next »

[waxxy]

These struck me as difficult questions -- all asked during those already frenzied super-short conference interviews.

From a SLAC: Would you discuss the theorist(s) you primarily use in your work?
--- are you serious? in a 20 min interview, you want to know that?

From a SLAC: [You've just discussed how your work is explicitly related to X] now would you please discuss how your work is explicitly related to X?
---- what? were you even listening? or did I really do a horrible job at answering the question initially?

from a 4 year public uni: I know your undergraduate adviser. We've talked about you. [meaningful pause] Random question.
--- what does that mean?

From a SLAC: We don't have a graduate program. We will never have a graduate program. Why would you want to be here?
---- is this a manifestation of some kind of inferiority complex?

From an R1: Where do you see our program headed in the next 5-10 years? How would you facilitate this change?
---- I get the feeling there is a secret right answer here... but I don't know it.

From an R1: It's difficult to be single in this city. Would you be happy here?
--- Is this really a weird way to ask about my marriage status? Surely, the ring around my finger and my hyphenated last name don't invite questions.

from a 4 year public uni: We are family friendly. People in our department are able to balance having children with their teaching careers. Except for the gays. They don't have children, of course. But, you see, we are gay-friendly, too. How will you strive for balance in your professional and personal needs?
---- did you just say, "the gays"?

and lastly, from an R1: What kind of theorist are you?
--- which day of the week? when I'm doing project A, I research from this theoretical perspective, project b requires something different... but I'm always a feminist. Do people really identify themselves by their preferred theoretical perspective? 

[mended_drum]

My worst interview went like this:

a. Tell us about your dissertation.
b. So, do you have any questions for us?

That was clearly it.  So, I got out my list and asked them nine questions.  I mean, I 'd spent twenty minutes waiting for the elevator.  I was going to leave after 5?

Hardest question:  why have you chosen to be an academic?  What does the study of literature really matter?  I was totally thrown at the time, but this was an incredibly valuable question.  In my current position, our dean once asked our entire department a version of this question, and when I answered, "Because, like everything else we teach here, it helps us understand what it means to be human," well, I scored on the respect meter.  But it took me three years to find that answer.

Most manipulative question:  "We've had trouble with certain faculty with family obligations not wanting to teach evening classes.  Will that be a problem for you?"

As a member of an SC, the questions that candidates have had trouble with have been those about teaching sophomore level courses.  I don't know why.  Maybe grad students tend to have freshmen, but prepare for questions about upper-level / grad courses as well.  Do the sophomore intro. courses sort of get overlooked?

[imawakenow]

from a 4 year public uni: We are family friendly. People in our department are able to balance having children with their teaching careers. Except for the gays. They don't have children, of course. But, you see, we are gay-friendly, too. How will you strive for balance in your professional and personal needs?
---- did you just say, "the gays"?

This reminds me of an exchange I had at an interview at a recent conference:

Interviewee: So, tell me about your research. What are you working on now?

RUS (very general paraphrase): I start talking about my research and use as an example a well-known blogger.

Interviewee: [Repeats blogger's name] That name sounds [insert nationality]. Leave it to the [nationality] to have an opinion about everything.

RUS: [Jaw drops. Birds chirping...]

Interviewee: Oh, I can say that. I'm [insert nationality].

[skinnymargarita]

My most difficult question ever was at a junior college that I was interviewing at just to keep the family off the dole. I needed the job, but I didn't really want it.

The first question of the day was from the dean: "Why do you think that one of your references has not sent in your letter?" Because I could not imagine starting off with a hostile question, I answered lightly. But she pressed: "Why should we hire you if one of your references doesn't care enough to write a letter for you?" And so on. We glared at one another, I burbled out answer after unsatisfactory answer, and the rest of the committee, utterly silent from the first instant, got utterly silenter.

Of course, now I realize that the job was not mine from the moment she decided to shock and awe me and that I should have simply excused myself and made for the exit. But I was young and dumb--and the kids needed shoes--and I took it.

I know this has been a long time ago. On retrospect, what would you advise if a hostile question is offered? By the way, I am so sorry there are rude people in the world. You did not deserve that.

[normative_]

My most difficult question ever was at a junior college that I was interviewing at just to keep the family off the dole. I needed the job, but I didn't really want it.

The first question of the day was from the dean: "Why do you think that one of your references has not sent in your letter?" Because I could not imagine starting off with a hostile question, I answered lightly. But she pressed: "Why should we hire you if one of your references doesn't care enough to write a letter for you?" And so on. We glared at one another, I burbled out answer after unsatisfactory answer, and the rest of the committee, utterly silent from the first instant, got utterly silenter.

Of course, now I realize that the job was not mine from the moment she decided to shock and awe me and that I should have simply excused myself and made for the exit. But I was young and dumb--and the kids needed shoes--and I took it.

