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. Jason Stanley's avatar
  2. Daniel Greco's avatar
  3. Nobody's avatar
  4. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  5. Santa Monica's avatar
  6. Optimistic about LLM's avatar
  7. Ben M-Y's avatar

Should Departments Be Required to Rent “Suites” at the APA Hotel for Interview Purposes?

Brian Leiter

Deborah Mayo (Virginia Tech) writes:

Am I the only female who thinks it silly in 2010 to force departments to pay many hundreds of dollars (coming right out of our budget) to exclude a certain piece of furniture in the interview room?  In the past, at least it sufficed to hide the b__ behind a screen (for which hotels charged quite a bit extra).  To create what they call "made" suites this year, one must pay for two rooms, but one is guaranteed cot-free (nor does it suffice to drag the offensive item out each interview morning). Isn't there already sufficient incentive to be 100% professional at interviews?  Is being interviewed behind closed doors in a suite more acceptable than in a room containing a b__, as opposed to a couch, or a screened bed? does it really help to shroud beds, cots, or couches?  (It's a bit like shrouding females to insure no unwanted attention?)

Kick the bed to the side, sit on a chair!

Thoughts from readers?  Signed comments preferred, though job seekers may post without putting their name in the signature line.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

50 responses to “Should Departments Be Required to Rent “Suites” at the APA Hotel for Interview Purposes?”

  1. Julia

    I have not been through the APA interview process yet, and I had no idea that hotels charge a lot for hiding a bed or taking it out of a room. I agree that it is silly to pay a lot of money for having the hotel do that. As long as there are enough chairs and enough space for people to sit and talk to each other, having a bed in the room does not strike me as weird. It's a hotel room after all.
    I assume, though, that this would be a room that is not also being used as a bedroom by one of the faculty members. I would definitely feel weird in that case.

    Reply
  2. P Steck

    I think that if a department insists on forcing applicants to attend a conference for an interview that could happen on the phone, then the least they should do is to have a comfortable and professional place to hold that interview. The supposed purpose of the conference is to keep the profession together as a group and to share ideas, so the interviews should be in a professional setting.

    Of course, there are plenty of comfortable, professional rooms on their own campuses. Why not spend the conference money to bring out a couple of extra excellent candidates for full interviews?

    Reply
  3. Job-seeking Woman Grad Student

    Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that it is necessary to mount a defense of the claim that it is unfair to job seekers to force them to interview in bedrooms. The interview process–in any field, particularly one in which jobs are so scarce–is already so hard on applicants that it seems absurd to impose the additional factor of requiring them to cope with the awkwardness of being in a stranger's bedroom. (And in this respect, I would suggest that, no, merely "shrouding" the bed is not enough; if a department chooses to interview behind closed doors, it is fairer to the candidates to secure a suite whose interview-room actually resembles an interview-room.)

    Beyond this gender-neutral consideration, however, I would add that being at the APA as a young woman philosopher can feel a bit like being an exotic animal for which everyone is on the lookout. It is unpleasant enough preparing for, or walking to, an interview or talk while being stared at (or more)–though many of us have had quite a bit of practice doing this, given the climate in some departments–that the creation of a hostile environment is nearly complete even in the absence of being interviewed in someone's bedroom.

    If departments find that the considerations necessary to ensure reasonable treatment of job candidates behind closed doors cost-prohibitive, I would hope that they would choose to interview in the ballroom.

    Reply
  4. Michael Kremer

    As a young male I found being interviewed in a bedroom (back in 1985) distinctly uncomfortable. (I will leave the interviewing department unnamed.) For one thing the room was simply small, and the bed took up a lot of the space. No one was sitting on the bed or lying on the bed, thankfully, but the set up was pretty strange — I was sitting next to the bed in front of a night table with a lamp on it, and on the other side of the room the interviewers were sitting in a row on folding chairs, behind the bed. The lighting was also low and the blinds were drawn. I didn't like the feel of it. As another poster has remarked, it was not a professional space in which to interview. I was actually glad not to get a follow up interview at an institution whose members could tolerate interviewing me in that space without apologizing to me (given that I had other interviews, of course!).

