A search-committee chair handed her dean the list of finalists for a national search. The dean asked, “Did Dr. Matters not make the list?”
The chair said, “No. He met the minimum requirements but compared with the others, he was clearly in the second tier.”
The dean looked down and then said, “I need to let you know at this point that Dr. Matters is well-connected with several influential board members, including at least one substantial donor to your home department.”
“Does this mean that we have to interview him?”
“Well, he’s local and it wouldn’t cost anything, so I would encourage you to invite him to a courtesy interview. You won’t have to offer him the job, but it would score points with some VIP’s if we could at least say, ‘He was one of our finalists.’”
This scenario repeats itself all over the country at this time of year. Sometimes it’s a well-connected applicant. Sometimes the department has an inside candidate who is the definite choice but they have to interview an external candidate just to be able to say that they have. Other scenarios likewise produce courtesy interviews that really stand little chance of influencing the search’s outcome.
Courtesy interviews can be disheartening to candidates in particular. They burn up time and emotional energy. They produce long-lasting hostility toward the institution. They perpetuate many painful stereotypes about higher education as a whole.
Have you ever been a part of a courtesy interview? What advice would you offer to anyone who is involved in one, on whichever side of the table?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
28 Responses to The Cape of False Hope
schaber - January 21, 2010 at 10:50 am
There’s nothing “courteous” about a courtesy intervew. Replace “courtesy” with “cruelty” and you’re on the right track.
robertkase51 - January 21, 2010 at 11:11 am
Sometimes the courtesy interview can turn out to suprise the search committee. There is often far more there in that candidate than they orginally saw, and they too end up finding great value and quality that may not have shown up in the initial search.
clammgroup - January 21, 2010 at 11:17 am
Recently the courtesy interview candidate decided that if he/she had made it that far in the interview process; they were better than they thought and decided to go looking for a job elsewhere.If a candidate is not qualified, the sooner you tell them the better and it is the fairest way to treat them. Also, you do not want the search committee to be perceived by the candidate as going through the motions;it’s an insult.
elearn - January 21, 2010 at 11:20 am
last year i had 18 interviews in higher-ed and received 3 job offers. how would i know if any of the interviews were ‘courtesy’?i think that any interview, courtesy or otherwise, is an opportunity to demonstrate what you can do.about burning up time & emotional energy: oh well. what are you going to do with your time and energy otherwise? you gotta stay in motion.
mkaranja - January 21, 2010 at 11:39 am
On the flip side of a courtesy interview is the “practice” interview many candidates go on, not to really snag the job, but to keep their interviewing skills sharp. It looks like it can happen on both sides of the fence….
peglover - January 21, 2010 at 1:02 pm
How would one know if they were just a “courtesy” interview or not? It seems cruel to get someone’s hopes up, particularly in this job market.
mircenzo - January 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Oh, how naive I am… I am learning about courtesy interview by reading this article! Now I understand why I have been invited on campus. It is clear to me now why the search committe head finished the visit with the words “I am impressed… I am going to make an offer… Prepare your detailed start-up package”. Now, I see why I did not hear from him/them/nobody since then. Indeed, this is CRUEL!
iconoclast - January 21, 2010 at 1:46 pm
This topic illustrates quite clearly how nepotism functions quite well and happy in academe. Nepotism is corruption. If you can’t EARN not only the beneficence but “respect” of influential people to your mission on your own merits, then using any person to burnish bed knobs (which is figuratively what this putative Dr. Matters is being used for) is little short of shameful, and squarely in the realm of ethics conflict and corruption. It never ceases to amaze me the many ways that feudal academe has been usurped by corporatism.
hurricane - January 21, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Having been on the receiving end of two such interviews, I observe that the first one, which was also my first interview, was incredibly useful in grounding me to understand the holes in the list of answers I’d thought about. I don’t think being a courtesy candidate is necessarily a bad thing. The important thing is that it gives the candidate an opportunity to learn which is what we should be about.The second resulted in an offer that I accepted and, to this day more than 35 years later, I still haven’t figured out, though I knew the other four women interviewed, who was invited as the top potential candidate. I’m pleased to say that, when I was on a search committee thereafter, only once was I in the middle of a search with a courtesy candidate. Have things changed or was I just lucky in 12 searches?
