next »

[job12]

Hi all, I have been curious about how SC make post-interview decision, and I get basically two types of answers. Someone says that. for those who make into the shortlist (aka invited onsite), their qualification should all be adequate and so the SC make their decision mainly based on your performance in the interview. The other opinion, is that the SC usually has ranked the candidates (or at least some preference) and so as long as the top candidate does not screw up the interview (act like a jerk or unable to give a clear presentation etc), the offer is his. I am wondering what you think about this; which scenario makes more sense? Thanks for your input in advance. 

[wmr333]

The SC determines the cut for on-campus interviews.  The rest of the department and the Dean are able to register their preferences upon meeting the candidates.  I do not go into an interview with a candidate thinking that one is the leading candidate before I even meet her.

[ruralguy]

Though I am sure some folks go into the interviews with favorites, this can be severely ammended after the interviews take place. At least in the eyes of most search committees, I doubt its just a matter of the top person "not screwing up."

Plus some colleagues really do want to know what others think. Not every dept. is just a self-interested snake-pit.

I say this as someone who has interviewed a lot, been on a number of SC's, and seen a bunch of Dean's and Presidents being selected.

[westcoastgirl]

My friend recently served on a committee. There was no favorite going in. There was a person whose publication record exceeded the others, by far. She/He wasn't necessarily the favorite,  but she/he was looked upon as the safe person; i.e., making tenure wouldn't be a problem. At the end of the day, they went with the safe (and somewhat vanilla) person, though the others had great qualities and were ranked as number one by other members. I think at the campus interview, people are really going at it neck and neck.

[msparticularity]

The process I have seen has a series of phases. First, and foremost, no candidate will be invited to campus if there is serious concern that they would be unlikely to be able to be tenurable. Next, after the visit, the SC sits down to determine whether anyone has fundamentally disqualified themselves during the campus visit, or perhaps moved themselves down to a distant last choice. Next, given the remaining pool, the discussion moves to the question of fit. In the case of my present institution, the tie-breaker there is usually whether any candidate is particularly well-prepared to step right in to deal with a gap we currently have--a course to be taught, an area of expertise we need for accreditation, or something similar. In the absence of that consideration (which practically never happens these days), we might move into broader considerations of personal fit, potential for future growth/publications/grants, and so on.

[systeme_d_]

After you've served on your first SC, you will learn never to go into interviews with a set ranking in mind.  The on-campus part always shakes up any previous ranking you might have had.

[alohafromhere]

I'm serving on two committees right now, chairing one of them.  On our campus, which may be like many others, the search committee does the leg work to screen candidates, bring them to campus, have them meet all the right people, etc.  If we bring three people to campus, we may have a ranking of preference but we are well aware that can change when we see someone in person for a day and a half ++.  Our process does in fact involve ranking each candidate, at every step of the way.  HR demands this, our dean and administrators demand it.  We have to have a rationale for "yes" or "no" at every step, and each pool has to be approved before we can proceed.  (Is this time consuming?  Uh, yes.  it sure is.)  Certainly some of this ranking is straightforward triage: if we have a couple hundred applicants, and half don't have the appropriate degree?  Out they go.  (Note to applicants: PLEASE read the job ads.  If you don't qualify, don't waste our time.)

Then it comes down to other factors: teaching experience, the relative robustness of research agendas, fit with secondary qualifications, service experience, etc.  As an institution, we know who we are, so we are also looking for someone who can be a "fit" with the place as it now is, and can also take the institution forward, helping it grow and become a better place.  As much as I hate this term, we want someone who can be a good member of the "team."


At the end of the long process of screening applicants, justifying our choices, interviewing, bringing people to camopus ... then?  Then we forward our rankings on to the dean and the other administrators who will make the final decision.  We may not end up with our first choice as a committee.  We may love you, but for reasons of their own, those in charge may not choose to hire you.

So if the search committee looks tired when you interview with us?  We are.  But, we also want every reason to like you, find reasons to recommend you, and put your name at the head of the list.  Give us those and we will be happy.  The last thing we want is a failed search.

And finally: do remember to say thank you.  After the on-campus interview, an email is fine.  Do it promptly, send it to the chair, and s/he will forward it on to the rest of the committee.  Then when we talk about you, we will say: that was really quite polite and nice.  And your ranking will get just that little bump upwards.

[aprilmay]

I have served on several SCs and at least here, everyone on the short list has a chance. The informal rankings, or I should say preferences, are frequently flipped after the interview stage. Often the rockstar on paper is a rockstar in real life, so the pre-interview pick gets it. Often they are not. There has never been a situation where someone was considered so far above the others that the job was theirs as long as they did not mess up at the interview stage. We only interview people we think are great, so they all have a shot.

[job12]

First I think it is a very interesting discussion here and all the posts have very valuable information, particularly from the SC side. It seems that most people agree that it is most determined by interview performance. I have a question, then, based on my own experience. In all most all the interviews I had, they arranged meeting with each SC member for about 30 mins. If they would really decide whether to give me this job or not based on the meeting, I think they should make a good use of this 30 mins. But it does not seem to be the case: some spent nearly 20 mins telling me how good the town is, some did talk about research, but mainly telling me what he is doing and interested in, some even talked about baseball for the entire meeting...   

[aprilmay]

I was referring to on campus visits that lasted several days, not 30 minute mini-interviews.

[prof_gnu]

I was referring to on campus visits that lasted several days, not 30 minute mini-interviews.

aprilmay, I think that job12 was referring to half-hour long minutes with individual faculty during the 2 day campus visit.  I have certainly had a number of schools use that model of campus interview (+talks+meetings with administrators+meals with people+various other stuff) and part of the time does tend to be devoted to things like "Can I tell you anything more about OurTown?" or "If you like Professional Lacrosse, OurTown has a great team!" (Alright, it has never been professional lacrosse.)

[aprilmay]

aprilmay, I think that job12 was referring to half-hour long minutes with individual faculty during the 2 day campus visit.  I have certainly had a number of schools use that model of campus interview (+talks+meetings with administrators+meals with people+various other stuff) and part of the time does tend to be devoted to things like "Can I tell you anything more about OurTown?" or "If you like Professional Lacrosse, OurTown has a great team!" (Alright, it has never been professional lacrosse.)

Oh, in that case I stand by my original statement. The applicant is assessed based on their overall interview, which includes more than an individual 30-minute meeting. Each person will discuss their perceptions, the talk, the CV, etc. Every single person interviewing has a shot, or at least that is true here.

[scampster]

First I think it is a very interesting discussion here and all the posts have very valuable information, particularly from the SC side. It seems that most people agree that it is most determined by interview performance. I have a question, then, based on my own experience. In all most all the interviews I had, they arranged meeting with each SC member for about 30 mins. If they would really decide whether to give me this job or not based on the meeting, I think they should make a good use of this 30 mins. But it does not seem to be the case: some spent nearly 20 mins telling me how good the town is, some did talk about research, but mainly telling me what he is doing and interested in, some even talked about baseball for the entire meeting...   

There are two things here that you seem to be forgetting: (1) They are trying to sell you on the place just as much as you are trying to sell on yourself. So talking about the town, their research (hint: they probably want you to suggest where you might collaborate), etc. is part of that. (2) They are testing you out as a colleague. If you spend 30 minutes talking all about yourself, sure that provides a lot of info about you, but it also makes you a bore.

Don't dismiss these conversations that seem to be pointless to you.

Or maybe they just want to talk about baseball.