next »

[doctor_torrseal]

What do people think of this article by a pseudonymous chair and SC member:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/05/2008052301c/careers.html

On the one hand, I suspect a lot of the advice to candidates and candidates' advisors is good.  Know the institution you're applying to, be able to explain your work in non-technical way, don't assume your future undergrads will be au courant with the latest theoretical innovations.

On the other hand, a few things in the article alarmed me.  It doesn't open well when the author discusses a candidate's subpar handshake and eye contact.  I think that the SC member may have been a prof for a long time and forgotten how intimidating the job market is.  I also wondered about the part where he complains about how

There were candidates who, after receiving one e-mail message from me, which I signed with my full name and title, immediately began using my first name, even though I was addressing them as "Professor."

Because this supposedly demonstrates a lack of professional social skills that would make it harder to get to tenure. 

On reading this, I began to think that a significant hidden part of this article is about how candidates should show him deference.  I agree that one should be careful about assuming too much informality in correspondence, but we're talking about email - it's an informal medium, for crying out loud.

[mdwlark]

The article bothered me a lot.

Hoffman thought all 18 candidates, who had been carefully screened for an AHA interview, were a disappointment, even though their CVs and recommendations were excellent.  He didn't say--but this is history--I'm assuming they had 100-200 applicants, maybe more. 

He eliminated the first one right away because her handshake was limp and she looked down at her shoes.  (No! No!  Not the shoe glance!  How could she do that!)  The downward glance couldn't possibly be attributable to interview jitters, but he did worry that she might be looking at HIS shoes.  I think that earned an exclamation point in the article, didn't it?   Her glancing down was seriously problematic behavior, but of course his concern that she might be looking at HIS shoes is a perfectly normal and understandable thought process, not the least bit narcissistic or paranoid.

The limp handshake couldn't possibly be because he didn't grab her hand very firmly or that he missed the connection as he reached for her hand, it had to be her fault.  And that was a dealbreaker, despite an excellent CV and recommendations.

He was unhappy that the candidates didn't seem to know much about their faculty and department, but when one candidate obviously had learned something about all of them from their website, he thought it was "slick" and "creepy."  (That poor schmuck probably got that idea reading the CHE fora, where forumites recommended reading about the department and its members online.)  That is what Hoffman said he wanted in a candidate. 

Most of the candidates gave a lecture instead of "leading a class discussion."  When most of the candidates didn't catch on to the SC's intended format, that couldn't possibly be because the SC's instructions were unclear, or that the SC chose a format that was different from the usual practice for campus visits in every other history department in the USA.  Such an almost universal misunderstanding also had to be the fault of each individual candidate. 

He was concerned that the candidate using first names wouldn't show the proper deference to get tenure.  I'm not in history, so correct me, but do colleagues in history departments really go around calling each other by their title and last name for seven years until tenure is granted? 

In his advice to advisers, he was critical of the candidate's esoteric dissertation choices, but that should have been considered when the SC screened their 200 or so applications and pared them down to 18, shouldn't it? 

He was put off by their use of 'jargon," which apparently was not routine history jargon, but unique to their dissertation topic.   

Even though some of Hoffman's advise was good, and obviously some candidates had made some mistakes, my reaction was that this department is going to be just as unreasonably critical of a new employee's efforts.  They haven't had  a new employee in a long time.  Any missteps that result from being a little green will be viewed as the kiss of death.  So, as disappointing as it is to be turned down for a job, I think the 18 candidates may have been spared a fairly miserable place to work.   
 

[bacardiandlime]

The formality in email thing struck me too. I lean towards being very formal, always 'Dear Professor X' in emails, even if this person signed off to me with his/her first name.

However, in a previous Chronicle piece (sorry don't have the link), there was warning against this, that a junior person on the market should be presenting his/herself as a potential colleague, rather than as a 'grad student' and this craven 'Dear Professor Bigshot/sincerely, snivelling ABD' should be avoided.

