next »

[embitteredhistorian]

I had an interview for a t-t position today and left with a bad taste in my mouth. The SC asked some very good questions, but mixed with them were really rude ones like, "why were you so confident in your research that you've already published a monograph?" and "why didn't you do all of your degrees at the same school?"

Also, at the end I was told that I would be contacted by the university weeks from now because the department needs to make its decision, send it to the university, etc. etc. I find this really unnecessary--why can't they just call me after their meeting and tell me their decision? The shortlist consists of two people, and the other also interviewed today, so I see no problem with a polite phone call.

Finally, they STILL haven't told me how much the job pays.

Sorry, this probably doesn't interest anyone, but I had to get it out.

[post_functional]

They didn't ask, "What makes you so interested in history and why are you so obviously embittered?"

[embitteredhistorian]

They didn't ask, "What makes you so interested in history and why are you so obviously embittered?"

If only!

[post_functional]

I feel your pain.  Those questions are pretty obnoxious.  I don't get the monograph question.  What I suspect they were probably trying to ferret out in the second question is your capacity to change environs when something better comes along.

[alleyoxenfree]

There is a whole HR school of interviewing that recommends asking confrontive or argumentative questions, to see if they can put people off their game, make them defensive, get them riled, and so on.

I have seen interviewing books - usually more geared to business jobs - discuss this very technique.

If they weren't just being a**hats, they could have been convinced by HR to include a few such questions.

It seems incredibly weird to be asked the second question.  Isn't that frowned on at most places?  The days when one did all their degrees at Harvard because it was considered the only decent school seem to have gone out with straw hats.

[embitteredhistorian]

There is a whole HR school of interviewing that recommends asking confrontive or argumentative questions, to see if they can put people off their game, make them defensive, get them riled, and so on.

I have seen interviewing books - usually more geared to business jobs - discuss this very technique.

If they weren't just being a**hats, they could have been convinced by HR to include a few such questions.

It seems incredibly weird to be asked the second question.  Isn't that frowned on at most places?  The days when one did all their degrees at Harvard because it was considered the only decent school seem to have gone out with straw hats.

Sadly, Korea is very behind on this point.

[der_gadfly]

MOST HR-types are clueless. MOST SCs have no training in interview techniques.

[egilson]

I would have interpreted, and answered, "why were you so confident in your research that you've already published a monograph?" as "Wow, you're confident and accomplished! How did you get there, and can you help our students get there, too?" Likewise, I would have taken the second question as an invitation to talk about the importance of diverse experiences in education.

And I might have taken the boiler-plate brush-off as a sign that maybe I should get the chip off my shoulder.

[embitteredhistorian]

I would have interpreted, and answered, "why were you so confident in your research that you've already published a monograph?" as "Wow, you're confident and accomplished! How did you get there, and can you help our students get there, too?" Likewise, I would have taken the second question as an invitation to talk about the importance of diverse experiences in education.

And I might have taken the boiler-plate brush-off as a sign that maybe I should get the chip off my shoulder.

Thank you for your insightful judgments. Since you know the exact phrasing of these questions and were in the room, your perspective is both valuable and informed.

[embitteredhistorian]

I feel your pain.  Those questions are pretty obnoxious.  I don't get the monograph question.  What I suspect they were probably trying to ferret out in the second question is your capacity to change environs when something better comes along.

Didn't notice this before. The question was asked because I published my book before I was awarded my Ph.D. (this is standard in some European university systems), so it was a very valid question, but the way it was asked was incredibly rude, perhaps signposted most obviously when the person said, "I'm sorry this is a rude question, but..."

[voxprincipalis]

There is a whole HR school of interviewing that recommends asking confrontive or argumentative questions, to see if they can put people off their game, make them defensive, get them riled, and so on.

I have seen interviewing books - usually more geared to business jobs - discuss this very technique.

If they weren't just being a**hats, they could have been convinced by HR to include a few such questions.

It seems incredibly weird to be asked the second question.  Isn't that frowned on at most places?  The days when one did all their degrees at Harvard because it was considered the only decent school seem to have gone out with straw hats.

Sadly, Korea is very behind on this point.

Wait, wait, wait. I have not read all of your posts, embitteredhistorian, so I don't know -- are you interviewing for a job at a Korean university, or did you yourself get your degrees in Korea?

If the former, there are some threads on the fora about employment at Korean universities that you should definitely read if you have not already done so. What you report seems to be typical of practice there, and there are worse stories besides.

VP

[lorelei]

Were the people asking the questions senior faculty members? Or HR types?

The suggestions about about spinning the answers into discussions of guiding students or selling your own adaptability are smart, but I'm not sure they'd work all that well in this cultural context.

That kind of "Why are you so full of yourself?" query about the book might display some inferiority/annoyance on the part of the person asking it, and says much more about them than about you.

And "Why didn't you do all your degrees in one place?" - I might have been tempted to say something like "Because I'm not closed-minded and parochial" but that's just me...

I'm guessing this is the kind of place that would basically wet themselves with excitement if they got some Harvard grad candidate. Since your PhD as you've mentioned is not Ivy League, that "why were you so confident" thing probably reflects their brand-name skepticism of your alma mater. I've sensed in that part of the world a bit of ambivalence towards hiring westerners anyway. On one side, the "A PhD from Cornell!" kind of Ivy-fandom (people practically genuflect at the name of some fancy university), versus the attitude "these white guys think they're so much better than us, where do they get off?".

It can be a tough line to walk, as I'm sure you're already aware.

[embitteredhistorian]

Were the people asking the questions senior faculty members? Or HR types?

The suggestions about about spinning the answers into discussions of guiding students or selling your own adaptability are smart, but I'm not sure they'd work all that well in this cultural context.

That kind of "Why are you so full of yourself?" query about the book might display some inferiority/annoyance on the part of the person asking it, and says much more about them than about you.

And "Why didn't you do all your degrees in one place?" - I might have been tempted to say something like "Because I'm not closed-minded and parochial" but that's just me...

I'm guessing this is the kind of place that would basically wet themselves with excitement if they got some Harvard grad candidate. Since your PhD as you've mentioned is not Ivy League, that "why were you so confident" thing probably reflects their brand-name skepticism of your alma mater. I've sensed in that part of the world a bit of ambivalence towards hiring westerners anyway. On one side, the "A PhD from Cornell!" kind of Ivy-fandom (people practically genuflect at the name of some fancy university), versus the attitude "these white guys think they're so much better than us, where do they get off?".

It can be a tough line to walk, as I'm sure you're already aware.

Absolutely hit the nail on the head. They were indeed senior faculty members. My situation is really confusing because my external examiner was an Ivy league professor and I have publications from Ivy league presses, yet my Ph.D. is from Podunk U., Nowhere, Yurop.

Voxprincipalis: thank you, and I must say I enjoy your posts on these here fora. I haven't got any degrees from Korea, but I'm teaching in the country. I've read the threads about Korean universities and there are definitely some VERY nasty things that happen in this country; what I experienced is tame in comparison. I'm currently a VAP at a Korean university that has a very good reputation for treating its foreigners well, and it does--I'm treated completely like an equal and no one lies, changes contracts, asks rude questions, etc.

BTW, the posts about Korea on these fora are a bit outdated--Korean universities did some absolutely horrible things to foreign staff throughout this decade, and only last year did they realize their mistake and are trying to make up for it by offering a lot of tenure-track positions to foreign staff. However, the Korean unis are now complaining that not enough foreigners are applying; after knowledge of contract-breaking, unfair working conditions, lower pay, lack of tenure for foreigners became widespread throughout the world, they shouldn't be surprised.

[anthroid]

E_H, can you clarify?  Was this interview for a Korean university tt position or one stateside? 

[embitteredhistorian]

E_H, can you clarify?  Was this interview for a Korean university tt position or one stateside? 

An interview for a Korean university in Korea with only Koreans in the room except lil old me. My degrees are from the U.S. and two European countries.