First, in terms of cost, it takes more manpower, material resources, financial resources and time to interview first. Interviews need interviewers, and the proportion of applicants for a position reaches 1 to several thousand. If you interview first, it will take a long time for so many people. The interviewer needs to sit there all the time, and the examiner has a normal work life. It's impossible to sit there for an interview every day.

From the examinee's point of view, some candidates take the national examination from other places. If he passes the written test before the interview, he may be admitted, so it is worthwhile to invest in the local interview. But if you interview first, so many candidates in the country will go to one place, which will waste a lot of time and money. And because there are many people interviewing, the ticket is a problem, and it may be difficult to find a place to live in the local area.

Secondly, from the rationality of the talent selection mechanism, first, the person who meets this position is selected through written examination, and then the interview is conducted on the basis of his passing the written examination, so as to conform to the law of talent selection.

Thirdly, from the perspective of fairness, the current civil servant recruitment system and process avoid the possibility of black-box operation. However, if it is to be changed to interview first and then written test, the interview first may allow some related candidates to enter the written test through extraordinary channels. Moreover, the interview results account for a lot of points, so it may provide a breeding ground for corruption. At present, the recruitment ratio of some units has reached 1: 5, and the competition is extremely fierce. Only a fair examination system can select real talents.

So no matter what you consider, don't interview before writing.