    Reply
  5. H. Sharp

    I am not sure I could put the point better than other posters have already done. P Steck's point is especially well-taken (this is a very expensive process for grad students, too). On the anecdotal side, I can confirm that it is in no way "silly" to force departments to take extra measures to avoid unprofessional conduct. I have heard innumerable accounts of inappropriate behavior toward job candidates during this process, which, albeit outside the interview room, often involves alcohol, awkward drives around the college town, etc. It is the least we can do to make the first contact as professional as possible.

    Reply
  6. Jon Trerise

    Other than a good handful of ballroom interviews, I've only had one interview elswhere. This was in a hotel room, bed included. (Non-APA hotel…hotel across the street from the APA hotel. But it was an APA-advertised job.)
    Yes, it was awkward. Perhaps it would have been less awkward if there were no bed–I cannot say for sure. My feeling is that it would have been less awkward still if there were more than one interviewer. I hope it's not too inappropriate to mention the one interviewer was female, and I'm male. So, yes, awkward all around, and a ballroom table would have been far preferable. That said, the interview went fairly well. She was quite kind. (The position fizzled, so, I didn't get the job.)

    I know that the distractions involved in the ballroom are many, but, I'd take them any day over the room-experience. But perhaps that's only because of the particulars. So I don't fully disagree w/ the OP, but I'm skeptical.

    Reply
  7. harry b

    P Steck and J-SWGS seem to have nailed it. There's a fundamental question here: do you set up the interview process and situation to ensure that each candidate has as good a chance to display their strengths as each other? Well, already we don't do that, because we are not professional interviewers, and don't bother getting even the HR training that's available in our own institutions. Male candidates are mainly interviewed by panels largely of the same sex, female candidates are mainly interviewed by panels largely of the opposite sex. Paying an amount of money that is trivial in the context of hiring a professional person for (one hopes) at least several years in order to make it a bit less likely that some of the female candidates (in a discipline that has deeply embarrassing sex-ratios) will be put off their game seems obvious.

    Reply
  8. David Wallace

    Just on a pragmatic point, I'm not certain a big conference hotel would passively tolerate its bedrooms being used as interview rooms (at no extra charge) on a large scale. There are usually clauses in the terms-and-conditions that prohibit having guests in your room; obviously hotels don't both enforcing this for small-scale issues, but if their guests were using rooms hired as bedrooms en masse as interview rooms, I think things might be different.

    Reply
  9. CA

    Maybe I'm nuts, but after years of living in cockroach-infested apartments and eating beans and rice four nights a week because I make poverty wages as an assistant, I don't feel I need a façade of professionalism at an interview (note: this is simply a statement of fact, not a complaint; I'm thrilled to be paid anything to do philosophy and get paid for it). And it is, very literally, a façade. Michael’s account of the awkward interview struck me as genuinely awkward, but really only because of the drawn blinds and low lighting…the bed was the least of the issues. And so long as departments of all sorts are bleeding funds, the seemingly meager funds to upgrade to a “suite” seem to me not so meager anymore. However, I can imagine that, for a woman interviewing in a man’s bedroom, it could be more awkward than for a man in the same situation, and so if a majority of women over men found this made the interviews particularly more difficult for them, I suppose I’d want the departments to spend the money. I’ll tell you, though, I’d rather see that money go to a pool that would then help defray the cost of the interviewees’ stay.

    Reply
  10. Katherine D.

    I don't want to detract from the importance of the point that being interviewed in a bedroom is uncomfortable for a candidate of any gender. But I would like to speak to what I take to be the original poster's question: given that these measures were once required to make things more fair for women candidates, are they still? I wish I could say that women are sufficiently well-represented, and all of us conduct ourselves with enough professionalism, that a young woman can be confident that she is regarded as a joint participant in the intellectual enterprise rather than as a sex object. But if my experience (in graduate school in the early 2000s, and as a more established member of the profession since) is anything to go on, that is far from the case.

