When I was in the final stages of my dissertation, I received an invitation for an on-campus interview. The date, though, was about three weeks away, and in the intervening time, my doctoral institution offered me a one-year administrative position. The best part about the one-year position was that it would allow me to complete my dissertation without the burden of a full teaching load. The school that offered me the interview was not exactly a top-tier institution, and I figured that if my CV generated that kind of interest as an ABD, I would have success at a “better” institution the following year.

I was about to call the college and withdraw from its search when one of my mentors told me to stay in the search.

“But I already have a job,” I protested.

“Yes, but you can gain the benefit of experiencing an on-campus interview, and that’s priceless. That will really pay off next year.”

I explained that I felt as if it would be unethical for the college to pay for my airfare, hotel, and so forth, and even to expend the mental energy that was required by an on-campus interview. He jokingly called me a “goody two-shoes” or something like that, and I went ahead with the call to withdraw.

I still think I made the right choice. While my mentor’s advice was well-meaning, I now believe even more strongly that on-campus interviews are too important to use for any purpose other than the serious pursuit of a match between a candidate and an opening.

I’ve heard of some faculty members and deans, however, who see a very clear service to the profession that search committees can offer in the context of professional meetings like that of the Modern Language Association and the other job (meat!) markets: interviewing a few candidates who are not likely to be finalists because their dissertations are insufficiently advanced toward completion. They invite only candidates who already are attending, NOT folks who might attend solely for these “service” interviews. They call that a service because by the time a search committee invests several thousand dollars in sending representatives to those conferences, it seems like a shame to interview only three or four candidates. In fact, it may help the search-committee members to think more broadly about their searches. Very occasionally, those service interviews may turn into legitimate interviews if a search comes up empty and extends by a year.

The downside is that candidates are interviewing for positions they really are unlikely to land. And false hope can be, certainly, cruel.

So, does the benefit of a little “covert” interview experience thrown in the direction of a not-quite-ready candidate outweigh the false hope of that kind of interview?

For those of you on the other side of the search, where you’ve landed a good position, can you look back now and see the benefit in having a few extra interviews?

Categories: Faculty-hiring, Administrative-hiring