. You don't know what metrics you're being judged on.
2. You do know but you either can't assess your abilities in said metrics or you can't tell how well you've presented them.
The second one is up to the candidate, not much you can do about that, but if during an interview you have no idea what the interviewer is looking for, that's a terrible interview.
There is a vast distance between “accurate self-assessment” and “no idea what the interviewer is looking for”.
I’ve already explained why I think obscuring poor performance to preserve candidate confidence is crucial. If you think that’s a “terrible interview”, maybe you could elaborate on why, rather than just asserting it.
If someone fails my interview, it is completely possible that they’ll still get an offer. I have one data point, and my colleagues are going to collect more. I’ve changed my vote from no to yes in debriefs many times once I saw other feedback. But that’s a lot less likely to happen if my interview wrecks their confidence.