next »

[larryc]

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

Not to speak for System D, but it is a fairly common phenomena for someone to be great on paper, solid in the phone interview, and a disaster on campus.

[systeme_d_]

Larryc is quite right, of course, but it just so happens that my post was unclear.  The incident of which I wrote took place at a preliminary interview that lasted 30 minutes.  That applicant was not invited to campus.

It is quite possible that Westcoastgirl was asking that question of the OP, though, in which case Larryc's observation would quite likely still apply.

[ecoart]

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

Not to speak for System D, but it is a fairly common phenomena for someone to be great on paper, solid in the phone interview, and a disaster on campus.

OP here and the same applies. These candidates were invited for a campus interview following phone interviews. Original candidate pool was around 100 applicants.  We invite three candidates to campus because we've read their materials, talked to references, enjoyed the phone interview.  You're at the campus interview because we like you (on paper) and all you have to do is show us (a). that you know your research & (b). that you can be a decent colleague.  Really, we want you to be successful.

[janewales]

We invite three candidates to campus because we've read their materials, talked to references, enjoyed the phone interview.  You're at the campus interview because we like you (on paper) and all you have to do is show us (a). that you know your research & (b). that you can be a decent colleague.  Really, we want you to be successful.

Yes, and I think it's worth underlining for current searchers that sometimes the candidate who appears to be perfect before the campus interview can do things on campus to fall completely out of the running. Sometimes when I see people complaining that, say, a person without many publications was hired over someone far better qualified, I wonder whether there isn't one of these spectacular melt-downs in the background. We've certainly hired candidates with, for example, fewer publications or less experience than others, precisely because on the day, the newbie rose to the occasion in a way the more seasoned person did not.

[spork]

Keep in mind that much of this is the fault of academe -- doctoral programs that focus on the production of jargon-filled dissertations on arcane topics, little to no training in presentation or teaching skills, no ability to engage with the public or political leaders on matters of policy. We replicate the same outcomes we rail against.

[kaysixteen]

Spork is absolutely correct-- almost no PhD programs spend appreciable time teaching employability and interview skills, and many senior professors, relics of the bygone days of yore when more or less all PhDs got hired, well... they do not show many of these talents themselves.

[valentinodrag]

How dreadful it must be to deal with an unsuccessful a candidate into whom the SC (and the institution) has already devoted considerable resources and energy.  It is likewise the case that candidates can be completely underwhelmed by SC members.  On my first campus interview, I asked the SC chair at what point in the process he reads letters of recommendation.  "I don't," he replied.  I said nothing.  "Because they're all good," he continued.  "Then how do you decide which applicants to interview?", I asked.  He indicated that "the institutions" that the applicant went to figure in highly.  (I'm not kidding--he said those things.) He added that he never reads more than a few pages of the writing sample either.  That same sc chair asked me if I had defended my diss yet when in fact my application letter stated in the first paragraph that I had just defended it (a topic he and I already discussed at the conference interview.)
On another campus interview, a sc chair asked whether I had worked with a prof who read my diss and whose letter is in my dossier (those are clear indications that I had worked wth the prof). 
And how many times do sc members not even show up for the job talk?  Several times.  And then they have the audacity to say that the job talk was "over the heads" of grad students---after the sc chair told me NOT to dumb down my research for the job talk! 

And why do sc members often ask questions that candidates have already addressed on paper and in phone interviews?  And if they ask for materials, such as diss or book chapters or articles, why don't they read them?
 
And is it really fair to the candidates for department members to vote primarily on the basis of their "impressions" of the candidates' personalities and whether they are fun at dinner? After another campus interview, the sc chair called me about two weks later to say that they decided not to hire anyone--she explained that she was hoping that the department "would fall in love with one of the candidates" (no s***--that is exactly what she said) , but instead the department was equally divided between the two of us (myself and the other candidate).  I mean seriously, people, are we candidates really supposed to make you all fall in with us? 

