I'm on the demand side and had a really uncomfortable experience with candidate. He was going through his memorized job talk. He got asked a question and knocked off track. He couldn't regain his train of thought and floundered for about 4 minutes. Just sitting there saying nothing. Talk about awkward pause. He asked if he could start over and, of course, we let him. He tried to do it again but couldn't seem to focus. Finally, he stood up and got his coat and said he couldn't do it and left. I felt bad for the guy but what if he were in one of our classrooms? He's got to be able to answer a question and continue.
Poor Guy...
-
If your story is true, you've just magnified his embarassment about the whole experience immensely. You couldn't provide the useful, albeit obvious, advice "be ready to think on your feet", without giving us the gory details. I hope this is a joke. If not you're a douche.
-
No, that is not douchey. It's a credible account so that candidates know what to be ready for. It is also a way of sympathizing with the guy without apologizing (since they couldn't have moved forward with those issues).
If your skin is so thin that you think this is a douchey move, academia won't be pleasant for you. We all make mistakes. Others give us feedback so we continue learning and improving.
-
Just because somebody panics in an interview doesn't mean that they aren't capable of teaching a class. I wouldn't hire that guy to be an air traffic controller or something, but I wouldn't automatically disqualify someone because of something like that. I had a professor as an undergrad who was very jumpy and nervous in class. Supposedly he had been so nervous on his flyout that half of what he said didn't even make sense. The guy has gone on to have a successful career, though.
-
Supposedly he had been so nervous on his flyout that half of what he said didn't even make sense. The guy has gone on to have a successful career, though.
---
Does show though that interviews don't really matter - unless you **** up supremely. Else, how did he ever get a flyout? There must have been enough people who did make sense, yet they proceeded with someone who didn't.
-
2c36, given that the poor guy was not named there is no reason for embarrasment, in contrast to when named people get trashed here, which happens all the time.
I am demand side and have seen things like this happen quite a lot, although this was worse than most. In general, even if you get knocked off course, do not just go into a funk and say nothing. Go with the flow. Saying nothing is indeed death. Sure, b950, maybe such a person may prove to be a good teacher, researcher, paper presenter, whatever, but no search committee in its right mind is going to invite a candidate who pulls that for a flyout when there are almost certainly plenty of others who do not.
-
"Does show though that interviews don't really matter"
No. If the story is true (second-hand-at-best account on an anonymous msg. board), to goes to show that for at least one employer, even a bad interview may be counteracted by other strengths. Hardly "interviews don't matter."
It does strongly suggest that you either failed, or failed to take, an elementary logic class somewhere along the line though.
-
None of the last several posts read what b950m wrote. There was nothing there about his interview. What was there was that he did not do all that well during his flyout. Presumably he did better in his interview, which got him the flyout. It often happens that people perform more poorly on flyouts than during interviews.
-
^ Most don't since they already have in mind who they would like to fly out and are just testing if their priors are horribly wrong. Few want to be proven wrong, so few people challenge candidates in interviews. The most likely situation you would encounter this, is in settings where there is disagreement between members of the interviewing group regarding who they should fly out.
-
Sure, b950, maybe such a person may prove to be a good teacher, researcher, paper presenter, whatever, but no search committee in its right mind is going to invite a candidate who pulls that for a flyout when there are almost certainly plenty of others who do not.
---
Why not? If I had someone ranked as the top candidate prior to the ASSAs, I would almost defintely advocate for still flying them out even if they panicked during their interview. Smart search committees put very little weight on this part of the process, it provides little additional information relative to JMPs, letters, and pedigree. -
Both 95c1 and b950 are completely wrong. I doubt either has ever been on a hiring committee. It is very rare that any school is quite clear prior to the meetings on whom they wish to fly out. If they are, they do not waste the time and mony on going to the meetings. Believe me, it is a real pain in the ass, all that interviewing.
It is generally true that the committees will have done some rankings and will be coming in with some priors as to who looks more more interesting than whom. It is also more often the case than not that there are at least some disagreements within the committee as well as in the department, although these vary in severity substantially. In any case, when committees come in to interview, you had better believe it that the interviews matter. People can walk in looking good and fall flat on their faces, and they will not get invited for a flyout, unless somebody else in the department who did not interview and is very powerful insiste on it. Get real, folks. Interviews drive the flyouts, period.
-
5f6e, I have not been on a search committee, but I am an AP who was almost on one recently and spent a considerable amount of time talking to other people about it. If you think everyone else sees things the way that you are describing, it is you who is completely wrong. Sure, there are people on hiring committees who don't really think much about what they are doing and want to make the hire based on how much they personally like the candidates. Those people will put a lot of weight on the interview. But other people actually do take the approach of objectively trying to make the best hire, and from that perspective JMPs, letters, etc. are all much more informative than how someone comes across in a 30 minute interview. Interviews do give you some information, but if you really want to make the best hire, it's not rational to let the interviews drive the flyouts.
-
I'll take back the "period," but note that I said people on the committees come into the interviews with priors. Those are obviously based on all this other stuff you mention, and they strongly influence things. It is very hard for someone near the bottom of the priors list to move up to an actual flyout. But among the higher group, the interviews become decisive, at least at most places.