    Reply
  11. Mohan Matthen

    I don't think sexual harassment was ever the biggest issue concerning bedrooms — unless interviewing committees were into gang-harassment. The issue was awkwardness, distraction, discomfort, and lack of dignity for interviewees and interviewers alike. Bedrooms are often small; they often have two beds and only one comfortable chair (which is often too low for the purpose of an interview); the lighting is sometimes poor; there are often clothes, suitcases, bottles of beer, half-consumed room service, etc. visible and smellable. These things might make women more uncomfortable than men, especially given that it is more awkward for a woman in a dress or skirt to be graceful in an unsuitable chair — but they have certainly made me uncomfortable, on both sides of an interview. (Unfortunately, I have made the error of interviewing in bedrooms.)

    I don't know how much a suite costs a department over and above a hotel room. But even at 500 dollars a night, it's worth keeping in mind that, as P. Steck points out, each interviewee is paying something close to that simply to attend and be interviewed.

    Reply
  12. Marcy Lascano

    If your department cannot afford a suite, then why not just conduct your interviews at the tables? It seems to me that this option is far less shameful than cramming an interview into a hotel room which is only meant for sleeping in. Of course, I suppose there are those who think that it is beneath them to interview candidates at the tables. If this is the case, then I would suggest you just do your interviews via teleconference.

    Reply
  13. James M.

    I had an interview for an APA advertised position in a bedroom at the conference hotel last year. The room was clean and tidy; everyone had a seat. I didn’t find it awkward at all (I’m male, and the interviewers were both female, if that’s relevant). I also had two interviews at the tables in the ballroom. I struggled to hear one of my interviewers, and I found the various other things going on in the background quite distracting. In short, I can think of many things I would like the APA to take a stand on – bedroom interviews isn’t one of them.

    Reply
  14. Lisa Shapiro

    I am no fan of the bedroom interview, having been interviewed in situations where the lead interviewer just plopped himself down on the bed and showed me the bottoms of his feet (shoes off of course). But that sort of situation was the exception not the rule. I actually prefer the awkwardness of entering a hotel room to sitting around card tables in the big table interview room. I find the background noise and movement very distracting, and not conducive to either interviewer or interviewee performing their best. If there were screens blocking one table from another, that might help, but I have yet to see a set up like that.

    Many schools go out of their way to set up the interview as if it were not in a bedroom. I've been an interviewer where a small circular table is brought in, with chairs, and the interview is conducted around that, with the candidate's back to the bed, and an interviewee where there is a similar geometry but no table. I think that this can be a doable middle ground for departments that cannot afford a suite. Ideally, what we'd want is a series of office like settings, but conference hotels just don't have those in enough numbers to accommodate interviewing schools (even in a bad market).

    Reply
  15. D.P. O'Connell

    I would say that if one can't afford a suite, interview room, or at least a table in the ballroom, as a department, then one ought to just stay home and do the first round of interviews by phone. And yes, a ballroom table is preferable to a bedroom. There are (even for the most cash-strapped departments) excellent setups now for video conferencing, so that one can get a sense of the person as a whole, and one need not be restricted to just a traditional phone interview. Just talk to your IT person on campus or to the business school, which usually has such setups.

    Reply
  16. Carl

    I think the initial question is misleading. It's not like departments are forced to rent suites for interviews — the APA offers an efficient and inexpensive alternative in the ballroom. They simply ask that if a department chooses to interview elsewhere at the conference, that they meet minimum standards for professionalism.

    So I think the first question should be: What's wrong with the ballroom? Until there's a good answer to that question, I don't see why we should even consider warranting the use of bedrooms for interviews. What's next, subway cars and dark alleys?

    Reply
  17. GK

    what exactly is wrong with those cheap interview tables? Maybe things would be equalized if everyone just used them. I can see people feeling its distracting, all those other tables etc. but it would be an equal distraction for everyone ( Use the extra money to pay applicant's travel expenses.

