UPDATED 4/30 – 7:15pm
Thus far in this series I've relayed some of my experience on how search-committees (at least at teaching schools like mine) evaluate candidates from afar: in terms of fit, originality, time on the market, career-stage, project choices, teaching experience, and online presence. As the comments section in my posts on horse-trading and online presence indicate, not everyone on the hiring-side of things entirely agrees with some of my experiences–but, on the whole, there hasn't been too much disagreement on other issues.
In today's post I'd like to move to a different part of the hiring process: interviews. What comes off well in a job interview? What comes off poorly? I'll just share a few things that have stood out to me, and then open things up to comments. Given that my experience is hiring at a certain type of institution (a teaching institution that also values research), I would very much be curious to hear from people who have hired both at institutions similar to mine, but also ones very different than mine (R1's, CC's, etc.). In any case, here are my thoughts.
Do your homework: my experience is that it is very important to show you know things about and have thought about about the school and department interviewing you. If people ask you which courses of type X you might teach, it's a bad sign if you show no knowledge of their curriculum. A candidate who demonstrates such knowledge (viz. "I could teach your PHL-XXX course, etc") is probably going to look better, all things being equal, that someone who doesn't. Similarly, if asked how you might contribute to the department or university, it's a good idea to again show that you came to the interview prepared and knowing things ("I know that you have an Ethics Bowl team…", "I know that your university has program X…"). If you show little to no familiarity with where you're interviewing, that can look bad. You want this job, you say? Then show you took the time to learn about it!
If a course is listed in the ad, have a detailed explanation prepared for how you would teach it: Many job-ads explicitly state which courses the new hire will be expected to teach. If an ad says the hire will teach Course X, you may be asked in the interview how you would teach it. If you only give a hand-wavy answer to the question–seemingly making up the answer on the spot–chances are that looks bad. You need to say in detail things like: how you will structure the semester, the kinds of daily class activities you might use, the kinds of outcomes-evaluations you'd use (term-papers, final presentations, etc.)–and be able to give some clear pedagogical reason(s) for these things. Why? Because if you don't have these kinds of answers, chances are another candidate will–and they will look much more well-prepared for the interview and qualified for the job. If you haven't taught some course(s) listed in the job ad, you need to find a way to give it some serious thought before the interview. Otherwise, the other candidate(s) who has taught it before and has a detailed answer will probably look better.
Use concrete examples, not platitudes: I mentioned this repeatedly in our Job-Market Boot Camp in the case of dossier materials (cover letters, teaching statements, etc.). If you're asked what kinds of in-class activities you use, don't state generalities like that you diagram arguments in class, engage students in Socratic dialogue, or have students "do group work." Similarly, if you're asked how you handle difficult students or students who fall behind, don't say you try to talk things through or invite them to your office hours. Generalities like these do little to nothing to distinguish you from anyone else: it can make you look like Just Another Candidate. What distinguishes you from other candidates are details: real, actual stories and examples of exactly what you do. Give an example of a difficult student you had, and how you resolved the difficulty with them. Describe an actual assignment or discussion from your class, your rationale for it, and how students benefited from it. Describe your pedagogical rationale(s) for the assignments you give, why you structure the course the way you do, etc. It's the details that matter.
Energy matters: I hate to say this, but the science of hiring and my experience both indicate it matters how you come off in interviews personality-wise. I've been very clear about my skepticism about the value of interviews for these kinds of reasons, and would advocate people on search committees caution each other against judging candidates on their perceived personality. Still, for all that, it almost certainly matters. I know for a fact that my shy, introverted personality worked against me in interviews. I was once told by someone who knew me well whose department interviewed me that I came across as "really subdued, bordering on disinterested"–not at all "myself" as they knew me. Of course, I wasn't trying to come across disinterested. I was actually trying to be calm, as I have a nervous disposition. But I didn't come off calm: I came off cold. And therein lies the problem. It's very well-known that people strongly prefer extraverts in interviews. I wish it weren't a fact. But it is. Candidates need to know this and prepare themselves to try to "come off well." Interviews are, for better or worse (hint: it's worse), a performance. Practice your interviews with someone. Have them evaluate your "energy" and overall comportment. It may make a difference. I did it as a candidate (with my spouse, who specializes in the science of hiring), and it helped.
Emphasize uniqueness: There's got to be something about you that makes you an unique individual–someone a committee should want to hire instead of someone else. I'll be honest: there can one thing about a candidate that puts them over the top–one little, memorable thing that makes them the person you want to hire. It could be anything. It could be that they were the only candidate who actually talked about mentoring student groups (as opposed to spending the whole interview talking about themselves: note – those of us who work at teaching schools care very much about our students, and may want to know the person we hire cares about them as much as we do). Or it could be the wonderful example they gave about dealing with a difficult colleague. Again, the more concrete your are–the more you focus on real events and examples of you in action–the more likely it is that there will be something about that you that stands out.
End-of-interview questions can make or break: You know that throwaway question at the end of every interview, "What questions do you have for us?" Believe it or not, that could well be the most important part of the interview. I've seen it happen on more than one occasion. Why? Because, perhaps more than any other part of the interview, it can reveal your values: the things you care about, and are looking for in the institution you're interviewing at. It can be the candidate who asks the unexpectedly thoughtful question–one that somehow makes it clear as day that they are a perfect fit for this department, for this job–that can put them over the top in the interview. By contrast, perfunctory or ill-conceived questions? Can totally sink a candidate.
UPDATE - Don't give common/"stock" answers: My sense is that there are certain questions search committees can ask that most everyone tends to answer the same way. I won't give any examples of these answers, but consider the following questions, "How do you help struggling students?", "How would you deal with a difficult colleague?", "How do you handle difficult students?", etc. Now ask yourself what the most likely response to these questions are. Nine of out ten people will probably give that answer. It's the candidate who gives a different, more thoughtful answer (through concrete stories!) who is likely to stand out.
Anyway, these are a few things that seem to me to make a difference in interviews. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, and might update the list if I think of anything else. But I'll open it up to others to chime in. To all you current and former search committee members, what kinds of things in your experience look good or bad in interviews? Why?
Leave a Reply