To Q if interview candidates are really chosen solely based on scoring the most points?

[LemonWasp]

I wonder if the best candidate is always the one who scores highest on paper. What if the panel doesn’t like them or they don’t come across well during the interview, even if they technically scored the most points? Shouldn’t personal rapport and overall presentation play a role in the decision?

I work in the public sector, used to assist in interviews with my manager leader. She'd always wait until all interviews were completed, score the preferred candidate first then score everyone else ensuring they scored less than the preferred candidate.

Also had it where I was interviewed for a public sector job, scored the highest but had the least experience out of all candidates and they weren't confident to give me the post. They reinterviewed me and the second person with a new interview panel and I again scored highest and was offered the post!

Public sector interviews are corrupt in my experience!

This has been my experience.

I don't think the scoring in most cases gives anything more than a very rough idea about the quality of the candidate. It says more about how they present in interviews.

And in some cases people can really inflate their scores if they know how the interviewers work. Which in my experience is not uncommon at all. IN fact I once had an immediate supervisor give me advise about how to up my scores a lot in interviews within the organization, simply by mentioning long lists of certain types of knowledge. Even if they seemed pretty marginal in terms of relevance.

Sometimes the one with the best score is not the best for the position or team that you already have.