I know this has been a long time ago. On retrospect, what would you advise if a hostile question is offered? By the way, I am so sorry there are rude people in the world. You did not deserve that.

Be short and to the point, and if need be, call a rhetorical question, especially one based on wild speculation, when you see it. In the case of the missing letter, you could offer to speculate the first time if you're told who it is. The second time around, it just really is a rhetorical question you can't answer any further, other than to say, if you wished, that the point made about a referee not caring to send a letter is itself speculation, one that can't be assumed.

You're usually facing a panel, so that an isolated hostile question may come from an isolated hostile member. It's always trouble, but this is probably the easiest way of handling it.

If indeed you're dealing with a cantankerous faculty member who might be outvoted, it could even win you points.

[skinnymargarita]

My most difficult question ever was at a junior college that I was interviewing at just to keep the family off the dole. I needed the job, but I didn't really want it.

The first question of the day was from the dean: "Why do you think that one of your references has not sent in your letter?" Because I could not imagine starting off with a hostile question, I answered lightly. But she pressed: "Why should we hire you if one of your references doesn't care enough to write a letter for you?" And so on. We glared at one another, I burbled out answer after unsatisfactory answer, and the rest of the committee, utterly silent from the first instant, got utterly silenter.

Of course, now I realize that the job was not mine from the moment she decided to shock and awe me and that I should have simply excused myself and made for the exit. But I was young and dumb--and the kids needed shoes--and I took it.

I know this has been a long time ago. On retrospect, what would you advise if a hostile question is offered? By the way, I am so sorry there are rude people in the world. You did not deserve that.

Be short and to the point, and if need be, call a rhetorical question, especially one based on wild speculation, when you see it. In the case of the missing letter, you could offer to speculate the first time if you're told who it is. The second time around, it just really is a rhetorical question you can't answer any further, other than to say, if you wished, that the point made about a referee not caring to send a letter is itself speculation, one that can't be assumed.

You're usually facing a panel, so that an isolated hostile question may come from an isolated hostile member. It's always trouble, but this is probably the easiest way of handling it.

If indeed you're dealing with a cantankerous faculty member who might be outvoted, it could even win you points.

Indeed. There is such a thing as lost mail. I have experienced it twice in the last year at home, so it is not foolproof.

If the question were to come from the Dean, wouldn't they trump the other votes? This is all new to me. I am not expecting my interview to be hostile (but who would??), so it is just nice to be prepared with some thoughts on the topic first. Offering a speculation is anyone's guess. I think that would be my best answer!

[normative_]

If the question were to come from the Dean, wouldn't they trump the other votes? This is all new to me. I am not expecting my interview to be hostile (but who would??), so it is just nice to be prepared with some thoughts on the topic first. Offering a speculation is anyone's guess. I think that would be my best answer!

It depends on the uni. I've never had or seen a dean on an SC, though, and I have experience with a number of systems in various countries. Often the dean remains in control of the official decision (so it would matter if he were involved), and that is kept separate from the composition and function of the SC, which is normally comprised of department members, but from time to time may involve members of other departments as well.

I'm curious whether the dean is indeed involved at some universities, and has the final power of decision.

[doctor_torrseal]

These struck me as difficult questions -- all asked during those already frenzied super-short conference interviews.

...

From an R1: Where do you see our program headed in the next 5-10 years? How would you facilitate this change?
---- I get the feeling there is a secret right answer here... but I don't know it.

This is a difficult question, but much less weird than the others.  Something like that might be more often asked during a campus visit than a conference interview, maybe, but I think it's pretty common to get asked the "Where do you see your research heading in the next 10 years" question, and this question is an extension of that.

Part of proving that you're ready to be faculty instead of grad-student or postdoc is having a plan for the future 5-10 years out and an idea of how the field is going to evolve in the next 10 years and how you'll be prepared for that.  In this case, maybe there was a secret right answer.  But often I think they primarily want to see that you have thought about it, and the specifics of your plan are less important (as long as it is reasonable and not bonkers or undoable).

[infopri]

These struck me as difficult questions -- all asked during those already frenzied super-short conference interviews.

...

From an R1: Where do you see our program headed in the next 5-10 years? How would you facilitate this change?
---- I get the feeling there is a secret right answer here... but I don't know it.

This is a difficult question, but much less weird than the others.  Something like that might be more often asked during a campus visit than a conference interview, maybe, but I think it's pretty common to get asked the "Where do you see your research heading in the next 10 years" question, and this question is an extension of that.

Part of proving that you're ready to be faculty instead of grad-student or postdoc is having a plan for the future 5-10 years out and an idea of how the field is going to evolve in the next 10 years and how you'll be prepared for that.  In this case, maybe there was a secret right answer.  But often I think they primarily want to see that you have thought about it, and the specifics of your plan are less important (as long as it is reasonable and not bonkers or undoable).