22004901 - January 21, 2010 at 4:14 pm
On one failed interview, the chair of the search committee submitted my name to an editor. That submission eventually led to one book and contributions to 3 other books. Some good can come out of failed interviews.
brianedavis - January 21, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Have the guts to refuse. It does no good to the candidate, the department, the institution or the donor. Whomever it is that is requesting the ‘courtesy interview’ should be professional enough to let the requester know. If the particular ‘candidate’ is qualified and makes it of their own merits, then fine. And to go through with this just to give them ‘practice’ or for them to see what they still need to do should not be necessary if they have been well prepared to begin with by the places they received their education. I’ve interviewed Harvard grads and grads from little know U’s. And don;t believe anyone if they tell you a Harvard grad would get the job. He was a ‘courtesy interview’. And I learned quickly why he was a ‘courtesy interview’. Someone should have the courtesy to let them know they just don’t have it. They use their ‘connections’ to get them through tings. And would you want to be the one to have to dismiss them if they are hired and face the wrath of the Big Donor or Trustee member?
wisernow - January 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Good question . . . so that’s why I have such a negative view of X University! I spent 3/4 of a day interviewing with them 15 years ago. Each interviewer was distant, veiled, not quite on target. The lunch was a free-field opportunity for barbed and baiting questions by the three faculty they “managed to drag” along. When a crude question referenced my breedability — this is a field with few women at higher faculty levels — one wryly commented I now had “another reason to sue”. My next interviewer pawed aimlessly through paperwork on his desk, interrupting himself from time to time: “Hmmmm, I guess I should ask you . . . ” Ten minutes in, I said: “Let’s have a real talk. Please tell me what is going on.” He glared at me. “You haven’t figured it out yet? You aren’t a candidate. The decision was made before the ad was placed. We are embarrassed — and you seem like a better candidate — but you are wasting our time. So we wish you would wise up and leave.” I told my last interview that I had been let into the game, found my coat, called a car service, changed my ticket, and steamed all the way home. Seven months later I called to inquire about my travel reimbursment — they could not find the form, nor the copy I sent. Eventually I gave up calling — and never was reimbursed. This was a “courtesy”?Some try to justify ‘courtesy interviews’ as an opportunity to practice interviewing skill? Faculty are not actors. What would a ‘practiced performance’ have to do with skill as a scientist? If you are selecting faculty on the basis of a candidate’s practiced interviewing performance, then you have a whole ‘nother game going on. One that degrades the academy and limits our science potential.I base my interviews of candidates on: ‘What if I was the candidate?’ How many faculty interviewers would pass that test?
profmomof1 - January 21, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Many years ago when hunting for that first academic job I underwent 2 courtesy interviews. Still steams me. In one case the pre-selected candidate was a former graduate student of the search committee chair, in the other case it was the search chair’s current postdoc. Both universities required that jobs be advertised and that more than one candidate be interviewed. Thus the sham interviews. You can tell when the faculty (and even grad students) know you have no chance of being hired — lack of interest, distance, etc. are obvious. Most of the search committee (and none of the faculty not on the committee) didn’t show up at my job talk. I never even met many of the faculty members. Meals were with a couple of grad students they could bribe with free food.Yes, there’s some good experience to be gained from going through the interview process. But, given the time wasted preparing a talk, researching the department and its faculty and courses, etc., not to mention travel time spent, it’s not worth it.
schaber - January 21, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Poster #12′s experience — “The decision was made before the ad was placed” — highlights this problem in a very painful way. In and out of the academy, jobs are advertised “to keep things legal” when they are already spoken for. Personally, I wish employers could only advertise jobs that were really open to outsiders. It would probably be shocking to see just how few there are, and many a classified section would feel an economic hit. Regardless, there are too many decision-makers who have lost touch with what it’s like to look for work in this economy. Many of them probably never had to really find any job; they found the one job they’ve had for 40 years, hunkered down, and won’t leave. For this reason alone, I’d like to see tenure disappear, or be based on continuous productivity. Everyone should have to compete.
