next »

[doctor_torrseal]

I teach human resource management and will use this article as an example of how NOT to interview/select employees. Good interviewing is designed very purposely to avoid the subjectivity that is oozing from the author like his gut from that cheap suit he was wearing at the conference.

Al

"Cheap suit"?  That can't be right, after all the author is a product of the Ivy League, as he discreetly informed us.

Seriously, like most academics I have never had any training in "good interviewing," although I like to think I would avoid some of this guy's preconceptions.  I'm curious as to what your advice on what to do entails.


I do agree that many people don't realize how to situate their work in a larger context, but it also can be difficult to find the right level.  In my field (in the sciences) we ideally have to be able to explain our work: to senior colleagues; to people in our field but not in our specialty; to scientists in the larger related field that sometimes hires us, but which is basically unfamiliar with our subject matter and jargon; to undergrads; and to rank strangers on the airplane.  If you use too much technical language (aka jargon) with the outside-our-field scientists, you'll lose them, but if you make it too basic, they'll hate you for talking down to them.  I am sure that a similar thing happens in history, especially because there tend to be generational differences in methodology.

One of the reasons I started the thread is that when I read this article, I really had to wonder what the people on the other side of the interview would have thought.  When I read the article with its subtext of requiring deference, I remembered my friends in the humanities in grad school who went off to interviews and came back saying "The school has a 4-3 load and they tell you it's a book, a second signed contract, and three articles for tenure - but if you look at the faculty none of them have published that much, and nothing for the last decade.  And there's a guy on the committee who does military history and gives you the stink-eye if you mention any theoretical development newer than 1960."  I'm paraphrasing, and maybe exaggerating, but this can be a real phenomenon.

[gastr1]

Surely within the 200 applicants, there would have been 20 who could speak engagingly about their work, relate to students, and be great colleagues.

The vast majority of candidates we would interview would be just out of school or not long from it.
Searches have not garnered 200, but finding 20 who are confident, prepared, articulate: No. Not the 20 we interviewed on each of our last four searches, anyway.

[expatinuk]

I have arthritis. Those bone-crushing handshakes are just that-- bone-crushing and they hurt like hell.

Then you are just too old to be on the job hunt.

(joke)

[pandora]

I might add, I found most of his comments to be fairly reasonable (although the gender thing was odd).  But really, there is unquestionably a gargantuan gap of perception or evaluation or performance or . . . . something!  between search committees and candidates if we all know so many worthy job candidates who cannot land a job, and yet so many search committees come away from the interview process so thoroughly unimpressed or even turned off by so many of their candidates.  To the extent that this article is trying to do something to bridge that chasm, I'm glad that he wrote it.  I imagine it will be helpful to some candidates.

[secretweapon]

Surely within the 200 applicants, there would have been 20 who could speak engagingly about their work, relate to students, and be great colleagues.

The vast majority of candidates we would interview would be just out of school or not long from it.
Searches have not garnered 200, but finding 20 who are confident, prepared, articulate: No. Not the 20 we interviewed on each of our last four searches, anyway.

This raises a broader issue for job candidates.  How do you write your personality into your application?  How does an SC figure out which candidates will be personable and articulate?  People can learn most of these skills, especially the ability to discuss their work with non-specialists, but a lot of this comes down to personality.  In future, should I conclude my cover letters, "Furthermore, I have a great personality.  I get along well with colleagues and the students love me.  I won't embarrass you at public events by looking like a slob, I don't say inane things in meetings, I won't spill coffee grinds in the kitchen and not clean them up, and I'm a hoot at departmental social events."  What do you think? 

[bacardiandlime]

No. Not the 20 we interviewed on each of our last four searches, anyway.

That was kind of my point: how did you select those 20? If on four searches in a row you haven't managed to pull out of the pile an interview list full of desirable candidates, has this led you to change how you decide who to interview?

Keep throwing out the same bait, you keep catching the same fish....

[shrek]

I have arthritis. Those bone-crushing handshakes are just that-- bone-crushing and they hurt like hell.

Then you are just too old to be on the job hunt.

(joke)

lol!
You're right I AM too old for the job hunt: my point is the same.

[gastr1]

No. Not the 20 we interviewed on each of our last four searches, anyway.

That was kind of my point: how did you select those 20? If on four searches in a row you haven't managed to pull out of the pile an interview list full of desirable candidates, has this led you to change how you decide who to interview?

Keep throwing out the same bait, you keep catching the same fish....

We're interviewing the people who look like the best fit on paper to the SCs. What other way could there possibly be? I mean, I would love it if our dept. would be able to get better candidates to apply, but short of beating down the doors of well-known programs--perhaps we should do that--we are a middling program that wishes to hire strong candidates.
And we have hired good ones...we have found people we are really happy with.  

There just has seemed to be a small pool of candidates really ready. We interviewed them asking to explain the research in greater depth, and many of them could not even do that very well. Then we asked them how their research and their field are applicable in classes where students don't want to be there, and some couldn't do it. Several were so nervous as to barely be able to say anything. Some nervousness can and should be excused, but when it inhibits addressing the topic, it's hard to look past it.

Then, on campus, This is what you should do during your lecture...oops, prof. search chair, did you notice that my presentation was really short (half of the expected length) because I forgot to bring up <entire section of my candidacy>? Or, oops, sorry my talk went 50% longer than it was supposed to, twice--the second time because I gave the same presentation to faculty as I gave to students, even though I was told to make them different (all the other candidates got that).

In future, should I conclude my cover letters, "Furthermore, I have a great personality.  I get along well with colleagues and the students love me.  I won't embarrass you at public events by looking like a slob, I don't say inane things in meetings, I won't spill coffee grinds in the kitchen and not clean them up, and I'm a hoot at departmental social events."  What do you think? 

