|
Post by In search of on Dec 18, 2014 10:51:44 GMT -5
If you are interviewing for a job you would take if offered, tell someone on the committee you're serious, especially if it's not a conventional top 20 graduate program. It will not hurt your negotiating power and it will keep the search committee from going back to the applicant pool for a more enthusiastic candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Maybe I'm naive on Dec 18, 2014 12:01:11 GMT -5
but don't all candidates do this, even if they're not actually enthusiastic? Which leaves the search committee to identify enthusiasm in other ways?
|
|
a little subjective?
Guest
|
Post by a little subjective? on Dec 19, 2014 0:13:11 GMT -5
Measuring enthusiasm sounds extremely subjective and seems to put the burden of proof on introverts while leaving the extroverts with a huge advantage. All acting aside, maybe search committees should understand that if a candidate is there, the person is interested. Otherwise, they wouldn't have applied in the first place, considering many of us tailor our applications, or taken time out of their schedule to fly out. But perhaps I, like the previous poster, am simply naive too.
|
|
a take from a candidate
Guest
|
Post by a take from a candidate on Dec 19, 2014 18:43:03 GMT -5
Here's my take on this from the perspective of a job candidate.
Search committees shouldn't play mind readers. If they're wondering if a person is serious, why not simply ask the candidate: would you take the job if offered? I personally don't want to come across as disingenuous, so if I haven't visited a city, state, or school--which often is the case--it sounds over the top to say that I am so excited based off of scouring a website.
Personally I think it is unfair that SC committees judge the level of enthusiasm of people they have never interacted with the previously. It could be that someone is very enthusiastic in their mind, but maybe not outwardly enough for the search committee. I know that this is done because people don't want a failed search when no one accepts offers, but clearly that is a result of SC's misreading candidate's "enthusiasm," people saying they would love the job and doing the opposite.
I was recently on a campus visit where I didn't even meet the entire search committee due to their prior engagements, so it seems pretty unfair if some candidates get to interact with all members who are making hiring decisions versus other candidates like myself who are shortchanged due to missing SC members and canceled meetings.
I would hate to see a candidate not given an offer just because SC members doubted a candidate's enthusiasm, especially when they just could have asked.
|
|
|
Post by coded language on Dec 19, 2014 18:54:14 GMT -5
"Enthusiasm" = excuse used to give a job to a less qualified candidate
I have heard of teaching institutions giving jobs to candidates with no pubs, for "research institutions" to offer a position to candidates with no pubs or 1 minor pub because of "enthusiasm" is a joke.
I understand SCs have their ways, but I would feel slighted if I got sidestepped over a less qualified person only because they are perceived to be more enthusiastic. I thought productivity was a great way to show enthusiasm, but maybe not anymore.
|
|
|
Post by scmember on Dec 19, 2014 19:24:46 GMT -5
I am serving in a search committee right now. The search committee will be meeting in early January to select people to do phone interviews with. I have just printed out a little over 250 pages of application materials from all candidates to read over the break. This is a little over 70 applications. I am not at a prestigious institution. This is a teaching university with a 4-4 load, and our salary for assistant professors is in the bottom quartile, according to the AAUP survey. This is also a public institution in a state that has had no real raises in a few years.
The number of qualified candidates is amazing. The 15 or so that I have set aside so far in my list (which is not yet the committee's list) all have multiple publications (with at least 1 first authored), all have teaching experience in the areas we need teaching, and all have very positive recommendation letters. Right now, it would be extremely difficult for me to make a decision on one over the others.
Given that, I must also recognize that we are not the most attractive of institutions. As a cash strapped state institution, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be able to outbid other offers. As such, I must also think about who is going to come here. Now, unfortunately we will have to make our decision with limited information. We will have to pick only a few to do phone interviews with, and from those choose even fewer to interview in person. I, and the other committee members, are fully aware that phone interviews are not the best representations of a candidate's characteristics. We are aware that they are pressure filled small slices of time where it is perfectly possible for an otherwise extraordinary candidate to bomb. We also know that even in interviews we might simply get an incomplete picture. Everyone has bad days, bad trips, etc. I, at least, am fully aware that there might be a billion things that I might be missing or not considering. But here's the thing: that is what is in front of me, and that is what I must base my choices on. I don't mean this to sound insensitive. I fully sympathize with job candidates. Hell, when I was on the market I interviewed at my dream job and lost the position to someone who then went on to leave 2 years later, and part of me felt like saying "see, you made the wrong choice, assholes."
