This response feels entitled. The primary purpose of an interview is to help the candidate make decisions considering prospective companies; the interviews are not conducted for the hiring company's sake, they're done for the interviewee. If one really wanted to find out about an interviewee, a company would do research (checking references, etc). It's not like asking the prospective employee one or two questions is really going to give them more than a superficial understanding of what working with them is like. Furthermore, with the number of companies people have to interview at, it's not surprising why they would want to interview in person like this. Sure, if there is no screening whatsoever throughout the entire process then there may be a problem, but by the looks of it, they probably already screen by resumes and phone interviews. As a candidate, it's not that unreasonable to expect some human interaction first before having to jump through a few hoops. Interviewing costs money so it makes sense for some job-seekers to want to do this.

Okay, that may have been a bit snarky. Hiring is a two-way street. A company could make a hiring decision based on whatever they want, but people forget that prospective employees can too. Being employed is a business arrangement, where both sides profit. The employee gets money in exchange for a service. It should be a deal where both sides feel respected.

The hiring company would have a good long laugh if as part of my application I tacked on "In order to ensure that you are the right company for me, before calling for the phone interview please have the hiring manager go to this website and record their answers to these questions." I understand the need for screening candidates, but if a company doesn't have the same esteem for my time and energy as they have for theirs, why should I think the actual job would be any better?