Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. J.P. Loo's avatar
  2. Sebastian Sunday Grève's avatar
  3. Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue's avatar
  4. Fabien Muller's avatar
  7. Saul Smilansky's avatar

Advice for Job Interviews

Brian Leiter

Tad Brennan (Cornell) calls my attention to this useful advice about job interviews at a  hiring convention.   As Professor Brennan writes:  "It’s written by an historian, about the AHA, but the advice carries over directly.  There are a few things one could disagree with, but by and large I think it is very solid advice for people who are going to the APA for the first time."  I agree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 responses to “Advice for Job Interviews”

  1. David Velleman

    Here are some respects in which advice for philosophers might differ from the advice for historians on the site that Tad and Brian have pointed to.

    The most important advice for APA interviews is this: Your goal is to leave the interviewers with the feeling that they have had an interesting, substantive philosophical conversation with you, as they would with a colleague (which you are hoping to be). This goal has several implications.

    (a) Your description of your dissertation or other research need not be an exhaustive summary; what it must contain, however, is enough philosophical substance to lay the groundwork for a discussion. A description that goes "In chapter 1, I do x, and in chapter 2, I do y, …" may leave the interviewers with no follow-up questions to ask. Better to expound one central argument, and leave the other details for the discussion, if they turn out to be relevant.

    (b) The interview takes place under a fiction to the effect that you already are a colleague. Do not violate the terms of this fiction with self-deprecating comments about your job-search, your performance as an interviewee, your nervousness, and so on. You may think that such remarks break the ice, but they also break the suspension of disbelief.

    (c) When you do not know how to answer a question, do not under any circumstances stall for time (as the historian suggests). Treat the situation as you would in a discussion among colleagues. By all means, ask for clarification of the question if you really need clarification, but not as a stalling tactic. Try to "think through" the issue aloud, along with your interviewers, to show that you can do philosophy "on your feet". Throw out ideas about the directions in which you would look for answer, if you had time ("Well, in order to figure this out, I'd have to figure that out first. I'll have to think about that.") And of course always feel free to admit that you're stuck. Remember: a job interview is not your oral dissertation defense.

    (d) Feel free to refer to the work of an interviewer if you already know it, but do not study up on the interviewers' work (as the historian suggests) in order to make such references in the interview. If the interviewer's work isn't well enough known that you already know it without having to look it up, then the interviewer himself knows this about his work, and he'll just feel that you're trying to butter him up. This makes you look like a student, not a colleague.

    Two further points:

    APA interviewers (unlike AHA interviewers, it seems) have the absurd expectation that, when asked how you would teach a particular course in your AOS or AOCs, you will be able to rattle off a syllabus — specific readings, by author and title. Of course, you could easily look these things up in the week before the semester starts, but for some reason interviewers think that it's a measure of competence. So you should prepare these reading-lists in advance.

    The historian recommends preparing very specific questions about the interviewers' institution and department. Here, too, there is a danger of appearing over-prepared. If your question shows that you've been digging around in their website, they may wonder why you have nothing better to do with your time. You should certainly know some basic facts about the department, but don't go overboard.

    Reply
  2. Fritz Warfield

    I'm surprised that David thinks it's "absurd" to expect that a candidate will have fairly specific ideas (and at least a draft of a syllabus) in mind for teaching a majors level course in one's AOS.

    Here's an example: Notre Dame is searching in ancient philosophy this year. Perhaps a candidate will be asked to describe how he or she would teach a majors level survey of ancient philosophy. One isn't merely being asked about a syllabus with such a question. But a good answer would presumably include reference to specific authors and readings. What/who would be included and excluded for a one semester course?

    In past interviewing I have seen a candidate interviewing for a job described as "AOS: philosophy of science" answer "I don't know; I've never really thought about it" when asked how he would teach a majors level philosophy of science course. This did count against the candidate and presumably David would agree that this was not a great answer. Another bad answer, it seems to me, would be any answer including a remark like "I'd decide on some readings for the course the week before the classes starts" – one hopes, at least where I teach, that new junior colleagues will put more into class preparation and the construction of reading lists than that.

    Lastly, David's remarks apply most relevantly to interviews that spend at least a significant portion of the time on research. Many interviews are like this but many are not. I base that on the reported interview experiences of my own students with a variety of kinds of instituations over the past decade. Some interviews focus entirely on teaching, with questions about educational goals, educational "philosophy", and nuts-and-bolts classroom approach, among other things. Oh, and yes….absurd-or-not, questions about proposed class readings are quite common. It's best to have well thought answers for these too.

