next »

[joeontherun]

Is it just me or does the department that you've interviewed with have an obligation to provide feedback on your interview?  I had an interview a couple of months ago and it’s like pulling teeth to get some feedback from these people.  They didn't give me the job so at least tell me where I fell short! I need to learn from these experiences so I can make corrections in the future.

Does anyone have any effective ways for getting feedback so they can learn form the experience?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[busyslinky]

As has been stated in this forum, over and over again, the reasons for an unsuccessful interview may have nothing to do with you.  It may be the process, it may be the funding, it may be the fit, it may have nothing to do with what you wore or what you said.

[larryc]

does the department that you've interviewed with have an obligation to provide feedback on your interview

No.  And you are unlikely to get any.  This is because 1) the search committee is frightened of legal issues, 2) they would feel awkward about it, and 3) they have other things to do. Which is a shame, I can see how useful it would be.  But we have done a ton of hiring in the last couple years and I have not provided feedback for any of the candidates we did not hire.

[historyphd]

It doesn't hurt to ask the chair informally in an email. 

I did just this after screwing up an interview and, with what I learned, I landed the very next job!

[smurlein]

I had this very thing happen the last time I went on the market.  I asked the chair why I didn't get the job so that I could improve my delivery or whatever for the next interview. Not only would he refuse to give me any information, he actually got angry with me for asking. 

[artsearch]

They don't want to part with info because it is against their own best interest to do so.

Normally, I would not bother to ask for constructive criticism post-interview, but recently, I interviewed for a staff position in academia, and the person convening the search committee seemed to especially like me and show an interest in my future employment at this institution. I ventured to reply to her job rejection e-mail with a request for her opinions about successful interviewing. While she was very careful not to mention specifics of my own interview process, she did make more general remarks about presentation (cover letter, etc.) that have proven helpful in subsequent applications.

All to say, trust your instincts in this matter; if you get the feeling someone can be helpful to you, go for it.

[shrek]

No, the department is not obligated to give you feedback. But, if there's someone there with whom you hit it off, you may want to inquire informally whether there's anything that they can tell you to improve your chances for your next interview. In many cases it really is about the match, the needs, etc. Although, sometimes it can be about something that was or wasn't stated. In my department, we had 3 hires last year. The ones that we interviewed, but didn't get the job did a good job generally and they would have been great. One didn't really fit (but did interesting research, one didn't really have a theoretical framework or rationale for her research (but, we felt they could be mentored). So, one of these might have been hired if our first choices hadn't accepted the jobs (which they did).

[voxprincipalis]

You are not likely to get such feedback in most cases, and if you do, it will only be because you took the initiative to track down a friendly search committee member and stroke him/her the right way (ooh, sounds kinky!). If you are waiting for such feedback to be offered spontaneously, because you think the department should feel some obligation to do so, you will be waiting a long time.

There are many reasons why this is (and should be) the way it works. Here are some examples:

• If you didn't get hired because of an internal squabble or politics in the committee, the chair can't tell you that without making the committee look bad.
• If you didn't get the job because they thought you were an idiot, the chair can't tell you that because it makes you look bad.
• If you didn't get the job because you were the wrong race/gender/age/any-other-issue-they're-not-allowed-to-discriminate-about, they can't tell you that for obvious reasons.
• If you didn't get the job because you weren't the right "fit", there's nothing helpful the chair could tell you about that.
• Finally, and most important, feedback about what you could have done to improve your candidacy at Big Rich RI is probably not applicable to your next interview at Regional Teaching College. It would be useless and possibly harmful information.

The only kinds of feedback that would be useful in all interview situations are things like "make sure your cover letter doesn't have any typos", "remember to take a shower", and "be sure to wear matching socks" -- and that's the kind of stuff that search committees pretty much expect you to take care of on your own.

VP

[drdirt55]

I agree with others that you must take the initiative to ask for feedback on your interview performance.  You may not get it, but if you don't ask, you won't get it.  If you do get, be sure to analyze it before using it.

I'd also suggest that you not be too aggressive, or appear that way, when you ask.  I've used the approach to ask the chair of the search committee for advise on how I can be more competitive.  I also did it via email or a letter to avoid the shock effect of a phone call and any chance that I might mis-speak or get offensive/defensive.

[schoolmarm]

In some states you are not allowed to talk to the job candidates about their performance in the interview.  (Or at certain steps in the search process.) You will be getting no information that is useful, as specifics cannot be brought up for legal reasons.