icolibrary1 - January 21, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I was the courtesy candidate at a Seven Sisters school about twenty years ago. I was a recent graduate, and during the interview they kept asking me about how I dealt with high-level administrative responsibilities and my leadership roles. I answered as best I could but was puzzled since my resume indicated that I was too young to have achieved that level of expertise. I knew an alumna from the institution, and she used her contacts to find out that the interview committee really wanted to hire another alum with decades of experience and who was a leader in the field. I did not get upset when I realized what was going on–deciding to use it as a practice interview and an opportunity to see a different part of the country. I was confused by how much money they wasted paying for my trip, however. If they had scheduled my visit a week later, they would have saved $800.00 in airfare. The rich are different.If the interview seems fishy, do not take it personally, but use it as a chance to network and to polish your interview skills. Also, the favored candidate might get a better offer and you will be the one who gets the job. Star candidates have been known to play institutions off each other as well.
paulderb - January 21, 2010 at 10:40 pm
The practice is neither courteous nor cruel. Both sides are exploiting what they see as available resources. It only shows that from the perspective of scruples, universities and interviewees are businesses like all others.
stiner2000 - January 22, 2010 at 6:37 am
Having done this for several decades, I have learned why some professors, if they find there is an internal candidate as a finalist for a chair or dean position, withdraw their application. It’s probably rigged for the internal candidate. If not, and you accept the position, you have one bitter enemy.
tmccool - January 22, 2010 at 8:29 am
I agree there is no good in courtesy interviews. I too am a victim. The disinterest of the interviewer was obvious from the beginning; he had already made his choice. His questions were rote. I was stunned when he took a call during the interview! I sat there dumbfounded as he continued the phone conversation for over 10 minutes, and never apologized after hanging up. The interview ended with the usual “We’ll let you know” platitudes, but I already knew. I wish I had verbalized it then, but I was young and naive enough to hold onto a shred of hope. The one and only thing I learned from that experience is that I did not want to work in that department under any circumstances.
marnall - January 22, 2010 at 10:07 am
How refreshing to read icolibrary1′s balanced approach! Do your intelligence and determine what opportunities the interview may present. If none, disconnect without hurt feelings. As paulderb and stiner2000 state/imply, academia is a business. If you are not to be an early burn-out, set your goals for this experience, like any other. Worried about an internal candidate being resentful if you get the position instead? Then you are probably not prepared for the political dancing that you, as an outsider, are going to have to do in this position in any case. Assuming we are talking about administrative positions, including chairs, remember that an outsider is generally brought in when change is required or, stated another way, when no internal candidate can or will accomplish the necessary(presumably figurative)blood-letting. If you, an outsider, want the position, be grateful that your new environment will include supporters who will reward your efforts and detractors who will be the reason that you get up every morning with a bracing rush of adrenaline! Otherwise, hunker down where you are; the business of academia and the stress of change are not for you!.
22040003 - January 22, 2010 at 10:43 am
There is a difference between a courtesy interview and an interview to “keep things legal”. I have been involved in both, and they are annoying and do leave a bad taste. I am not a new grad, nor do I need interview practice. The worst is when a head-hunter calls and you put that time and energy in, only to find an internal candidate was hired. I have never been in the position of the loyal adjunct who applies and is rejected for someone from outside, but that must be additionally hurtful. I recently had an off the record apology from someone who told me I was asked to apply for a job because they needed a woman in the mix.There are problems all around, both for the search committees and the applicants. In the end, everyone just needs to make the best judgements they can, then let it go and not hold grudges. You cannot hold a whole institution responsible for the complex politics and sheer overwhleming nature of many searches. Not to mention the fact that it never pays to burn bridges.
lee77 - January 22, 2010 at 10:44 am
Wow – given some of the specific (horrible) examples, I can see why courtesy interviews have a bad name. On the other hand, some people illustrated the way they can be done effectively – i.e. if they are done genuinely, respectfully, as a courtesy, with an open mind towards the outcome.