Actually, I think there is more to it than that.  (That is, I don't think your answer is wrong, doctor_torrseal, just incomplete.)

Asking about where your research is going in 10 years explores how much thought you've given to where you're going.  The questions you posed, waxxy ("Where do you see our program headed in the next 5-10 years? How would you facilitate this change?") explore how much thought you've given to where the department's program is going.  They want to see whether you've done your homework on their current offerings and had any thoughts about where the program should be headed--which, of course, also explores your thinking about where the field in general is going.  But they will expect your answer to be more specific than simply talking about where the field is headed, because they will expect you to recognize the department's specific strengths and weaknesses (and your own strengths) in your answer.

[temporaryname]

<snip>

Part of proving that you're ready to be faculty instead of grad-student or postdoc is having a plan for the future 5-10 years out and an idea of how the field is going to evolve in the next 10 years and how you'll be prepared for that.  In this case, maybe there was a secret right answer.  But often I think they primarily want to see that you have thought about it, and the specifics of your plan are less important (as long as it is reasonable and not bonkers or undoable).

Actually, I think there is more to it than that.  (That is, I don't think your answer is wrong, doctor_torrseal, just incomplete.)

Asking about where your research is going in 10 years explores how much thought you've given to where you're going.  The questions you posed, waxxy ("Where do you see our program headed in the next 5-10 years? How would you facilitate this change?") explore how much thought you've given to where the department's program is going.  They want to see whether you've done your homework on their current offerings and had any thoughts about where the program should be headed--which, of course, also explores your thinking about where the field in general is going.  But they will expect your answer to be more specific than simply talking about where the field is headed, because they will expect you to recognize the department's specific strengths and weaknesses (and your own strengths) in your answer.

For some of us, though, it really is a potential minefield. I'm in a field that, most places, is covered by one or two people within a fairly large non-allied-field department--think one or two experts in Snobbery in a 20-person French Basketweaving department. (There are good historical reasons for that, but it's still weird.) One of the recurring pedagogical and philosophical arguments in the field of French Basketweaving is whether they'd all be better off or not if they finally jettisoned the Snobs.

Asking me where the program is heading forces me to find some way to tapdance around the issue of whether my field belongs in the Department of French Basketweaving at all, since you can be sure that in any 5-person search committee, there's at least one person who believes that their field would be better off without any courses or faculty in Snobbery Studies--and you have to keep that person's disgruntlement at a simmer while still showing how Snobbery can contribute.

It's fun being in a niche field and on the market. Really. At least, that's what I always told myself.

[infopri]

<snip>

Part of proving that you're ready to be faculty instead of grad-student or postdoc is having a plan for the future 5-10 years out and an idea of how the field is going to evolve in the next 10 years and how you'll be prepared for that.  In this case, maybe there was a secret right answer.  But often I think they primarily want to see that you have thought about it, and the specifics of your plan are less important (as long as it is reasonable and not bonkers or undoable).

Actually, I think there is more to it than that.  (That is, I don't think your answer is wrong, doctor_torrseal, just incomplete.)

Asking about where your research is going in 10 years explores how much thought you've given to where you're going.  The questions you posed, waxxy ("Where do you see our program headed in the next 5-10 years? How would you facilitate this change?") explore how much thought you've given to where the department's program is going.  They want to see whether you've done your homework on their current offerings and had any thoughts about where the program should be headed--which, of course, also explores your thinking about where the field in general is going.  But they will expect your answer to be more specific than simply talking about where the field is headed, because they will expect you to recognize the department's specific strengths and weaknesses (and your own strengths) in your answer.

For some of us, though, it really is a potential minefield. I'm in a field that, most places, is covered by one or two people within a fairly large non-allied-field department--think one or two experts in Snobbery in a 20-person French Basketweaving department. (There are good historical reasons for that, but it's still weird.) One of the recurring pedagogical and philosophical arguments in the field of French Basketweaving is whether they'd all be better off or not if they finally jettisoned the Snobs.

Asking me where the program is heading forces me to find some way to tapdance around the issue of whether my field belongs in the Department of French Basketweaving at all, since you can be sure that in any 5-person search committee, there's at least one person who believes that their field would be better off without any courses or faculty in Snobbery Studies--and you have to keep that person's disgruntlement at a simmer while still showing how Snobbery can contribute.

It's fun being in a niche field and on the market. Really. At least, that's what I always told myself.

I don't doubt that you're correct, d_f_b.  I'm in a somewhat similar situation myself, only my subfield is WhoCares instead of Snobbery.  But the result is the same: Those in the more mainstream subfields within department aren't sure they see the need to include WhoCares in the curriculum or the department in general.  (Not at my school, thank goodness, but elsewhere where I'd be interviewing.)

Still, I was simply addressing the points raised by waxxy and doctor_torrseal, not making any comment about the potential problems in answering the question.