    Reply
  18. Steven Hales

    Suites are ideal, and IMHO departments should do what they can to get the funds to pay for them. My department uses suites to interview and we pressure the provost to cough up. That said, regular bedrooms are not the Silence of the Lambs dungeon that some commenters here are pretending. The issue is simply maintaining professionalism. One of my colleagues tells a story of being interviewed by a committee that had just finished a snack of Oreos, and greeted him with cookie-blackened teeth. I once had an interview with my undergraduate alma mater only to be told at the end that it was a courtesy interview, and the department had to hire a woman or the position would disappear. I once had an interview with a department where the sole interviewer only talked about his own forthcoming Analysis article and seemed very little interested in me. There's lots of ways that interviews can go wrong or be unprofessional that have nothing to do with the evil presence of a bed.

    As far as the suggestions that departments interview in the ballroom and use all their leftover money to subsidize impoverished grad student interviewees, (1) the ballroom is a terrible place to interview, for reasons others have already given, and (2) trying to reallocate funds in that way is a bureaucratic impossibility (at least at my school).

    Reply
  19. H.K. Andersen

    It may be surprising to some how much a Skype interview is like a face-to-face interview, when the equipment is properly set up so that the candidate has a view of everyone asking questions. Skype is free, very little, if any, useful information about a candidate is lost, and no one is compelled to spend large amounts of money to travel to and then stay at a hotel in order to either be interviewed or do the interviewing. It is evidently growing in frequency as a way to have meetings in the business world. More schools could consider setting up Skype appointments with candidates.

    As a woman who was recently on the market, I must say that being in a bedroom that was actually being used as a bedroom would have been extremely awkward. The tables in the ballroom were difficult; it would have been better with smaller tables, so that we could hear each other better. But it only takes one person to make an off-color 'joke' to really make you nervous, not only in that interview but also in future ones.

    Reply
  20. Clayton

    I don't specialize in deontic logic, but I think this looks like a promising argument:

    1. If a department is going to interview at the Eastern APA, it shouldn't do so without paying for a suite.
    2. Departments shouldn't pay for a suite.
    C. Departments shouldn't do their interviews at the Eastern APA.

    Why 1? Because the tables aren't intimate enough and the bedrooms have beds and so are a tad too intimate. Why 2? Because they are expensive. Why C? Why not? Can't we just use phones, skype, or bring all the candidates out at once for a day of job talks and interviews?

    Reply
  21. V. Alan White

    One of the best hires my department ever made–so good that she was lured away by better prospects later–was from preliminary interviews conducted at an open-forum APA table in Chicago that I participated in. My own sense was that the public nature of the interview situation was not a big factor one way or another; I might auggest in fact that it helped focus both interviewers and interviewees on the task at hand.

    I have also participated in CV/Skype interviews for pools prior to the cut for on-campus interviews and have found them to be much, much better than phone interviews for that purpose. Both points IMHO.

    Reply
  22. H. Sharp

    No one has yet acknowledged that actual incidents of sexual harassment have prompted this policy. The inability of posters to imagine participating in inappropriate behavior toward female job candidates has little bearing on whether permitting bedroom interviews would promote an inegalitarian job search process in this male dominated profession.

    Reply
  23. a (female) grad student

    Interviewing in a ballroom with a lot of noise and and other activity can be extremely distracting for many people, and contrary to what one commenter suggested, this does not mean that all interviewees will be equally distracted. Some people genuinely filter out background noise and distraction more easily than others — and this is an ability that seems irrelevant to a person's qualifications as a philosophy professor. As someone who will be interviewing at the APA in the future, I'm concerned about whether I could put my best foot forward in that environment.

    Likewise, interviewing in a bedroom has far too high a risk of generating an inappropriate or unprofessional environment — or even outright harassment — though rolling the bed into the hallway and bringing in extra chairs would probably improve the environment significantly. Skype interviews seem straightforwardly preferable for departments that can't afford more appropriate interview spaces at the conference.

