next »

[rodentmind]

In my science field we do not use either 1. conference interviews or 2. phone interviews.  We evaluate candidates on paper, select, say, the top 5, and bring them in for interviews.  This works just fine.  Surely it costs no more than the department paying for a troup of faculty to visit a conference for several days.

I don't think this would be good in Humanities. Too much depends on personality, sociability, interaction. Not that I'm saying the sciences are bereft of of those things.

I liked the earlier idea about splitting costs. Think less interviews would be offered in that case, though?

[the_honey_badger]

Splitting the cost? How?  I had nine AHA interviews in my final year---how would the accounting be done on that, by whom, and when?   At best it would be a complicated reimbursement scheme and at worst a never-ending fight about whose system would reimburse for what sort of charges.  You'd still have to get to AHA and then hope for all those bits of money to arrive at some undetermined date. Some will never arrive and you'd be endlessly chasing the money. I'm still "waiting" for reimbursement for campus interviews with two big, rich universities (not really, its been years).  Imagine the foot dragging with a department low on funds and disinterested in you after AHA? Good luck getting them to prioritize paying you back. Yes, raising the cost of interviewing would cut the number of screening interviews. Depend upon that.

As to faculty finding an AHA trip during winter break some kind of perk?  Sure, a few do but I suspect that this is a judgment made by many who haven't been in that position of interviewer. 12 hours for two straight days interviewing isn't many people's idea of a good time. Do it once and you'll see. Many departments don't cover all the attendant costs, many of us have to prep for start of classes right after and also would rather be with our families. You do it because you need to not necessarily because it provides some sort of "vacation."

[sciencephd]

In my science field we do not use either 1. conference interviews or 2. phone interviews.  We evaluate candidates on paper, select, say, the top 5, and bring them in for interviews.  This works just fine.  Surely it costs no more than the department paying for a troup of faculty to visit a conference for several days.

I don't think this would be good in Humanities. Too much depends on personality, sociability, interaction. Not that I'm saying the sciences are bereft of of those things.

I don't follow this at all.  Are you saying that the humanities weight these things over obective points on a CV ?  Or that they are weighted more highly in the sciences ?  If true, I find it to be a remarkable admission.

[rodentmind]

In my science field we do not use either 1. conference interviews or 2. phone interviews.  We evaluate candidates on paper, select, say, the top 5, and bring them in for interviews.  This works just fine.  Surely it costs no more than the department paying for a troup of faculty to visit a conference for several days.

I don't think this would be good in Humanities. Too much depends on personality, sociability, interaction. Not that I'm saying the sciences are bereft of of those things.

I don't follow this at all.  Are you saying that the humanities weight these things over obective points on a CV ?  Or that they are weighted more highly in the sciences ?  If true, I find it to be a remarkable admission.

I'm saying that the humanities weight these "subjective" things quite highly indeed, along with the "objective" points on the c.v. There are differences between the humanities and the sciences, and this might be one of them--that's what your posting suggests.