    Reply
  3. David Velleman

    Well, let me put it the other way around. Anyone can memorize a list of readings for a range of courses in specified AOS and AOCs. (And most job candidates do just that.) Rarely can a hiring committee learn much from the candidate's choice of readings.

    The historian's advice, which I was trying to supplement, describes a very sensible discussion of teaching methods and philosophy. And, yes, some interviews will be devoted primarily to a discussion of teaching. I was pointing out that candidates shouldn't count on the discussion's being quite so sensible as the historian describes.

    Of course, one should be able to answer the question "How would you teach a course in X?" And the answer shouldn't give the impression that one is clueless about the relevant readings. But being able to reel off a list of readings doesn't prove anything.

    Reply
  4. Fritz Warfield

    David,
    With that clarification, I take it we mostly agree. Because I agree with you that *merely* running off a list of readings is a poor answer to a "how would you teach X?" question. And we can surely agree that a ritual of asking such questions and then pretending that running through a memorized list of readings is on its own a good answer is absurd.

    We also agree that having some reasonably well thought out ideas for a reading list for a course in a candidate's AOS is a good idea. There is, of course, much more to a course than a reading list and therefore more to talk about when discussing how a candidate would teach a course than the reading list. I trust that we agree that it's not absurd for these topics to come up in interviews.

    Reply
  5. doris

    David Velleman offers excellent advice. A couple of further thoughts:

    1. When you get the "tell us about your dissertation" question (order), keep it short. Please. Really. Five minutes is enough, less would be better. The committee (one hopes) knows your work, and long presentations therefore risk crushing tedium. Do enough to establish some talking points, show that you can give an assured presentation, and then get to the discussion, which tends to be a lot more enjoyable (and people like *you* more when *they're* talking). This of course assumes that you have enough control of your topic to handle a reasonably detailed discussion with professionals; if you're not there yet, wait until next year.

    2. Among the best advice I've gotten on interview technique is from Mark Crimmins: "Make everyone glad they asked a question." This does not mean you have to preface every answer with "that's a good question" — though I've seen this work to excellent effect, even though everyone knows what the game is. It does mean that you must at all costs avoid seeming a condescending jerk, by doing things like offering answers with tones like "I thought that was a reasonable objection for ten minutes when I was first working on my project three years ago, but . . . ." The best interview is one where everyone has *fun*.

    3. I disagree slightly with David (and reluctantly, since he was my placement director!) regards researching departments, and making this evident. While it is very true that you want to present as a colleague, many people interviewing you will, whether they know it or not, want to see a bit of a suppliant. Interviewers will of course vary regards the extent to which they are feeling professionally insecure, but it probably doesn't sink you to acknowledge the obvious excellence of them and their department. Appearing to make the extra effort will likely help you with many institutions, esp. those that are worrying whether or not the could successfully recruit and retain you.

    4. I share David's cynicism about the diagnostic value of "how would you teach a course about Quine on Boethius" question (partly because I am generally cynical about the diagnostic value of convention interviews, but that's another thread). I'm with Fritz though, on the advisability of having draft syllabi for a range of courses. People expect this, and it is an excellent (and calming) way to prepare for the teaching components of interviews. I would stress, with both Fritz and David, that the right preparation is not just compiling a list of readings, but involves working out story arcs for interesting and challenging courses (remember the fun bit). The teaching component of the interview is another chance to display your philosophical vision and vivacity, though you must of course also display sensitivity to the needs and interests of students.

    Good luck!

    doris

    Reply
  6. A.P. Taylor

    First, thanks doctors Velleman, Warfield, and Doris for their advice. a few questions: suppose that one's AOS is simply "metaphysics", must one then have firmly in mind how one would teach on, say, Hume's metaphysics specifically, with a reading list of the major works on that subject? And likewise, mutatis mutandis, for every moajor metaphysician? That seems tedious. Ir is it the case that if I work primarily in philosophy of time and/or personal identity, I am beter off dropping the general AOS and going for something as specific as possible?

    Reply
  7. Robert Johnson

    This is an excellent discussion. Candidates should also keep in mind that from the perspective of many interviewers, the process is (as my own adviser put it) less like picking a dance partner and more like deciding to get married. In the minds of many who are doing the hiring, a critical issue is one of fit with the department. When you don't have a job, you'll take pretty much any job offered, and it is hard to get oneself out of that mindset when on the job market. It would be wise, however, before an interview with any given department to think a bit about how your training, interests and abilities complement or enhance the department you are asking to become a member of. In some cases and dimensions, this is obvious: Department X needs an ancient philosopher and you do that. However, the difference between one candidate and another is most often not the intrinsic nature of their research interests and teaching abilities. It is in how this given candidate fits in with the interests and abilities of other members of the department. That question does not have a black or white answer, since different candidates will fit differently into the same department, by complementing different dimensions of the department. But it will be worth your while to have in mind at least some idea of what you bring to the table in this regard.