    Reply
  24. john doris

    When I was on the market, I was interviewed in a bedroom by a (putative) major research program. The Department Head lounged regally on the bed, shoes off, fingers interlaced behind his head, while everyone else sat awkwardly on uncomfortable chairs, knees practically touching. Sadly, I find myself unable to view the "there's nothing wrong with interviewing in bedrooms" argument with sufficient charity.

    -Doris

    Reply
  25. Jamie Dreier

    John, I do that in suites too, though, so not a good argument.

    Seriously, this is another reason to add to the pile we already have to stop doing APA interviews. There's a huge amount of momentum to overcome, but those of us who think it's important have to keep pushing (Harry Brighouse you missed an opportunity above!).

    Reply
  26. David Sobel

    Could all the schools that want to interview at the APA but not in the big open interview area all simultaneously get suites if they tried? I doubt that there are enough suites that have an interview space with no bed in sight. I also suspect that spending the time it takes to go to the APA would be better spent reading a second paper from candidates that one is on the fence about interviewing. I think talking with the candidate can be quite useful in some cases (although misleading in others) but can be done over the web.

    Reply
  27. Robert Allen

    I should have thought that we philosophers were a little more relaxed in our dealings with each other than to fuss over interview settings (or even "stares and worse," i.e., boys being boys). Whatever happened to being of good cheer and leaving the professionalism to the attorneys and politicians?

    Reply
  28. mark lance

    A few years back, I informally asked about 100 young female philosophers about whether they felt substantially more uncomfortable in regular rooms than in suites or the interview room. (No methodology other than asking every female candidate or recent candidate that I ran into at the APA.) Only 2 said that it was not substantially more uncomfortable, and the majority regaled me with stories of terrible experiences.
    That's enough for me.
    Beyond that, the reality of the physical geography is just obvious. It is not a matter of whether in principle there could be professionalism in a room with a bed. It is a tiny room. It is cramped. the bed is the prominent feature. (Note, in light of what one person said, that it is very rare that the room isn't the one someone is staying in. And it isn't clear that renting an extra room costs much more than a suite, since the suite will have a separate room where someone can stay with the door to that part closed. So the cost comparison if you want to make it a dedicated room is suite to two regular rooms.)
    Minimal professionalism and interviewing in a bedroom:
    logically compatible? Yes.
    Practically likely to co-exist? No.

    Reply
  29. Gabe Galloway

    I think the bottom line here is that APA rules prohibit bedroom interviews unless there is no other option. Barring natural disaster, there will always be another option. A few months ago, I conducted a poll on my Facebook page asking whether people would interview in a bedroom. All the women who responded did so with an emphatic No. Hotel rooms just have a strong association with the venerable institution of the sexual liaison. If department's can't budget another option, they should be asking themselves whether they should be conducting a search. I have been interviewed in restaurants and bars; those settings were as good or better than the supposedly overly-expensive conference room.

    Reply
  30. A×el GeIfert

    As a minimal compromise, I'd like to suggest that nobody should have to endure an interview in a bedroom that looks like Tracey Emin's: http://artobserved.com/artimages/2008/03/tracey-emin-my-bed.jpg

    Reply
  31. David Morrow

    While I understand Robert Allen's view that having a "more relaxed" attitude is one of the perks of academia, the rest of his comment shocked me out of my usual lurking around here.

    There is a world of difference between being "a little more relaxed" about things and being demeaning and offensive. 'Boys will be boys' is absolutely no excuse for behavior that is not only deeply unprofessional, but disrespectful, distressing, and indecent. I'm sure the women — or men — who have endured "stares or worse" could add some more adjectives to that list.

    The most charitable interpretation I can find of Robert's comment is that he's suggesting that philosophers of sufficiently "good cheer" could hold interviews in a bedroom without being or making anyone uncomfortable. Maybe he's trying to make a joke. Maybe he's just trolling for responses like this one. Regardless, I think the comment comes across as offensive because it excuses some inexcusable behavior and makes light of a very serious problem for people already facing the emotional gauntlet of the job market.

    And if we allow ourselves to have lower standards than politicians when it comes to would-be colleagues and bedrooms, then, well…God help us all.

