next »

[speedstick]

Do search committees ever allow an applicant to address adverse information provided by a reference or do they just simply move on to next candidate? If so, what were the circumstances and outcome, or does the whole 'confidentiality' and 'legality' issues stymie such a scenario?

Also, so they go outside your reference list during the vetting process? How so?

[bacardiandlime]

Do search committees ever allow an applicant to address adverse information provided by a reference or do they just simply move on to next candidate? If so, what were the circumstances and outcome, or does the whole 'confidentiality' and 'legality' issues stymie such a scenario?

Also, so they go outside your reference list during the vetting process? How so?

Honestly, I don't know. I find it hard to imagine something like this happening in an interview (after all, if the letter was really adverse, the candidate wouldn't have made the interview), and confidential issues of references would pretty well rule out an interview question of "Prof Wacky said your research was useless: how do you respond?". You seriously see this happening? (I don't).

I do know of information from references being mentioned to candidates in the context of 'Your doctoral advisor seemed very impressed with your plans for your New Project, tell us more'. And occasionally candidates are tipped off by friendly SC members about less-than-helpful letters in their file.

[sciencephd]

No, you don't get to have a three way dialogue with the SC, you, and your letters of reference.

[speedstick]

I'm actually interested in admin positions which often require references after an initial on-site interview. I sense that for faculty positions, alternatively, references are provided even before an interview is granted. True? In that case, perhaps the SC would make a unilateral decision on the content of the reference.

[bacardiandlime]

I'm actually interested in admin positions which often require references after an initial on-site interview. I sense that for faculty positions, alternatively, references are provided even before an interview is granted. True? In that case, perhaps the SC would make a unilateral decision on the content of the reference.

By 'unilateral' you mean 'not including the opinion of the applicant'? Yes. Of course the opinion of EVERY applicant is that they should get the job. The SC does not ask the candidate for feedback on the decision making process.

Regarding admin jobs where references are called after interviews, from my experience this is typically a phone call, rather than a letter, and often running through a scripted list of HR questions.

[speedstick]

Thanks a lot. Any idea what the scripted list of HR questions consists of? Much appreciated.

[seniorscholar]

Thanks a lot. Any idea what the scripted list of HR questions consists of? Much appreciated.

I have had these scripted HR calls about grad students I've supervised who are looking for faculty jobs. The list of questions is (in almost every case) one that would apply to anyone applying for any kind of job with the college: Does he come to work on time? Does she dress appropriately? Does he follow directions? etc. -- yes/no questions; no opportunity for any further information; and the caller could as easily be a machine as a person (maybe it is!). Once or twice I've even had this list from a department chair, who prefaces it thus: "I've called for some information on Dr. Former Student. Before I ask my questions, I have to read down this list supplied by Human Resources. I'm really embarrassed to have to do this; please bear with me for about two minutes."

[glowdart]

Thanks a lot. Any idea what the scripted list of HR questions consists of? Much appreciated.

Have you tried digging around on the HR or Dean of Faculty site at the school?  A number of places where I interviewed had the "required" or "recommended" list of interview questions and the forbidden list available on the web for faculty members who were doing searches.  A few times, the list was protected by a network password, but quite a few were not. 

[present_mirth]

... confidential issues of references would pretty well rule out an interview question of "Prof Wacky said your research was useless: how do you respond?". You seriously see this happening? (I don't).

During one of my campus interviews, the SCC chair read several passages from my letters of reference, word for word, and asked me to comment on them.  Fortunately, they were all complimentary, but it was still the most horrible, awkward, and embarrassing train wreck of an interview I've ever had, and by the end of it I was a gibbering mess.  (Didn't get the job, it goes without saying.)  I'm sure it IS a violation of confidentiality, but it does happen on occasion, and I don't think it's a bad idea for the OP to be prepared for it.

That said, I have no good advice about how to prepare for it.

[bacardiandlime]

... confidential issues of references would pretty well rule out an interview question of "Prof Wacky said your research was useless: how do you respond?". You seriously see this happening? (I don't).

During one of my campus interviews, the SCC chair read several passages from my letters of reference, word for word, and asked me to comment on them.  Fortunately, they were all complimentary, but it was still the most horrible, awkward, and embarrassing train wreck of an interview I've ever had, and by the end of it I was a gibbering mess.  (Didn't get the job, it goes without saying.)  I'm sure it IS a violation of confidentiality, but it does happen on occasion, and I don't think it's a bad idea for the OP to be prepared for it.

That said, I have no good advice about how to prepare for it.

But they were all positive letters. My point was that such a situation wouldn't occur with BAD references, because a candidate with bad letters wouldn't be sitting there at the interview...

Thanks for the heads-up though, I haven't experienced it but it's worth being aware! (I have had option B, the kind SC member - who rejected me - giving me a heads-up about a bad letter in the pile...)

[speedstick]

Thanks a lot for the testimonials.

In admin, however, references are sometimes requested after an initial in-person interview. If the committee receives adverse info from a reference provided by the candidate or from those outiside the list (co-workers, etc) that the SC chooses to contact, might/would/do they sometimes give the candidate a chance to address the negative info? Search committees do sometimes contact their own list of references in addition to those provided by the candidate.

[sciencephd]

I'm sure that if you keep asking the question, you will get the answer that you want.

[bacardiandlime]

I'm sure that if you keep asking the question, you will get the answer that you want.

that's the fora mantra!!

OP, I'm guessing you left your last position acrimoniously and are not sure if this will doom your chances on the market.
Yes, bad references can hurt you. Yes, SC members can ask other people (other than those you listed) for information about you. Yes, this can result in you not getting a job (if the references are negative). No, the SC will not contact you to give you the chance to 'rebut' negative references. No, there is nothing you can do about this.

[concordancia]

No.






With any luck at all, SCs are not interested in Middle School he said-she said politics. If there are negative comments in a letter, they will at best ask follow up questions designed to elicit your reaction to a similar circumstance. If multiple letters have similar negative comments, they will just move onto the next candidate.

[dellaroux]

In many cases, HR policies are simply to confirm employment dates, since litiginous tendencies have scared them away from making any other, positive or negative statement.

Also, there's a persistent rumor at one school I worked at as an admin, that there's a practice of "marking" a file or LoR with a symbol that suggests "don't re-hire here," effectively warning anyone else away from that file.

Not sure if it's true, never have had reason to check it, but I heard it in more than one department over a period of years, so if it's an internal hire or transfer you're looking for, that's another little wrinkle to worry about.

And like all the others, something you can't do too much about, except get a job elsewhere and be sure not to mess up forever after.

Signing off--dellaroux