I'm curious if Ollie or others know which other fields require interviews prior to admission offers being given. I thought it was just clin psych until I recently overheard a cognitive psych applicant talking about interviews. I don't think you see this elsewhere in the humanities or social sciences, but I'm wrong about plenty...why not this? Do STEM fields interview?
And perhaps this has been answered above (if so, my apologies), but how do psychology faculty talk to each other about the interview process? Are you saying (Ollie, others) that faculty openly acknowledge that they're not really screening for clinical or academic success in interviews and that they freely admit that they're looking instead for pleasant and perhaps even pretty people? Or is this something that they admit to themselves privately? All of this chills my bones and turns my stomach (though it's not surprising or really "news") not only because few people would consider me perky or humpy, but because the clin psych profs I've met (only a few) are amongst the most socially awkward goofs I've ever encountered. What does it mean to be judged pleasant, fun, and socially adept by the man who comports himself with all the ease and grace of a bear in a tutu?
First, many areas of psychology interview, not just clinical. Every interview I went on, you arrived in the afternoon one day, had evening events (e.g. dinner with faculty and students, post-dinner activities) than a full solid day of interviewing at the department with more evening activities, and you flew out the next morning. I know some STEM fields that interview, or at least have an "open house" - others do not. A lot of it probably depends on the culture of the department, how closely students and advisors work together, etc. At least here, students and faculty spend a LOT of time together. I'm with my advisor probably a minimum of 3-4 hours a week, and that's as a senior student who is operating fairly independently - it was a LOT more early on. The programs where advisors are more like "The person who sorta does similar research you meet with twice a year" are far less likely to interview.
Second, appearance will play SOME role in any interview. That said, why are people so caught up on this issue? Yes, in a perfect world that wouldn't matter but we live in reality. There's a reason you should wear a suit and not pajama pants, etc. I've noticed several times that folks on this board tend to have an almost media-esque black & white view of certain topics. Just because appearance matters doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean its the ONLY thing that matters. This is Stats 101 - just because something is statistically significant doesn't mean it accounts for 100% of the variance. Most of what we study actually accounts for a very small amount of the variance and while I haven't seen a meta on this, I have little reason to believe the role of appearance in interviews is any different.
RE: the process. Yes, I am saying that faculty quite openly acknowledge that interviews are not all about determining academic qualifications (though again...this needs to stop getting made into a black & white issue where they are ONLY interview for one purpose or another). Our faculty tell our undergrads who are applying that information. Grad students are involved in the interview process, and we are told that. We have a yearly "How to get into grad school" meeting for our RAs and they are told this. This is not any big secret. You aren't going to get anyone outright saying they look for "pretty" people (again, you seem to be very focused on appearance). I've never heard that discussed, I was just making the point previously that we know it certainly factors into subjective ratings of individuals (along with many other things).
The main point is that if you are an *******, people aren't going to like you and aren't going to want to accept you. That's a big part of what faculty are looking for at interviews, not whether or not you can get a good GPA, publish a lot of papers, etc. Whether you are going to be a miserable, nasty human being who they will dread every moment they have to spend interacting with over the next 5 years is obviously going to factor into the odds of acceptance. Obviously its a bit more nuanced than that, but I'm using extremes because my point seems to be getting lost in here. This doesn't mean anyone who doesn't skip in singing about rainbows is going to get rejected. Some awkward faculty might prefer slightly awkward students. Some particularly aggressive faculty might look for students who are more submissive regarding their research direction, or perhaps the opposite and will want students who are willing to step over their mother's grave to get one more publication. Some laid back faculty might want someone who they think will be smart and productive, but is just a generally nice and fun person. This is the elusive "fit" characteristic that always gets labeled. Departments have a culture, labs have a culture, etc. This is what faculty (or at least many of the ones I've met) are trying to determine with the interview, not necessarily who will be the most productive, who knows their research area the best, etc. With a handful of exceptions, most of the faculty I've met seem pretty normal, but I imagine this process is different with those who aren't.
Personally, I don't see the problem with it working like this. I think failure to consider things like this in interviews is how you often end up with some of those faculty members we may dislike (e.g. sexual harassment was mentioned earlier). I'd like it if appearance didn't matter. I'd like it if there was a better system for achieving this. I don't think there's anything wrong with whether or not a faculty member "clicks" with a student being a factor in admission.
Edit: PS - No worries regarding the CV, I was just curious. Though one quick point that may or may not be relevant in this case - not all adjuncts are created equal either. If you look at our department website, we will have several "adjuncts" (its technically a different label here, but the position is the same) listed who earn well into the 6 figures. Their adjunct appointment is not for teaching a class or two, its an academic affiliation when their primary appointment is elsewhere. Whether that was the case for the person you mentioned I obviously have no idea, but its important to keep in mind that at least in psychology, adjunct doesn't necessarily mean the person is being paid a few thousand dollars to teach a class or two.
. 