    Reply
  32. Alex Taylor

    I think there are two issues here: 1) whether it is professional, and 2) whether the bed constitutes or encourages harassment. I think both answers are quite clear.

    1) Not in the slightest. Should we care? I don't believe we should. If I wanted to be professional I would have gone into business. Some of my best (philosophical) thought has originated from the bed. Departments that want to project an aura of professionalism can get a fancy office or suite and interview there. Departments that don't care can interview in a bedroom, in a park, at a table, etc.

    2) Not in the slightest. Beer bottles and bare feet are not harassment, they are signs of humanity, and I personally would not want to work (let alone socialize) with anyone uncomfortable by such things. Setting aside the question of whether it is sexist or heterosexist to suggest that women might feel more vulnerable in such a setting, I am puzzled to see that so few of you have realized that sexual harassment can happen in a suite just as easily as it can in a bedroom. If Dr. Creepy wants to harass a woman interviewee he can do so with or without a bed. If this is a naive view – if sexism and harassment are so prevalent – I would suggest that there is a much deeper problem in the discipline, one that should be addressed but cannot be overcome simply by throwing our money away on expensive suites.

    Reply
  33. john doris

    As Jamie observes, the often realized potential for offensive and/or abusive behavior (which is not certainly limited to bedrooms) is another reason to question the practice of convention interviews. Even if such abuses are not *inevitable*, that they can and do happen counts against the practice.

    As has been made evident in many contributions to this blog, attending convention interviews often imposes real hardship, economic and otherwise, on job seekers who are already in very vulnerable circumstances.

    While there have been some thoughtful defenses of convention interviews on this blog, particularly in the form of advocacy for well-run "structured" interviews, even the thoughtful defenders acknowledge that convention interviews as actually practiced are of *uncertain* evidential value.

    To justify imposing the hardship on job seekers, convention interviews would have to be of *reliably and unquestionably high* evidential value (and it would have to be the case that this value cannot be realized in a less costly way). I have not seen argument to the effect that convention interviews meet this standard of evidence (nor do I think the thoughtful defenders of convention interviews are suggesting their arguments show anything this strong).

    I therefore conclude that the costs of convention interviews very likely outweigh the benefits, and the practice should be abolished.

    Skype and phone interviews do not impose the same costs, and are (supposing a sanguine view of short interviews' evidential value) likely permissible.

    -Doris

    Reply
  34. Ingo Brigandt

    (1) Professionalism: Graduate students, do not be misled by some of the above comments maintaining that professionalism does not matter much in philosophy (such as Alex Taylor's suggestion that "Beer bottles and bare feet" are acceptable in academic settings involving faculty-student interaction). As graduate students, job seekers, and junior faculty you will be judged w.r.t. professional conduct. As you know, these days the situation is unfortunately very competitive, and professional conduct is an additional factor to be taken into account. (It may sound unfair that very stringent professional standards are applied to you, standards which some by now senior philosophers did not have to face to the same extent when they were job seekers, but we have always to conform to current standards and uphold current best practices.)

    (2) Harassment and hostile environment: Alex Taylor maintains that bedrooms do not encourage harassment compared to suites. I would have thought that abolishing the past instances of interviewers and interviewee sitting on a bed would have led to some improvement. Given this, the burden of proof is on those who argue that there is no difference between suites and bedrooms, to be delivered by empirical data.

    An issue in this context that should not be neglected is the creation of a hostile environment. Above Mark Lance provided some evidence on this by having asked about 100 women about their experiences. Beyond gender-issues, it suggests that a substantial proportion of all job candidates — male and female — had bad personal experiences in bedrooms (and assume that suites would have made a difference). This alone is significant. Even though Mark Lance asked only women, the nearly unanimous response makes it very likely that the experiences of men differ. Alex Taylor pronounces that the idea that on average women feel more vulnerable in a bedroom setting is "sexist", but this is not a licit response to (tentative) evidence going against him. To be sure, we would need real empirical data, but what Mark Lance has offered is so much more preferable to the attitude of several of the above posters who just ignore the issue of what situations create a hostile interview environment, and what kinds of persons are more affected by a hostile environment than others.