And why do some sc committees expect candidates to pray on the phone with them or to pray with them at lunch?  The first time this happened, I was appreciative that they cared about me but I was offended that they judged me for not knowing the "correct" answer to a question that had to do with Jesus being the only way to eternal life.


Seriously, ladies and gentlemen, if you are on a sc and are thus ostensibly in a position of evaluating and judging a candidate's QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE JOB, please read the candidates' dossiers and please evaluate the candidates on the basis of the requirements that your job advert stated and not on the basis of whether you like their apperance or their personality or their belief system etc. 

[new_anth]

And is it really fair to the candidates for department members to vote primarily on the basis of their "impressions" of the candidates' personalities and whether they are fun at dinner?

Yes.

I don't really know very much about successful job searches (I'm in the middle of the job market and, like many, I feel "muted pessimism" on my best days) but I will say this: I came back from a campus visit last week where I knew I would say "yes" to an offer based solely on how fun the department was at dinner the very first night.

It was enough for me to know that I would like working, thinking, drinking, and playing with them just from the conversations around the table. Every meal, conversation, presentation afterward just cemented my immediate reaction. It'd be nice if that feeling were mutual (I "mutedly pessimistically" think not).

[marigolds]

That same sc chair asked me if I had defended my diss yet when in fact my application letter stated in the first paragraph that I had just defended it (a topic he and I already discussed at the conference interview.)
On another campus interview, a sc chair asked whether I had worked with a prof who read my diss and whose letter is in my dossier (those are clear indications that I had worked wth the prof).  

I don't remember what each and every student's paper is about off the top of my head, either.

Just because you're the most fascinating and important person in your universe doesn't mean that you are the most fascinating and important person in everyone else's. 

Cut them some slack; they read many, many applications. No need to be offended because they don't have your qualifications engraved upon their hearts. 

[msparticularity]

That same sc chair asked me if I had defended my diss yet when in fact my application letter stated in the first paragraph that I had just defended it (a topic he and I already discussed at the conference interview.)
On another campus interview, a sc chair asked whether I had worked with a prof who read my diss and whose letter is in my dossier (those are clear indications that I had worked wth the prof).  

I don't remember what each and every student's paper is about off the top of my head, either.

Just because you're the most fascinating and important person in your universe doesn't mean that you are the most fascinating and important person in everyone else's.  

Cut them some slack; they read many, many applications. No need to be offended because they don't have your qualifications engraved upon their hearts.  

Also keep in mind that these may be requests for elaboration and further discussion upon the brief mention you will have made in your application materials. Just the fact that you've "answered" the question previously doesn't make it off-limits as a source of conversation to get to know more about you and your ideas and plans.

On the praying issue, I agree that this is beyond the usual expectation--but then again I would think you might have noticed something about the institution's religious mission when you looked at their website, yes?

[sagit]

On my first campus interview, I asked the SC chair at what point in the process he reads letters of recommendation.  "I don't," he replied.  I said nothing.  "Because they're all good," he continued.  "Then how do you decide which applicants to interview?", I asked.  He indicated that "the institutions" that the applicant went to figure in highly.  (I'm not kidding--he said those things.) He added that he never reads more than a few pages of the writing sample either.  That same sc chair asked me if I had defended my diss yet when in fact my application letter stated in the first paragraph that I had just defended it (a topic he and I already discussed at the conference interview.)
On another campus interview, a sc chair asked whether I had worked with a prof who read my diss and whose letter is in my dossier (those are clear indications that I had worked wth the prof). 
And how many times do sc members not even show up for the job talk?  Several times.  And then they have the audacity to say that the job talk was "over the heads" of grad students---after the sc chair told me NOT to dumb down my research for the job talk!  