Do NOT call.  As a search chair I get very irked at this. It's uncomfortable--even for an email.  ESPECIALLY for an email as it leaves a paper trail.  It shows that the candidate really doesn't understand how the search process works.  And I can't tell them anything anyway.

If you need feedback, do a mock interview with some friends or your adviser.  You also might want to check the credentials of who was hired.  Often it is obvious why the candidate was chosen. Sometimes it isn't anything about YOU at all.

Academics have long memories and strong networking systems. Don't burn bridges.

[twofish]

There is another issue in that providing useful feedback is just hard, and there is no motivation for doing it.

Also about not understanding the search process.  The search process is so extremely Byzantine that its not obvious where the minefields are, and setting things up so that asking about the minefields is a minefield just makes things worse.  Just think about the situation here, a well meaning request for information has a long term adverse impact.  Kafka, anyone?

One thing that greatly concerns me is that the market for academics is so tight that success is now more determined by how well one can game the system and know the "secret handshakes" than by anything substantive.  It might seem second nature to someone in the system, but it isn't to anyone on the outside.  Just like it is not obvious that you should never send your resume to human resources if you want a job at an investment bank.

In a completely different context, one of the things that I do like about the corporate world is that when you use a headhunter to get a job, the headhunter talk to the manager and will provide very good feedback about the interview.  The fact that the manager isn't talking directly to you adds a level of candor, and the headhunter has a very strong financial interest in seeing that you perform well in interviews. 

[twofish]

One other thing.....

The standard job interview is designed to dehumanize the candidate as much as possible and as an expression of power for the institution giving the interview.  Giving feedback humanizes the connection, which makes it harder for the interviewer to act inhumanely.

If you honestly can talk to someone about their flaws, this implies that you really care about them, and if you really care about them, why are you treating them as an interchangable part in a machine?

[edwidge]

This is an interesting thread. After reading it, it sounds like my experience with receiving feedback from search committee members was somewhat unusual. When I was on the market, I had four campus visits. I received two offers, and was a close second at the other two. After my first campus visit which was my first rejection, the chair of the search committee shared (unsolicited) feedback about why I was not chosen and told me that it had been a really, really difficult decision that took a few weeks. Then she followed up with a really nice letter in which she again stated how close the call had been and let me know how great I was, wished me luck, etc. I can't tell you how much I appreciated this, especially since this was my first campus visit, and this was a top-10 department in my field (also my dream job...).

My next rejection was relayed to me by the head of the department. She was very warm and nice at the beginning of the conversation, then dropped the bomb ("Regrettably,..."). I said "Well, I guess it just wasn't meant to be." Then she told me that it had been a very close decision, that she had gone to her dean to ask to hire us both, and that it had ultimately come down a very specific "fit." Again, I thanked her for the information and felt disappointed when I got off of the phone, but comfortable with the knowledge that there was nothing I could have done.

So, I guess sometimes search committee members can be very kind and forthcoming, but I would never solicit it myself. I was lucky enough to get the feedback without pursuing it.

[seniorscholar]

Sometimes I have made helpful suggestions to the supervisor of an unsuccessful candidate, when the supervisor is someone I know reasonably well -- and thus I know I can say what I need to say, which is often about personal presentation, without being insulting or arousing an argument. And when someone really is a close #2, and we want that person to know that (since #1 may not accept), we generally provide the kind of supportive feedback a couple of people have mentioned and invite him/her to let us know if s/he has another offer, so we can report on the state of negotiations with #1). But in general, the reason people who have interviewed don't get the job is one of these:
(1) someone else had a better publication record, was a better "fit" in secondary ways (everyone could teach what we advertised for, but the #1 candidate looked good in a field where we can't advertise yet but the person currently on the faculty is not in the best of health), or simply came off as a more collegial person in the campus interviews. About these things (except the publication record), there's nothing the candidate could do, anyway, so feedback won't help.
(2) the candidate did something truly outrageous -- I remember the one who made a completely out-of-line remark about the appearance of one of the grad students, and also the one who told the committee (which included a well-known feminist scholar) that he "didn't think much of this feminist stuff" -- something outrageous enough that there's simply no way to say it to him or her.

[joeontherun]

Thank you all for taking the time to provide feedback.  I realize it varies by institution and individual on what feedback, if any, you'll get and will have to deal with that.  As with everyone else, I just get frustrated when I go through the process and the feedback is 'yes' you got the job or 'no' sorry, too bad. If legal issues exist, then of course I can see why feedback is not provided.  However, if their only interviewing 2 to 3 candidates (I know sometimes more for CC positions) how much time does it truly take if a candidate asks for feedback.

Anyways, thanks again for all your feedback.