I actually interpret their data quite differently. There is a statistically robust and positive correlation between perceived and actual ratings:<p>- 44% of the time, the actual and perceived ranking was identical.<p>- 91% of the time, the difference between the rankings was at most one star.<p>- Only in 9% of cases was there was a strong disagreement about how well the interview went (2 or more stars out of four).<p>- There is also a bias towards engineers thinking they did slightly worse than they actually did.<p>Even in an alternative universe where the same interview was repeated, you would not expect rankings by the same individual to be perfect. A more meaningful benchmark (though probably unattainable) would be interviewer&#x2F;interviewee consistency relative to interviewer self-consistency.