This is the exact opposite of an interview I used to run in my old biology lab. We used to sit down a new candidate in front of a microscope and ask them to do some cell transfers and counting. They had to finish the task.
We right away knew if they were persistent, skilled, problem solvers, and if they were meticulous.
If they pulled it off maybe you knew that. If they didn't -- is it because they suck? Or because they're incredibly nervous and just got put in an environment which which they were not acclimated, and told to do work?
I may not be a scientician, but I'm pretty sure there's something in the Big Book of Science about controlling for variables...
They may have been good, but we have no way of knowing that if they are nervous. I doubt too many employers have this figured out either. If the candidate is nervous and doesn't perform, there isn't too much that can be done about it other than maybe looking at past history.
We were also rigorously testing to see if they could get acclimated to the environment. They would have to do this routinely since there were so many new lab techniques to be learned.
We right away knew if they were persistent, skilled, problem solvers, and if they were meticulous.