This NPR episode on AI job interviewers had one finding that stopped me cold.
When given a choice between a human interviewer or AI, 78% of candidates chose AI.
The economist running the study said he was “quite shocked.”
Here’s what they measured
Candidates interviewed by AI:
- ✓ 12% more likely to get job offers
- ✓ 18% more likely to start and stay in the job
- ✓ Half as likely to report feeling discriminated against
Why the better outcomes?
The candidates performed differently. More interactive responses. Richer vocabulary. Fewer filler words like “um” and “uh-huh.”
The researcher’s conclusion: “AI allowed people to be better versions of themselves.”
They don’t fully know why yet—said the psychological aspect needs more study.
That pattern maps to what I’ve seen with screening calls
I’ve been on the other side of hundreds of phone screens. Most candidates I rejected weren’t unqualified—they just couldn’t articulate their value under pressure.
They knew their stuff. But when the pressure was on, the filler words multiplied. The answers rambled. The confidence evaporated.
Not because they were bad at their jobs. Because they’d never practiced the conversation part.
The screening call is a performance. And like any performance, it improves with practice.
Here’s what I noticed
People practice differently when no one’s watching. They try things. They experiment. They fail without the weight of someone’s judgment.
By the time you’re on the real screening call, you’ve already done it 15 times. The linguistic patterns shift. The confidence is real.
Understanding how interviews work is half the battle. Being prepared when you show up is the other half. I built Revarta to help people practice interviews before the stakes are real—AI-powered sessions with personalized feedback.