I've been on plenty of search committees.  I certainly look at the PhD granting institution as one part of the equation.  And I certainly can't remember what every single letter says after going through dozens and dozens of applications.  You should just be happy to have been selected for an interview and able to provide the answer upon request.  I don't see a big problem with only reading the first few paragraphs of a writing sample, especially if the person isn't in my subfield.  I can pretty quickly get a sense of how the person writes and what they're talking about. I was at a teaching focused school so I wasn't so interested in the topic of the research but whether it seemed like the person writing had an idea of how to involve undergrads.   

The comment about having a research talk "over the heads" of the grad students is an important one.  This suggests you need to think about how you can communicate the full content of your research to a more general audience.  It's not about dumbing down - it is about communicating.

[macaroon]

And how many times do sc members not even show up for the job talk? 

When I was on the interview circuit, this was incredibly rare, and I was always told that Prof. Jones was ill, and there was some other evidence that Prof Jones intended to come.  Like, last minute shuffling with my schedule to accommodate Prof. Jones absence.

And then they have the audacity to say that the job talk was "over the heads" of grad students---after the sc chair told me NOT to dumb down my research for the job talk! 

Ooh, well, I agree that this is a communication issue.  I always tell my students that a good presentation of a powerpoint slide has the following information on it:  1) Why I did the experiment.  2) What kind of data is presented in the slide  3) Where are the controls?  4)What are the results and  5) What did those results tell me.  I harp on this whenever they have to present.  I tell them that if they do this, it doesn't matter if the audience understands the data, they'll be able to follow the talk. 

... and then I took them to a national meeting which happened to be local.  They sat through a lot of talks for which they didn't have the relevant background.  At lunch, on the first day, they hunted me down and said, "Prof Macaroon!  Prof Macaroon!  You're right!  The talks we could understand followed exactly your format." 

And is it really fair to the candidates for department members to vote primarily on the basis of their "impressions" of the candidates' personalities and whether they are fun at dinner?

Yes.  You have to work with these people for the rest of your career.  Also, at least in my field, it's important to network.  If you can't have a pleasant dinner with someone, how can you network?

[ecoart]

And why do sc members often ask questions that candidates have already addressed on paper and in phone interviews?  And if they ask for materials, such as diss or book chapters or articles, why don't they read them?
 

We ask you questions that we think will help us get to know you, your research, your teaching, and your service related interests.  Questions get repeated because their are new players in the room or we would like more information for clarification purposes. Even if you've addressed your thoughts on the future of underwater basketweaving at the end of your writing sample, I may ask you to tell us your thoughts on the topic during the faculty meet and greet.  Not everyone in the room will have had the opportunity to read your work.  It is also helpful not to say, "Well, I feel like I answered that earlier." and then proceed to give the exact same answer.  Take the opportunity to go a little deeper.

[larryc]

Hermoine, we understand that your campus interview is the total focus of your life when you visit, as it should be. But it is not nearly as great a focus for us. We scheduled you in between our manifold other duties, our long-standing child care arrangements, and the byzantine schedules of 12 different people including the dean, associate dean, department chair, the search committee members, the crazy colleague who asks inappropriate questions (we wanted to make sure she is in class during your job talk) and the janitor (don't ask).

Even those of us on the search committee have pretty well forgotten the specific details of your application and phone interview from two months ago. Before your talk we were whispering to each other: "Is she the one who studied underwater basket weaving with Cousteau? Or the one who pushed Stephen Hawking down the stairs by accident?" When we chose you to come to campus we had all of your qualifications clearly in mind, we just need some reminders.

Yes we all should have been at your job talk but my son's daycare called and I had to pick up a sick kid, and Susan's favorite advisee was giving a campus-wide talk and receiving an undergraduate research award. No big deal, because we trust the judgement of our colleagues who were there.

From your post here, I am afraid that my colleague at your job talk may tell me that you are smart enough and all that, but seem brittle, entitled and needy. "She'll get a good job, but she is not a good fit for us," she'll tell me. Think hard: Is that the impression that you are giving on your campus interviews?

[posttoastie]

Look, Hermine, do you even want a job where searc comm does go to hear your talk?