Close

Complete Captcha

• 11 months - 93 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 230 Goods vs 93 No Goods

1. Economist
   c5ff
   

   Just returned from Atlanta. We interviewed about 25 applicants for other position. I was really blown away by the variance in the amount of background research candidates had done on our university/department. Some were able to reference the research areas of the interviewers...others seemed not to know much more than what state we are in.

   Obviously the amount of time you have to spend on any given position is a function of the number of interviews you have and your (ex ante) interest in the job. However, it seems to me that too many candidates put little to no effort in preparing to meet with us. A few of our committee members were highly swayed by this fact.

   If you happen to get a flyout somewhere, SPEND TIME DOING YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU GO.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 17 Good 26 No Good !

2. Economist
   0f25
   

   You should see a therapist.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 9 No Good !

3. Economist
   9550
   

   Same thing every year. What’s especially interesting: Those who are reach candidates for us (and have the weakest incentive to prepare well) are almost always well prepared. And those who are the least well prepared (where you think they probably have many much better options than us) almost always fail the market utterly and apply back to us the next year from whatever third world visiting gig they were able to get.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 1 No Good !

4. Economist
   44af
   

   Obviously the amount of time you have to spend on any given position is a function of the number of interviews you have and your (ex ante) interest in the job.

   Then why are you surprised by the variance if this is obvious? Obviously some people were more interested in your job than others. Why would this be in any way surprising?

   Seems like either you enjoy posting comments with zero-information, or you're some kind of an idiot.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 8 No Good !

5. Economist
   e546
   

   no one cares about your school, it seems

   11 months ago # QUOTE 7 Good 1 No Good !

6. Economist
   7975
   

   Same thing every year. What’s especially interesting: Those who are reach candidates for us (and have the weakest incentive to prepare well) are almost always well prepared. And those who are the least well prepared (where you think they probably have many much better options than us) almost always fail the market utterly and apply back to us the next year from whatever third world visiting gig they were able to get.

   LRMs are LRMs for a reason and it's often lower work ethic and common sense.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 5 No Good !

7. Economist
   3277
   

   Serious question, how V is OP's LRM?

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 2 No Good !

8. Economist
   f1e2
   

   Same thing every year. What’s especially interesting: Those who are reach candidates for us (and have the weakest incentive to prepare well) are almost always well prepared. And those who are the least well prepared (where you think they probably have many much better options than us) almost always fail the market utterly and apply back to us the next year from whatever third world visiting gig they were able to get.

   LRMs are LRMs for a reason and it's often lower work ethic and common sense.

   This very much. Good candidates have good common sense and know enough to review interviewers interests, ask actually good questions, etc. LRMs and lemons so often just fail at this.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 2 No Good !

9. Economist
   bdf1
   

   I have mixed feelings about the original post. As a JMC, you should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a group. Nonetheless, it strikes me as odd that this would be an important determinant of the quality of the CANDIDATE. JMCs are most focused on conveying their quality. To ask a JMC to prepare by knowing about all of the potential interviewers and their interests is unfair for a hotel interview. Even for a flyout, you are better off asking each faculty member about their current research.

   It just seems to me that OP had hurt feelings because he/she felt that the JMCs did not talk more about him/her; which seems petty.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 15 Good 5 No Good !

10. Economist
    9550
    

    I have mixed feelings about the original post. As a JMC, you should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a group. Nonetheless, it strikes me as odd that this would be an important determinant of the quality of the CANDIDATE. JMCs are most focused on conveying their quality. To ask a JMC to prepare by knowing about all of the potential interviewers and their interests is unfair for a hotel interview. Even for a flyout, you are better off asking each faculty member about their current research.
    It just seems to me that OP had hurt feelings because he/she felt that the JMCs did not talk more about him/her; which seems petty.

    Wrong. Candidates must convey much more than their quality.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 10 Good 4 No Good !

11. Economist
    c5ff
    

    Seems like either you enjoy posting comments with zero-information, or you're some kind of an idiot.

