= Premium Content

  • Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

The Advice Not Taken

February 16, 2012, 12:51 pm

By George David Clark

These last few months I have been stockpiling advice like a survivalist. Now, with my first on-campus visit set for this week, the day of reckoning has finally come and I’m reviewing my stores. I have collected pointers from former professors, the recent hires at my current institution, even a particularly generous dean from my undergraduate days. The advice has been as various as its sources, with one exception. Almost everyone concludes their counsel with the same imperatives: be yourself and be confident. The problem is that when I am being myself, I am a doubt-filled bundle of nerves.

At this point it can seem as though there is no good reason for job seekers not to be confident. We’ve carefully studied the schools, the departments, our prospective peers. We’ve rehearsed our teaching demonstrations and job talks till we can (and do) present them in our sleep. We’ve polished our interview attire to a professorial sheen. Most importantly, we really do believe in ourselves as scholars and teachers and we have had some early success on the job market in order to land the on-campus visit.

That said, these interviews will be unlike anything most first-time applicants have seen before. The schedule for an on-campus visit is nothing if not intimidating. I face nearly 14 hours of nonstop interviews. I’ll give a teaching demonstration, a job talk, and a public reading of my work, then, after a late reception, there’ll be a formal breakfast the following morning. Even more daunting than the interview gauntlet is the notion of how much is riding on the job seeker’s performance. This visit may well determine where I spend the next chapter of my life, how I support my family, and to what degree I am able to pursue the research I love.

How, in all my preparation, did I forget the most consistent advice I was given? How did I overlook the confidence I’ll need for my conference with the university president? To be honest, beyond mentally preparing for the interviews themselves, what can anyone really do to harness their boldness for these situations? I keep thinking of that scene in the “Performance Review” episode of The Office. Dwight plans to ask for a raise so he psyches himself up by playing heavy metal on a boom box in the stairwell and karate chopping the air. “You deserve this raise,” he yells over and over. Short of excusing ourselves to the nearest stairwell, how can interviewees keep their nerves in check for on-campus visits? What last advice should anxious job seekers take as we walk out the hotel door?

This entry was posted in Interviewing, On the Market. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • old nassau’67

    But wouldn’t all university applicants have been placed in academic, rather than applied, classes?
    Or does “higher education” include those tertiary institutions to which “applied” high schoolers matriculate?
    What about financial considerations? employment opportunities – more for men than for women?

  • bscmath78

    And what is a “preceptor”?  Here is Cross’ description of the 60s situation.
     
    “A preceptor is an advanced graduate student who teaches part time while completing a dissertation. Preceptors were the creation of fiscal imperatives, not academic ones:
    They were the low-cost alternative to the older position of instructor. ‘Columbia College used to spend immense sums for full-time instructors who often remained graduate students for many years. Henceforth, two or three graduate students would subsist as preceptor on the salary of a single instructor.’ ”

    Yet this seems to be similar to the situation that Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus seem to deplore on page 97 of “Higher Education: How Colleges are Wasting  Our Money and Failing Our Kids” with “However, what’s changed is that far fewer senior professors deign to take part, so the bulk of the teaching is given over to adjuncts and graduate assistants.”

    Yet this seems to have been the situation for close to 50 years as can be seen in Chapter 6 of “An Oasis of Order: The Core Curriculum at Columbia College”.  Except it would appear that things were worse in the 60s since preceptors didn’t even have a Ph.D. unlike the adjuncts of today (and students paid far less back then).

    And remember what Barzun wrote in 1968, “. . . for whom the supervising and examining of dissertations is all the more distasteful that [sic] most are exercises in fact-gathering rather than contributions to knowledge.” which suggests that preceptors were picked from a unimpressive pool of graduate students.

    All of this seems to suggest that there is a serious problem with even American university history of the last 60 years.  Academics seem to have serious problems with their own history, so why should anyone trust them to teach Western Civ or any other form of history until they have clearly demonstrated their abilities outside of whatever arcane, obscure, narrow specialty they have? ;-)

    “An Oasis of Order” is well worth reading in its entirety (recognizing its basic pro-Core intent) because it illustrates several problems with the Core as it evolved over the decades. The problems, issues and challenges remain important today and just think of what students not under the sway of Columbia staff would have said. Notice how little interest there is in the actual as opposed to theoretical impact on students. Notice also the lack of measurement, metrics and accountability.

    Caveat lector
    Caveat auditor
    Caveat emptor

  • bscmath78

    Those interested in encouraging freedom and liberty might be interested in the discussion of an earlier version of my list and the resulting discussion in the Mark Bauerlein “Against Relevance” thread, starting here:
     
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/against-relevance/38096#comment-284724578

    For those who feel a need for poetry, the thread includes my suggestion of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and other patriotic songs as interesting poetry for historical/political analysis.

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/against-relevance/38096#comment-284732249

  • bscmath78

    For some of the issues with “Academically Adrift” and its supporting material you can start reading here:
     
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/who-should-educate-the-educators/30362#comment-317536912

  • betterschool

    This is not the place for an extended discussion on the topic but it seems to me that you place an unsupportable burden on your distinction between political and scientific history.

  • nanzing

    Congratulations Peter on an interesting critique of history. I see a great deal of social good in the deeper understanding of the connections between everything we do now (and take for granted) and the way these understandings can knit us together in real ways.

    Sometimes I think undergraduate education does not provide the framework on which lasting knowledge can be built, but rather piles up “facts” as if they were distinct points of light without connections or sources. Although it’s been a long time since I’ve read history, I can see where the deep history movement can help provide a framework for a wider sense of who we all are, to which the more finite meanings and details might “stick”.