    Reply
  8. doris

    A. P. Taylor: To a certain extent, one cannot preclude the possibility for difficulty here, since your perfectly reasonable omission may be your interviewer's lifelong obsession. I once interviewed for an AOC ancient job at an undergraduate program (ancient was my primary interest from undergrad through the first year or so of grad school), and was abused by a member of the hiring department for my lack of facility with Aquinas' views on Aristotle's theory of mind. You can't cover everything, especially early in your career, and if someone is set on embarrassing you (say because they're backing someone else), there's only so much you can do. That said, philosophy is a discipline with a rich sense of its history, and you'd better know, at least in a general way, what major figures thought or think about things you advertise as teaching or research interests. For example, someone working on causation had better have the rough outline of "Hume on causation" in hand, on pain of awkward moments in interviews. Judgments may differ as to which omissions are unforgivable (I'm still a bit hazy on Aquinas on Aristotle on mind), but you get the idea. (Btw, the old "preliminary exams" some PhD programs used to [and may still] require were an excellent way to get the needed general, "cocktail party," philosophical literacy, but that's another thread.)

    doris

    Reply
  9. Matt Deaton

    Excellent article and discussion! Thanks for all the wonderful advice. With lots of work experience outside of academia (military, industrial, media, office), I've been through my share of interviews, but I expect my next (go on the job market full force fall 2009) to be a real challenge.

    Doris: I've found the Cambridge Dictionary of Phil a wonderful resource for acquiring that general "every philosopher should know at least this much about x" sort of background. There's still SO much to read in that thing though, so you just have to follow your interests. I would say the Stanford Encyclopedia online is a good resource for that too, but really, it often goes into such excellent depth that perhaps it's best reserved for polishing competence, not cocktail trivia.

    Robert: "…and if someone is set on embarrassing you (say because they're backing someone else), there's only so much you can do." I'm NOT looking forward to those sorts of interview politics, but I know they're part of it.

    —Matt—

    Reply
  10. Matt Weiner

    Doris wrote: "When you get the "tell us about your dissertation" question (order), keep it short. Please. Really. Five minutes is enough, less would be better. The committee (one hopes) knows your work, and long presentations therefore risk crushing tedium."

    This is excellent advice, but I must add one caveat, from my very limited experience: It certainly should be the case (at least in research-focused interviews) that at least some people have read your file with a fair amount of care, but there may well be people there who haven't read your paper, or haven't read it that closely; especially in big interview committees (or committees where they're interviewing lots of people, say for multiple jobs). It all depends on how the committee divides the labor. The ones who are most familiar with your work should be the ones who ask most of the questions, but you still want to make your presentation accessible to everyone else. In fact, that might be thought to be one of the skills you're supposed to demonstrate.

    One related issue here is that there will be people on the committee who don't specialize in what you do, and in most cases one of the things you'll need to do is convince them that your work is interesting. I don't mean convincing the specialist in ancient ethics that their field has many lessons to learn from your dissertation on the philosophy of quantum mechanics, but giving them something of an idea of what you're about. Your goal in an interview will probably be different than your goal in an APA talk, because the target audience is probably different.

    Reply
  11. doris

    Matt's caveat is well taken. –jmd

    Reply
  12. Eddy Nahmias

    Two points:
    1. For better or worse, faculty on job committees will often look at your website if you have one. So, you should be sure you have all and only what you want them to see there (i.e., your published papers … yes, the picture of you playing beer pong … no?). It is actually quite useful for faculty on job committees to be able to get what they need on your website (CV, writing sample, etc.), since that allows them to work on this tireless task away from the physical files (and to avoid sending huge documents through email). Indeed, in the ideal future, people would email a cover letter and say, "See my job application materials at http://www.pleasehire/me.com" and trees would be saved.
    2. Beyond the obvious advice to make eye contact at interviews, I would add to make eye contact with *everyone*. Some interviewers are better at nodding at the interesting things you say or looking at you or interacting in other normal human ways. You will find yourself looking at those people more and more and at the others less and less. But don't forget to look at and talk to the others too.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress