next »

[doctorcat]

Question 1:

I had a great interview at an R1 University. It was a day long interview. After my job talk, several of the search committee individually complimented me on the "most engaging, and well organized talk heard in a while." I have not heard from this school since the interview (one and a half months gone).  I presume I was not their first candidate because of the delay, and because I answered one question rather weakly during the interview session. (Or possibly more, and I am not aware).

Now, here is my question. I am about to head off to another R1 interview - this is for an open rank post, they were looking for an endowed chair, but they have invited me (a junior), someone of my similar rank, and a more senior person - I would love to have feedback about what I could have done differently in my former interview. Would it be really weird to write and ask about that?

Could people who have been SC members please let me know what you think? I presume you like those you bring to campus and want them to get jobs... would offering feedback, requesting it, be so odd?

Question 2:
I have another question I couldn't truncate into the subject box. At my upcoming interview, the SC chair has not replied to my email (seven days ago) about how long the job talk should be, who is on the SC, that kind of thing. What should I do?

Prior to writing to the SC chair, I contacted the secretary via phone who - remarkably - said, "oh it doesn't matter how long the talk is"! I gently suggested that maybe it does matter. She laughed and said she didn't know. Um..... and this is one of the best universities in the country for my field (FYI).

Thanks in advance!

[systeme_d_]

I would love to have feedback about what I could have done differently in my former interview. Would it be really weird to write and ask about that?

Asking for "feedback" makes one look like one is not socialized to the norms of academia.  This is just not done, and I strongly advise against it.

It is not the job of one search committee to help a candidate succeed in her/his search for employment at other institutions.

It is also disingenuous for you to ask.  You already know how you did. 

And finally, you absolutely do not know that you will not be offered the job for which you already interviewed.  It's not even been two months.  I received my last offer (which I accepted) just about two months after my interview.

In short, every time you write the word "presume" in this post, your presumption is unwarranted.

[bacardiandlime]

Q1:God, no.

Q2:Get the SCC on the phone.

[doctorcat]

Thanks systeme_d_  - I didn't think I could still be in the running for the former interview. Yes, I guess you are right that it wouldn't be right to ask for feedback. I guess I was thinking - presuming - we are working to make the field better, rather than thinking only of the institutions. 

Thanks bacardiandlime - I'll get the SCC on the phone asap.

I appreciate your help.

[octoprof]

Q1:God, no.

Q2:Get the SCC on the phone.

Exactly.

[brixton]

If you have trouble reaching the SCC on the phone, I'd send a second email, thanking them for bringing you to campus and sayin you are excited to meet the other faculty.  Since you've already done a campus talk and most of these talks are fairly similar, I might ask is there anything in particular that I should know about the talk andor detaild of the interview.  I'm assuming that it will be approximately fifty minutes, and you would like me to focus on weaving in the 15th century.  Will there be students there?   also say something like: if this is hard to answer by email, is there a good time to call or someone I should talk to for logistics?

Email gets lost, yet sometimes cold-calling the SCC can be awkward.  I'd give her another chance before jumping in with a call.  I'd put in an email your understanding of expectations, in case you never do get ahold of her.  And I'd also give her a chance to set up the time for the call. 

But, yes, by all means, try to make some sort of contact to set up expectations.

[scampster]

It is also disingenuous for you to ask.  You already know how you did. 

I agree with everything else systeme_d wrote, but I don't think it is disingenuous to ask (if asking were an acceptable thing to do, which it isn't). Sometimes you don't know what you might be doing wrong, if anything. We can be very bad at evaluating ourselves.

[helpful]

I don't know why most candidates think that an email to a SCC will be answered as fast as a phone call. In my experience as SCC I preferred to communicate details with short listed candidates about the visit via phone call, and then follow up with an email confirming those details. Unless your SCC told you specifically not to phone, I would phone.

[imawakenow]

I presume you like those you bring to campus and want them to get jobs... would offering feedback, requesting it, be so odd?

If you get a campus invite, it means that I think you can fill whatever need we have on the faculty. It doesn't mean that I like you or that I'm invested in your success if we don't offer you a job. Sorry. I don't have that much energy.

Otherwise, I agree with the other advice.

My guess on the time for a job talk at an R1 for an open rank position: 40-45 minutes with 15-20 minutes of questions.

[wanna_writemore]

If you make it to campus, you have met the qualifications for the job and the SC likes you.  After that, the decision is about how you fit with the dept in terms of future directions, what you can teach that complements what we already have and want in the future, how well we think you can jump right in and start teaching and getting publications out the door asap to be on track for tenure, and dept politics and politics between the dept, the dean, and the provost.  In other words, there's often not a moment in which you have definitively screwed up and can do better next time.  Asking for feedback isn't helpful because there's nothing we can tell you.  Prof. X's determination that you come from X type of grad program, and Prof. Y's concerns about people who will really truly contribute to the dept in terms of committee work, etc., and Prof. Z's worries about how the dept can contribute to B interdisciplinary program aren't anything you can change.  At this point, it's not really about you anymore.