Unfortunately, that is the state of the market. And unfortunately, with so many candidates so qualified (I might say even overqualified) for our job, it may very well come down to enthusiasm, extroversion, etc. Not because we think it is perfect or fair, but because it is what we have to go on. If I could, I'd have 3 day interviews with all 70+ applicants. But I can't. So it comes down to what I can see in terms of qualifications and of whether the person will want to be here, knowing full well we might make the wrong choice (in a situation where there are multiple right ones). It is unfortunate that we have to judge people based on 2 page cover letters, 20 minute phone interviews, and then portions of a stress filled day. But that is what we get. And with such limited information, it ends that apparent enthusiasm for the position will inevitably count, even if we know very well that it may not correlate to actual enthusiasm.
|
|
thanks a take from a candidate
Guest
|
Post by thanks a take from a candidate on Dec 19, 2014 20:24:47 GMT -5
I recently interviewed at a place that I was very interested in and did not get an offer. I felt that I may not have been given a fair chance because there were multiple tenured faculty in the department who I did not meet. At my current institution, we have hired several people since I have been there and I can not think of any time when the 15 candidates who we interviewed did not meet with every person in the department. Of course I understand that people are on sabbatical, have other obligations, etc., but I was still very taken aback when I received my interview schedule. It is just comforting to know that it wasn't personal and this sort of thing happens. However, it is disheartening when you don't get an offer and you wonder about how those who didn't meet you contributed to the decision.
|
|
|
Post by op-ed on Dec 20, 2014 15:38:16 GMT -5
For me, it is not about privileging extroversion, it's about a candidate appearing to have done some homework on a department and a university -- appearing to have at least read the department webpage, at a minimum -- asking questions, acting interested, and generally not giving the appearance that there are a million other places one would rather be.
|
|
sharp
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by sharp on Dec 20, 2014 16:14:53 GMT -5
I totally agree with op-ed. It isn't so much about being extroverted and jumping up and down, but signaling genuine interest by the questions you ask, the homework you've done on the department, etc. At my R1, every year we seem to have at least one candidate who is openly disdainful of the job, faculty, location, etc., leading us to wonder why they even bothered to apply. These candidates act like we are "practice" for an interview at a better institution.
|
|
|
Post by scmember on Dec 20, 2014 16:27:03 GMT -5
I agree with Sharp, as well. Back when I was a graduate student my R1 was interviewing a person who openly said he'd doubt his wife would want to live where we were, and that it would take real convincing to get her to move. You can imagine how well that went over.
|
|
|
Post by great on Dec 23, 2014 13:54:58 GMT -5
So the picture I sent of myself decked out in my top choice's gear, waiving their pennant, was USELESS.
|
|
|
Post by SC Guest on Dec 24, 2014 9:09:33 GMT -5
This was my first year on a search committee and I can say that I was shocked my the process. I am at a regional comprehensive and basically anyone with a decent research record from a good program was strongly distrusted. The committee did an excellent job finding ways to dismiss the stronger candidate in favor of the weaker one. My advice is that if you are coming from a top school and want to be at a school where research is undervalued, teaching prioritized, and that is located in a geographically undesirable area, you need to make a strong case for why you want to be there specifically. I feel bad for the person we passed over. I would be so frustrated looking at the wiki if I were that person after the name of the hire comes out. I still don't know how I got hired.
|
|
|
Post by whatskillingme on Dec 24, 2014 11:39:27 GMT -5
is having multiple respectable pubs with others in process and basically no interviews yet. interview me someone, just please, for the love of god ive applied to more than 100 places. ill take any job and you can even decide if i focus mostly on the students or if I become an article machine when i get there (hell, you can even negotiate pistol whipping me every monday morning in my contract if it means i get work, i couldnt say no at this point). if you folks pass me over because youre scared i wont be interested or will pack up and leave for greener pastures in a couple years, stop right there, youre at the same time only muscling me straight into slinging coffee/crippling depression in the long run in favor of the safety you perceive with all these one to zero pub folks you keep hiring over me. my desperation as my life falls completely apart ought to be enthusiasm enough, no?
|
|
|
Post by That's me on Dec 24, 2014 12:30:58 GMT -5
I am the applicant about whom SC Guest was talking, and it's horrible. Please, just let me teach! I'm so sorry I went to a top program for grad school and as such ended up in a research-oriented first job, but now I'm stuck as an advanced AP with a decent publication record trying to get the hell out of this place for a long list of very good reasons. I actually changed my application letters about halfway through the semester be less "professional" and more honest, and that seems to have helped, but really it's come down networking, where someone can vouch for me, that I really do want to be there. Geesh.
|
|
|
Post by kinda on Dec 24, 2014 12:50:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't assume that the reason either of you aren't having much success is because your record is too good. It's just an insanely tight market, still. Yes, some departments will be skeptical of certain applicants. My first job we were always very skeptical of certain people. I was at an open access institution with exactly zero research support (or less than zero - my dean actually made me cancel my ASA trip to serve on incoming student orientation). So if someone from, say, an ivy, who only has experience teaching ivy league students, and who is very published applied, we'd need to see some really good reason why they'd want to come there and how they could adapt to the institution. Not because we were afraid they wouldn't come, but because we needed to know that this person could do the job (teaching non-traditional students in an open access institution is VERY different from teaching at an elite school).
But for every department that is skeptical of people with too much of a research record or prestigious background, there are schools who are completely enamored with climbing up the ranks and will clearly overshoot. I am not going to mention names, but I will give a couple of examples that I am sure some people here will recognize: there was a SLAC who had a dean that overruled a search committee's decision not once, but twice. The dean wanted the candidate with the more prestigious CV instead of the ones who interviewed better. And right now there is a directional state university who is about to have a failed search twice in three years because they are once again going after someone with a sole authored ajs/asr. I am sure some people know which one I am referring to, since it is one that has been discussed in this forum.
So the best thing you can do is clearly demonstrate why you want a job and would be good at it. Which goes back to the original point of the thread.
|
|