I do somewhere still have the job register handout from the AHA, I could look through it and try to figure out who this guy is...

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I think this is a case of the author being very green as an interviewer.  - DvF

[dr_dre]

There is already another thread on that article: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,50368.0.html

[daniel_von_flanagan]

There is already another thread on that article: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,50368.0.html

Yes, but that one didn't include a link until the thread was already moldy.  This one started with a link, a practice which should be given positive reinforcement. - DvF

[pandora]

I thought it was interesting that all but one of the candidates he discussed in detail were female (including the one they hired).  And I must confess I got a kind of double-whammy in the schadenfreude department about the Ivy candidates -- both that they seemed to be badly advised about the job market and that the hiring committee got all starry-eyed about them before actually meeting them.  It sounds like they didn't interview AHA Star.  *sigh*  Surely _he_ would have provided entertaining material for CHE readers.

[sciencephd]

I thought it was interesting that all but one of the candidates he discussed in detail were female (including the one they hired).  And I must confess I got a kind of double-whammy in the schadenfreude department about the Ivy candidates -- both that they seemed to be badly advised about the job market and that the hiring committee got all starry-eyed about them before actually meeting them.  It sounds like they didn't interview AHA Star.  *sigh*  Surely _he_ would have provided entertaining material for CHE readers.

His current interests seem much more mundane than the academic job search.

[terpsichore]

I thought the advice in the article was hit-or-miss, but the point about being able to talk about your research to a non-expert is really an important one. All faculty, even those at elite research universities, should be capable of providing a 5-10 minute synopsis of their research in ordinary language that any intelligent person can follow. If nothing else, we should all be able to answer the "why should I care about your research?" question.

[mdwlark]

Yes, there is some good advice in the article, but I was put off by his attitude toward the candidates and his intolerance for minor mistakes that could be attributed to interview jitters.  Also there was no recognition that Hoffman and the SC might be responsible if all of the candidates failed to understand something.  I thnk Pandora may be on to something.   Maybe there was a disconnect in communicating with women candidates.  Either Hoffman's attitude toward women candidates is a problem from the start, or maybe women don't get mentored in some of the subtleties of interviewing.  Or both.

[expatinuk]

maybe women don't get mentored in some of the subtleties of interviewing.

Maybe a woman's subtlety of interviewing isn't a man's? To a man a handshake is a jockeying for position. "I'm going to be firm in this otherwise he will think I'm a wimp."

To most women it's a handshake, not a macho contest of whose grip is 'harder and firmer.'

[bacardiandlime]

hmm.... I am a woman, and I have met people (not always women, but in most cases), whose handshake is of the dead fish variety. I mean they just hold their arm out, hand dangling, and expect me to do all the gripping and shaking. It's like greeting a corpse. I would scratch that person off the list too.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Why should a limp handshake disqualify someone from an academic job?  - DvF

[bacardiandlime]

It's a disconcerting experience. I would put it in a similar category to someone who stared at the floor during the interview. I know this might be unfair, but let's be realistic: most departments are hiring someone who can relate in a normal manner to their colleagues and students. Behaviour at the interview is going to be counted just as much as academic credentials - isn't this why search committees HAVE interviews, rather than just hiring on the basis of written applications?

[daniel_von_flanagan]

It's a disconcerting experience. I would put it in a similar category to someone who stared at the floor during the interview....isn't this why search committees HAVE interviews, rather than just hiring on the basis of written applications?

Well...no.  The interview is to make sure that the person matches the CV, is not obviously insane, and can deliver a decent lecture.  Fit is obviously important too, but not as much as the rest, and handshake strength is pretty low on the list of hallmarks for a "good fit", especially from a female applicant.   I'm a big in-your-face alpha male with a solid handshake, but if I let handshake strength affect my hiring decision then I am letting down my department, which wants someone who can publish/get grants/teach regardless of their hand musculature.

Frankly, if a guy's handshake is too strong, I wonder if they are using their right hand a bit too much, if you get my drift. - DvF