next »

[ecoart]

We are in the midst of on-campus interviews for several positions in my department.  I have seen the last two candidates blow their interview during the job talk by digging a hole so large that no - short of an academic superhero with every imaginable superpower - could recover from.

Dear candidate -
So your response to a question is not well received judging from the horrified/confused looks of your potential colleagues.  Do NOT continue to go with it and keep talking for 10 minutes until one of us has to cut you off and say something like - "Okay, I think we should change directions here.  Can you tell us about..." 
Do NOT bring up your convoluted response later at dinner and on the way to the airport the next day. Please, let it go and do NOT try to provide more clarification about what you meant to say in your thank you email.  We are trying to be nice and that is very hard for some of us. By now, you have realized that we know that you had no idea how to respond to the original question.  Next time, ask for clarification and buy yourself a little time to think before speaking. 
Thank you-
Horrified and tired search committee member

[seniorscholar]

Yes. And do remember that if the question is on the order of "How would you teach [something you've never considered teaching]?" a perfectly appropriate answer is "I'd have to think about that -- can you tell me something about the students who take that class? What are their goals, for example?" This (1) may supply some useful information and (2) in any case, buys you some time to recover and think.

[username2]

^ oh, those are masterful.

[zyzzx]

I have to admit to some morbid curiosity about what sort of question/answer was able to produce these horrified looks.

[larryc]

We are in the midst of on-campus interviews for several positions in my department.  I have seen the last two candidates blow their interview during the job talk by digging a hole so large that no - short of an academic superhero with every imaginable superpower - could recover from.

Dear candidate -
So your response to a question is not well received judging from the horrified/confused looks of your potential colleagues.  Do NOT continue to go with it and keep talking for 10 minutes until one of us has to cut you off and say something like - "Okay, I think we should change directions here.  Can you tell us about..." 
Do NOT bring up your convoluted response later at dinner and on the way to the airport the next day. Please, let it go and do NOT try to provide more clarification about what you meant to say in your thank you email.  We are trying to be nice and that is very hard for some of us. By now, you have realized that we know that you had no idea how to respond to the original question.  Next time, ask for clarification and buy yourself a little time to think before speaking. 
Thank you-
Horrified and tired search committee member

Oh Lord, I have interviewed that candidate, several times over.

Young people especially are often under the mistaken impression that talking is the key to getting people to like and respect you, when in fact it is listening that is the key.

[kunsthistorikerin]

Young people especially are often under the mistaken impression that talking is the key to getting people to like and respect you, when in fact it is listening that is the key.

I need to tattoo this on my hand.  Thank you.

[whynotevolve]

I have to admit to some morbid curiosity about what sort of question/answer was able to produce these horrified looks.

Me too.  I pictured a case where the SC asks about what the candidate thinks about the student body and the response it that they are 'hot'.  Try to explain your way out of that one. 

[ecoart]

I have to admit to some morbid curiosity about what sort of question/answer was able to produce these horrified looks.

Me too.  I pictured a case where the SC asks about what the candidate thinks about the student body and the response it that they are 'hot'.  Try to explain your way out of that one. 

I wish it had been something with a little entertainment value.  The questions were fairly innocuous - Have you considered Dr. X's work on X, Y, and Z? & The methodology that you've described (and given some crazy acronym that candidate made up) sounds similar to 'everyday analysis'.  Can you provide us with more detail on the nuances of crazy acronym?
Not hardball questions. I think the candidate who couldn't respond to the question about Dr. X's work wasn't familiar with that work.  It would have been better to admit that off the bat.  Crazy acronym was trying to 'hang their hat' on the development of this "new" methodology but could not differentiate between the old and new.

[dr_starbucks]

We had a horror situation involving one candidate being interviewed by the entire departmental faculty.  When asked a basic question about his academic background (a real softball type question, along the lines of, "name a scholar or two that you admire and has influenced your work . . "), he froze and was silent for 60 seconds (one faculty reported watching the second hand on his watch). 

So, yeah, do a bit of "thinking out loud" if needed -- faculty do want to see an explicit indication of how you think and approach problems, but don't just shoot off your mouth as an act of desperation (this brings to mind a saying about the constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth . . ).

[leobloom]

Thank you, ecoart. I also want to express my gratitude for the two unsuccessful candidates that made this invaluable forum suggestion possible in the first place.

[kaysixteen]

I trust that the Dr X whose work he was supposed to have been familiar with is someone who is a serious and important scholar in the field and whose work is not so recent so as to have been legitimately unfamiliar to the chump?  Otherwise it sounds like a Catch-22 question...

[artsy522]

Oh please let those be the other candidates who interviewed for the job I interviewed for...  please oh please!!!

[sagit]

I trust that the Dr X whose work he was supposed to have been familiar with is someone who is a serious and important scholar in the field and whose work is not so recent so as to have been legitimately unfamiliar to the chump?  Otherwise it sounds like a Catch-22 question...

A good candidate would just say that they are not familiar enough with Dr. X's work to make a comparison and either ask for a brief description of that theory or suggest that they discuss it over dinner (assuming there is a dinner after the talk).

[systeme_d_]

I still remember a remarkably unsuccessful applicant from many years ago who distinguished himself precisely in the way that the OP describes.

Prior to the preliminary interviews, the shortlisted folks were told that among the classes the successful applicant would teach was XXX, which would sometimes be team-taught with Professor Z.  

This memorable applicant, when asked how he would approach said class, proclaimed that it could NOT be taught in one semester, but MUST be done over two semesters.  Also, it could NOT be taught successfully using strategy A, but MUST be taught using strategy B.  

Of course, Professor Z had been teaching it in one semester, using strategy A, for over a decade.  Professor Z's syllabus was posted online, and would have been easily found through a simple Google search.

This applicant must have seen the shock on the faces of the SC when he answered the question in this way.  He certainly saw Professor Z lean forward, grin menacingly, and ask, "Oh, really?  Do you care to explain why?"

The applicant did explain why.

For more than five, but less than fifteen minutes.  

With no pauses to facilitate interruption, or enable other conversation.

Yes, his reasoning was specious, and primarily based upon his own experience as an undergrad at a very different kind of school than ours.  But the real problem was his inability to stop and think and consider why the folks on the search committee - especially Professor Z - might be reacting as we did.

[westcoastgirl]

I'm just wondering why this candidate was even invited? I'm guessing his work was read prior to the interview?