    I'm not sure if it was the all caps in my final sentence but something in my post sure triggered you.

    I'm not "surprised" as I've seen this multiple years. I agree with the poster that noted that preparation is frequently negatively correlated with candidate quality. The candidates that are too good for us, in general, are often better prepared than the candidates that *should* be a fairly good match with us. Grad school rank does not seem to be the main factor.

    Unless you had 25 or 30 interviews, my own personal opinion is that you should have done 10 minutes of Google searching for each of your jobs. Some of the angry responders in this thread seem to be triggered by this suggestion. That's fine. No good me. I still think it is worthwhile advice for future JMCs.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 1 No Good !

12. Economist
    b335
    

    a senior I talked to said one should always be prepared to answer why one wants a job at an organization in a place.

    regardless of the academic nature, it is a job search. The answer to the question shows whether you seriously plan your career path or not.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 6 Good 0 No Good !

13. Economist
    6f3d
    

    JMC here. I applied to many places and received invitations from places with a mutual interest in research; and I was pleasantly surprised. For each interview, I could talk about my research and there was an obvious mutual interest.

    Moreover, there was absolutely no time to talk about the interviewers’ research within a 30 minute slot. I did have one interview where one person was hinting that he wrote a paper on my JMP subject. However, his statement was completely awkward and felt like he was badgering me for a citation.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 1 No Good !

14. Economist
    b58d
    

    Maybe next time let JMCs know who the interviewers are so they can be looked up.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 6 Good 0 No Good !

15. Economist
    e7ca
    

    You do not seem too bright. The post states that JMCs should be aware of the group’s characteristics. However, the post also correctly states that JMCs place most of their emphasis on communicating their quality.

    Reminder: MOST is not equal to ALL.

    I have mixed feelings about the original post. As a JMC, you should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a group. Nonetheless, it strikes me as odd that this would be an important determinant of the quality of the CANDIDATE. JMCs are most focused on conveying their quality. To ask a JMC to prepare by knowing about all of the potential interviewers and their interests is unfair for a hotel interview. Even for a flyout, you are better off asking each faculty member about their current research.
    It just seems to me that OP had hurt feelings because he/she felt that the JMCs did not talk more about him/her; which seems petty.

    Wrong. Candidates must convey much more than their quality.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

16. Economist
    1524
    

    Great selection criteria. We should forgot research at all and just make personal quizzes to candidates.

    "Worthing 200 answer the question: What is the name of my dog? a)Toto, b) Nana or c) Friedman"

    11 months ago # QUOTE 7 Good 1 No Good !

17. Economist
    c5ff
    

    OP here. I do NOT expect candidates to mention interviewer publications...I was simply pointing out that some candidates DID incorporate this information and it stood out as quite a contrast between candidates that researched in advance and ones that appeared to know nothing.

    I was more shocked by candidates that were completely unaware of information that is very clearly displayed on multiple department web pages.

    This is certainly not the most important factor in evaluating a candidate but it would be inaccurate to say that it is not a marginal factor when comparing two fairly similar candidates. You have to remember that we are betting that one of our three flyouts will ultimately end up as being a good fit.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

18. Economist
    a682
    

    ^the answer of course is d) Taleb

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

19. Economist
    9397
    

    Sure. Ok, let’s go with this for a moment. Please offer examples.

    I was more shocked by candidates that were completely unaware of information that is very clearly displayed on multiple department web pages.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

20. Economist
    6ce3
    

    Obviously the amount of time you have to spend on any given position is a function of the number of interviews you have and your (ex ante) interest in the job.

    Then why are you surprised by the variance if this is obvious? Obviously some people were more interested in your job than others. Why would this be in any way surprising?
    Seems like either you enjoy posting comments with zero-information, or you're some kind of an idiot.

    It amazes me people who post calling others idiots after making poorly thought out comments. Good luck next year on the market.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

Reply »