It strikes me as odd that interviews aren't collaborative. I mean, the really valuable information that interviewers want is whether or not the candidate is going to work well with other people there, right? So interviewers could work with candidates to solve some problem (maybe problems structured so that it's naturally convenient to divide them into two parts where each contributes). An external service could provide problems and software for shared solving to prevent interviewers from knowing the problems in advance (which would revert to them "testing"). And the shared problem-solving could be recorded so that interviewers could review it afterwards to decide more clearly how it went (maybe they felt like the other person did a lot during the shared problem-solving, but when watching it afterwards, they realize that the interviewer carried the weight of solving things).
I think this kind of context change would be tremendously empowering for candidates such as myself who get very anxious about situations in which they feel people are "testing" them but who actually love working with people. It would also be nice as a way to see what people are like to work with, from both the perspectives of the candidates and the interviewers.
Very excellent point and good ideas for a solution. Funnily enough, I've recently had the same thoughts, been wondering what it would be like if interviewers were asked to work with interviewees on problems they were equally as unfamiliar with, so they are on equal footing.
I think this kind of context change would be tremendously empowering for candidates such as myself who get very anxious about situations in which they feel people are "testing" them but who actually love working with people. It would also be nice as a way to see what people are like to work with, from both the perspectives of the candidates and the interviewers.
PvE interviews instead of PvP interviews.