  • peterwwood

    If there were a prize for the number of contrived misunderstandings a writer could compress into a single statement, chuckkle would be a contender.  No, chuckkle, anthropology is not free of hyper-specialization.  No academic discipline these days is, and I never implied my discipline is an exception.  As for there being some sort of contradiction between my welcoming the new field of “deep history” and my being in favor of teaching the history of western civilization, no, the two are happily consistent.  I favor teaching undergraduate important synthesizing views of history, both human history beginning with our evolutionary origins, and Western history, which deals with out intellectual, institutional, economic, and political origins. As for looking at cultural transmission in China, Africa, and along the Silk Road, contrary to your expectations Chuckkle, I am in favor of that too.  But I do believe that when it comes to the undergraduate curriculum, we serve students better when we make reasoned choices about which subjects deserve the most concentrated attention.  

    Peter Wood

  • frankschmidt

    Maybe the idea came from reading your section headed “Up to the Minute” in Part 2.

  • jamesebryan

    Do you mean to imply that those who study aspects of history other than the overtly political do not do so with the greater human good in mind?  I always thought the point of all humanities disciplines was to encourage an increased understanding of the human condition, and it seems to me an overly narrow interpretation to hold that analyzing the actions of the powerful matters more than analyzing the motivations and culture of the ordinary.  A class on the political theory of the Founding Fathers would have much to teach us about their thinking as influential leaders, just as a class on the typical household possessions and purchasing habits of eighteenth-century Americans would have much to teach us about their thinking as ordinary people at the time.  Since the manners and customs of the latter were certainly influential on and of concern to the former, studying everyday colonists’ lifestyles surely can teach us something worth knowing just as studying the more directly political actions of their elite can.  I cannot understand the sort of argument that dismisses the serious study of folk and popular culture as trivial.  The only explanation for that perspective I can see is as a vestige of elitist traditions. 

  • dyspeptic

    Seems to me that this interesting discussion simply points up the artificiality of distinctions made among certain disciplines, partly the result of the administrative structure of the American university. 
    Of course history as an academic discipline sensu stricto does not include prehistory, but that is hardly a reason to exclude prehistory from consideration of the human past in the larger picture. ‘Deep history’ stretches the bounds in potentially productive ways, such that questions posed by historians can also be posed by prehistorians and vice-versa. I am an archaeologist who works in both the prehistoric and historical past, but mostly prehistory. Might just put ‘Deep Historian’ on my next order of business cards…

  • http://twitter.com/IsaacSweeney IsaacSweeney

    First of all, stop asking yourself so many questions — you’re psyching yourself out. Next, read this piece by Rob Jenkins — http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/search-committee-confidential/28431. It proved invaluable for turning one of my interviews into one of my best interviews (and it helped land me the job). Good luck!

  • robjenkins

    Thanks for the plug, Isaac. I’m really glad I was able to help.

    George, I concur with Isaac’s appraisal. You seem to be well prepared, and that’s all you can control. Beyond that, try to relax. You’re going to do fine.

  • vkw10

    Pick up a couple of general interest magazines that you like, but seldom have time to read. They should not be related to your research or teaching fields. Read them cover to cover during spare moments (airport, hotel room, etc.) Helps you focus on something else, so you don’t psych yourself out, and provides an innocuous conversational topic for those semi-social moments during the interview. I used to read National Geographic, Smithsonian, Discover, or Scientific American on the way to interviews. 

  • chai35

    I think you’ll be surprised how fast the nerves disappeared, at least they did for me.  If you have experience, you’ve done a teaching “demo” hundreds of times.  You’ve probably presented your research dozens of times.  And think of the committee interview as a discussion with your possible colleagues.  And, while 14 hours is long, adrenaline will keep you going through it all.  Now, the day after the interview, you’ll feel like death.

  • singfasola

     chai35 said you’ll be having a discussion with potential colleagues, and that fact makes the interview a two-way street. Every interaction is an opportunity for you.  While the search committee and various audiences are observing how you’re doing, you can be observing how they’re doing. You can be deciding, as much as they are, whether you want to spend a lot of work and social time with one another. A job-search advisor I know has said “When you accept an offer, you’ve decided to invite your employer into your life.”

  • 22185161

    You probably already do this, but just remember to listen empathetically. Don’t get so caught up in your rehearsed answers that you fail to hear — REALLY hear — what people are asking and saying to you. In one of my interviews, the president took it upon himself to tell me the history of the instutition. While I heard his words, the passion in his voice for the place is what stood out. When I remarked on his obvious affection for the institution, it led to a delightful and eye-opening conversation about his own schooling and subsequent teaching and administrative experience. We didn’t just “meet” – we had a conversation. Oh, and I got that job.

    Good luck!

  • renprof

    Oh, God yes.  And look at your surroundings. I once got a job (admittedly a clerical job) by looking around the office while the boss answered the phone, noticing the trophies, and saying “do you breed Boxers?”

  • http://higheredcareercoach.com/ Sean Cook

    Remember that they believe you are qualified or they wouldn’t have invited you in the first place. The campus interview is  a little bit about checking out your qualifications (i.e., does this person know about what he says he knows about, and how well does he teach it) and a lot about motivation and fit. Remember that it is also your chance to gauge the institution as well, and that “fit” is huge.

    You shouldn’t take a job where you don’t fit in. It’s a recipe for disaster. In that vein, have good questions and show that you are motivated to know the people and the institution, not just the job, the pay, and the benefits. I like the example about noticing that an interviewer raised dogs. Moments like that show your level of motivation toward fitting in, and they sure take away some of the stress.

    Also, going in with the idea that you are looking for people motivated to bring you on board and who you can work well with levels the playing field, and should allow you to feel as good about the opportunities you turn down as the ones you accept.

    Best of luck! And remember to breathe.

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037