honore - January 22, 2010 at 10:50 am
on our campus, “courtesy” interviews are so common, that qualified people don’t apply for positiions because they already know the fix is in and the “superior” candidate will be:1.so-and-so’s 3rd wife who has decided to ease up on her tanning bed appointments, pilates classes and wine tasting schedule at Whole Foods and NOW finds herself with time in her day to devote to the “challenges” of the position…or…2.the “outstanding” applicant who just happens to be the best friend of several members of the august “blue ribbon”, “impartial”, “discerning” and beyond “compromise” search committee…or…3.the most politically-correct,victimized, disenfranchized and marginalzed of the any applicant since biblical times (aka racially, gender, sexual orientation, transparent faux-liberal poster child)…or…4. the “sassy”, “culturally-intelligent” applicant who more than once during the interview made oblique references to being a steadfast “ally”, “advocate” and “admirer” of “social justice” policy, while adjusting her flowing, (made-by-10-year-old tibetan virgins) silk scarf…This despite the fact that NOT one of her previous appointments even hinted at such “commitment”…or…5. the repeatedly “passed around”, vicious, troublesome, 12-step, dysfunctional, 6-figure applicant (who is currently on the U. payroll in a “do-nothing” position BUT who cut a sweet-heart deal with her dean to remain on campus until retirement or she would expose her affair with him…Corruption? Nepotisim? Ethics? These concepts have long ago been replaced by immorality, dishonesty and outright lack of integrity. The academy today is a cesspool of the foulest behavior resplendent with with all the right tattered bumper stickers still clinging to it. Mr. Chips is writhing in his crypt. Shafting and Warbling in Madison, WI
bizdean - January 22, 2010 at 10:53 am
I’m surprised no one commented on the Dean’s usurpation of the search committee’s responsibilities (in Mr. Fant’s story that leads this page). Candidates may have their own reasons for accepting a sham interview invitation, maybe just to visit their sister in Milwaukee, but the Dean is definitely wasting the time of and insulting the committee. With luck, candidates will understand this is not the kind of department they want to work in.
isugeezer - January 22, 2010 at 12:23 pm
bizdean is right. In the past 11 years, I’ve served on 8 search committees. We search, but the Dean already has her candidate picked out. This is clear each time we receive our instructions: “Give me a list of the top three candidates, but don’t prioritize them.” If her candidate doesn’t make our list, the search is “reopened,” and we are instructed to keep interviewing and submitting lists (until her candidate’s name DOES make the list). It is insulting, unethical, and a waste of everyone’s time and effort.
jazmsngr - January 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm
honore is spot on! I’ve had more ‘courtesy’ interviews than I care to think about. One in particular involved a major community college system here in the southwest. The reason stated on my “thanks-but-no-thanks” letter was a lack of experience. The responsibilities for the position I applied for I had been doing at another university for 3 years. The rejection didn’t cause me much heart-burn until I met the ‘chosen one’ at a training. And you guessed it, he had absolutely no experience. However, he did appear to be of a certain group– one that, as honore puts it, is “the most politically-correct,victimized, disenfranchized and marginalzed of the any applicant since biblical times (aka racially, gender, sexual orientation, transparent faux-liberal poster child)” (I might even venture to add a certain religious persuasion, especially here in the southwest- U of Phx anyone?). Oh and did I mention he was a work-study at the college already…in another department. nice…real nice.Just goes to show, it’s not what you know…but who you know.
amandasc - January 22, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I was the “in the bag” candidate in one of these situations. I had already been doing the job for two years while it was listed as a temporary position. When they decided to make it permanent they needed to go through all of that legal stuff and interview another candidate. I felt bad about it and thought that it was unfair to both of us. The sweet irony of it, though, was that the “courtesy” candidate was someone that I had previously competed against as a finalist for a position at a different institution (which I was sure I was going to get), and she was was the one who got hired for that job.
frankietx - January 22, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I have seen this go the opposite direction at least twice. Sometimes the pre-selected candidate is so confident that s/he will get the job that they forget to bring their A-game to the interview and lose the job.
jmkrieger - January 29, 2010 at 10:11 am
I recently had a “courtesy” interview at a CC where I’ve taught adjunct for the last year and a half for a full-time position in the department I taught in. It was pleasant enough, though the sub-text of the interview was “we won’t hire you because clearly you’re going to teach at a 4-year school” – an assumption that, as other commentators have noted, seems inappropriate in the current hiring environment! But the aftermath was unpleasant – the CC in question, presumably in response to budget cuts, began questioning my credentials to teach at this school at all (my degree is in another discipline though I’ve taught in this area for nearly ten years), and I was relegated to the lowest paying classes the CC had to offer in the next semester. Hiring practices are tricky, and what schools do under budget-crisis can be truly reprehensible, though it was clear this was not a statement on my abilities as a teacher as there were at least some efforts to retain me as an instructor. After what I’ve seen, however, I no longer trust this institution as an employer. It’s quite disheartening.