[hegemony]

If we are unwilling to give you feedback, it's not because we're selfish and we don't want to make the field better.  Some of the reasons have been given above.  Another reason is that people tend to take offense, even when they ask for feedback.  Sometimes taking offense just leads to a short awkward or unpleasant conversation.  Sometimes it leads to thoughts of lawsuits and all that ("They judged me completely wrong ... they jumped to offensive conclusions ... I won't stand for it...")  They tend to take offense no matter what the feedback is, but especially if it's something about the way they came across personally.

So OP, here's some feedback, which is sincere and well-intentioned, and which may well provoke just the kind of resentment that illustrates why SCs don't give feedback.  You have been advised not to ask for feedback. Your response was "I guess I was thinking - presuming - we are working to make the field better, rather than thinking only of the institutions."  Your first assumption was that not giving feedback was a selfish, self-interested response of the search committees, rather than that it had a logical, neutral explanation that you didn't understand yet.  And your response strikes me as a little catty and manpulative.  "Well, I was just thinking everyone was selfless like me, not selfish as I see you on search committees are."  (Actually your request was not selfless -- it was just as self-interested as you accused SCs of being.) 

This kind of assumption and manipulation is what would lead me to hesitate to hire you.  And I'm being perfectly serious.  Now your own response to my feedback will probably illustrate why search committees do not give feedback.

[systeme_d_]

If we are unwilling to give you feedback, it's not because we're selfish and we don't want to make the field better.  Some of the reasons have been given above.  Another reason is that people tend to take offense, even when they ask for feedback.  Sometimes taking offense just leads to a short awkward or unpleasant conversation.  Sometimes it leads to thoughts of lawsuits and all that ("They judged me completely wrong ... they jumped to offensive conclusions ... I won't stand for it...")  They tend to take offense no matter what the feedback is, but especially if it's something about the way they came across personally.

And many search committees are specifically prohibited by their administration and/or by HR from giving feedback to folks they did not hire.  Again, the lawsuit angle rears its head.

So OP, here's some feedback, which is sincere and well-intentioned, and which may well provoke just the kind of resentment that illustrates why SCs don't give feedback.  You have been advised not to ask for feedback. Your response was "I guess I was thinking - presuming - we are working to make the field better, rather than thinking only of the institutions."  Your first assumption was that not giving feedback was a selfish, self-interested response of the search committees, rather than that it had a logical, neutral explanation that you didn't understand yet.  And your response strikes me as a little catty and manpulative.  "Well, I was just thinking everyone was selfless like me, not selfish as I see you on search committees are."  (Actually your request was not selfless -- it was just as self-interested as you accused SCs of being.) 

This kind of assumption and manipulation is what would lead me to hesitate to hire you.  And I'm being perfectly serious.  Now your own response to my feedback will probably illustrate why search committees do not give feedback.

Spot on.

[oatmeal]

OP--I agree with systeme_d_ here. You just have to wait and see what transpires. Do not ask for feedback. You will almost certainly not get any. It is hard, but just move on with other opportunities. Good luck.

[glowdart]

It is not the SC's job to provide constructive criticism for your career; they are potential future colleagues, not your professors.  It's a shift in mindset that many grad students have trouble with - understandably since you've just spent decades looking for specific task-oriented feedback, but it is a vital shift if you want to be successful on the market and in a job.    

Rather, at this point in your career, you're expected to have the self-assessment skills required to know how you did, just like you're expected to know when your writing is ready to send to a journal, what journal would be a good fit, when your classes are working or not working, and soon, you'll be expected to know whether or not you're on track for tenure, when your contributions to the department are sufficient, etc... Yes, these skills take some time to hone, but you should know how it went just like a smart student should know roughly how they did on a paper or exam.  

Will your colleagues mentor you in your first years on the job?  One hopes, but often that mentoring only comes in areas where you need it; if you ask too many nervous questions about things that you should be able to self-assess and your colleagues might well start questioning your ability to do your job.  You need to show that you can handle the autonomy that this profession requires while simultaneously collaborating when appropriate.  Asking for interview feedback is the kind of question a student would ask, not a colleague.        

And, as wanna_writemore said, as long as you didn't flop the interview, then it likely isn't about you at this stage, but rather it's about fit with the department.

[doctorcat]

Great. Thanks everyone. This has been very helpful.