I think you should be comfortable with the fact that an SC expects you to be a confident and articulate human being who can talk to and work with others. Period. Yes, put sentences on that in the cover letter--where you talk of your teaching qualifications and your research and/or service-type experiences. There is a way to indicate that you have these qualities without being an ass. But in my experience, the problem is not the cover letter, it's what people do in the interview. I could care less about handshakes and coffee grinds. Just present yourself as a competent and sociable person.

[jrscholar]

How do you write your personality into your application?  How does an SC figure out which candidates will be personable and articulate?

Some of this can be done by your tone.  Try not to start every sentence with "I"; mention some of the service you have done; suggest some ways (without pandering) that you think you'd fit their department, school, etc. beyond what courses you can teach; perhaps mention the survey courses you are prepared to teach. 

Some of this can (should?) be handled by your adviser and other letter writers.  Mine said some complimentary things about me as a colleague in her letter (she let me see it) and it must have helped. 

[history_grrrl]

I second the point that you simply cannot tell on paper how someone will behave. After my experience on five search committees in my first two years on the t-t, I have to say I have been astounded by how awful some of the candidates have been in person. The application materials were fantastic; that's how these folks got interviews. And then they got to campus and it all fell apart. There was the one who barked at us like a drill sergeant during the teaching demo, and the one who literally never stopped talking during the interview (so that we didn't have time to ask perhaps three fourths of our questions), and the one who offended just about every group imaginable during the lunch, and the one who gave a scholarly presentation instead of a teaching demo, and the one whose teaching demo was a rambling recap of hu's research, and . . . I could go on. You just can't know. Of course, this wasn't everybody; in most cases, there was someone terrific to hire. But jeez. It's really unbelievable. I remember thinking, after reviewing applications, "Wow, how on earth did I ever get a job!" And then I remember thinking, after the campus visits, "Wow, no wonder I got a job!"

[t_r_b]

I liked this article much more than most of you, perhaps because as a candidate I've had both kinds of interviews: the incoherent rambling when-will-this-be-over kind and the succinct, concrete, and engaging discussion of research and teaching kind. The former interviews did not lead to on-campus invites, the latter did. So from my vantage point as a job candidate, much of what the article says makes a great deal of sense.

About the handshake and shoe-watching: I did not get the impression that the author crossed off the candidate solely on the basis of these first impressions. Had the candidate proceeded to offer a concise and engaging explanation of their research goals and spoken intelligently to the challenges of teaching at the SC's institution, I expect that the limp handshake and lack of eye contact would have been forgotten.

That said, there are dozens of how-to books out there with advice for interviewing, not to mention countless threads on these and other web-based fora, all of which will stress the importance of first impressions, and by extension the value of a firm (though not painful!) handshake and lots of eye contact. This stuff isn't important because a lot of old fogies are judgmental about social niceties. No matter who is sitting across the table from you, they will form lasting impressions of your personality based on these initial interactions. If I'm looking for someone who can march into a class of 60 bleary-eyed undergraduates and craft a valuable educational experience, seeming nervousness about making eye contact with potential colleagues will be a real red flag. If you engage those 60 undergraduates in that same half-hearted way, they will not respond well (I've seen it happen).

I also liked the author's emphasis on the role of advisors in all this, and the checklist of advisor (and advisee) to-dos at the end of the article. It seems like there are a lot of great job candidates out there with excellent credentials and dissertation topics who nonetheless have a great deal of trouble addressing even very straightforward questions from SC members. That's more the advisors' fault than the candidates' fault, but if the advisor is blowing off this responsibility than it's extremely important for job market-bound grad students to get similar advice and feedback elsewhere (as the author suggests).

One other thing: it's quite possible that the author and his colleagues contributed to the bad interview performances through their own demeanor and conduct, which may have unduly intimidated candidates and put some otherwise strong ones off their game. This would be unfortunate for all involved, as worthy candidates end up not putting their best foot forward and the SC unwittingly narrows an already thin pool of good candidates. So to that extent I agree that there could be a good deal here for SCs to learn about how not to interview. At the same time, job candidates should be able to anticipate this kind of situation and work with it. When you do mock interviews, have one or two people play the mean and curmudgeonly SC member. Get your five-minute blurbs on research and teaching down pat so that you can deliver them with a smile even if you're surrounded by the Addams Family. It sounds like that's exactly what the successful applicant did with the author's SC, and that clearly put her head-and-shoulders above the competition.

[mountainguy]

Although I found the "holier-than-thou" tone of the article to be disquieting, I found myself in agreement with some of Hoffman's points. In particular, I've seen a number of highly-qualified candidates crash and burn during campus interviews because spoke in highly specialized jargon that no one else could understand and seemed contemptuous of having to teach undergraduate students.

A few issues that are worth noting here from the perspective of job candidates:

1. Teaching Demonstrations: What constitutes an "effective" teaching demonstration will vary widely according to campus culture and expectations. In an ideal world, candidates would be well-prepared to lead an interactive discussion with engaged students about some topic that's of interest to all parties involved. But the real world often intervenes. Meeting times with academic deans may get changed at the last minute, media technology can fail, and search committees may just plain screw up. A colleague of mine recently gave a campus interview that required a teaching demonstration. Despite his repeated requests, the SC would not provide him with accurate information about the types of students he would be teaching or the type of technology that would be available for the presentations. Obviously, SCs need to be clear with candidates about what will be expected in these demos.

2. Perceptions of Arbitrariness: Most of us who've spent time in academia know at least one or two horror stories about a job candidate who gave a truly awful campus interview and still got the position anyway because of political shenanigans. Although these stories tend to be factually dubious, the truth will eventually come out if the allegations have any merit. These cases tend to poison the waters for everyone else.