    Reply
  35. mark lance

    Ingo is right that I only made an effort to systematically ask women about this. I did so for the very obvious reason that there is a gender based power dynamic in our profession. The suggestion of Alex Tayloy that attending to this obvious fact is sexist is quite silly, and exhibits a willful refusal to pay attention to the realities of privilege and power around you. For what it's worth, I have also spoken to a number of men over the years who felt similarly uncomfortable, but less uniformly so. (Personally, I found it really uncomfortable back in my first time on the market when a famous scholar at an Ivy League school fell asleep five minutes into my interview, on the bed. But I do not mean at all to suggest that there is no possibility of such behavior in a chair.) But the issue here is not the relative levels of pressure and unprofessionalism between male and female candidates. (On Professionalism, Ingo is also obviously correct. Professionalism in philosophy is not the same as it is in business – thank goodness – but it is real and important and it is frivolous to deny this.) It is that the pressure and the unprofessionalism is real.

    Reply
  36. Sean McAleer

    I guess this means that interviewing in a hot tub is pretty much out…

    Reply
  37. J.C. Berendzen

    I would have thought that the fact that we are in a profession (as opposed to the fact that we have not "gone into business," whatever that means) would be pertinent to the question of whether professionalism matters to us. We are, after all, talking about the workings of a professional job market here, not being a philosopher in general–so whether or not one can philosophize in bed is off topic. It seems reasonable enough to me to think that there ought to be some basic standards of behavior that guide our interactions as professionals. What those standards ought to be is open to debate, of course–but deciding to encourage forms of behavior that can help members of a discriminated-against class feel more comfortable seems like pretty low-hanging fruit.

    Reply
  38. Rebecca Kukla

    Others in this thread have made kindred points to this, but it still seems worth saying:

    I am disturbed by the apparent assumption behind some of these comments that the only way in which a situation could be disproportionately uncomfortable for women is if it involves sexual harassment. Surely we all know that the embodied power dynamics of gender are not just about sex. To use incredulity that there is a serious and distinctive threat of sexual harassment during a bedroom interview as sufficient reason for dismissing the idea that there is a gender issue here is – charitably – disingenuous. It also suggests a rather disturbing view of what communication across gender differences is necessary all about.

    I am well past my APA interviewing days (thank the flying spaghetti monster), but I will add to Mark's anecdotal evidence and say that bedroom interviews creeped me out, and not because anyone ever sexually harassed me during one. (Isn't that generally reserved for the 'smoker'?) On the other hand, I think that people who are hand-wringing over how distracted they get during a table interview need to grow up. Try teaching for two hours straight in a room full of 100 texting, whispering, giggling undergraduates if you want to experience distraction in a setting where you need to stay articulate. On the other other hand, I second (nth) the idea that departments should be spending their budget on extra on-campus interviews rather than APA interviews.

    Reply
  39. C. Sistare

    I'm astonished to hear anyone defend bedroom interviews in this era. I'm astonished that candidates are still being subjected to such treatment.

    Most of us DO expect applicants to be professional in manner and appearance (and we certainly do NOT expect them to hang around hotel rooms with beer and undergraduates). Why should we behave less professionally than we expect them to behave?

    OF course interviewing in a bedroom is uncomfortable for most people, but especially for women in a male-dominated field.

    Yes, the ballroom is noisy and distracting. So are many teaching situations.

    And, finally, as no one else has pointed this out: it creates even more stress and hassle for candidates to be running around a hotel from room to room. If all interviews are in the ballroom, they can move back and forth from the tables to the reception area. Heck, they might even get in a bathroom trip.

    Long, long ago, when I was first on the market, I had an interview in a bedroom with about 6 men, one of whom was IN the bed. I never wanted to see those people again.

    Reply
  40. Lisa Shapiro

    Does anyone know what the MLA does for interviews? AHA? APSA? Just curious.
    My department does not interview at the APA because it is very expensive to fly people from Western Canada to the Eastern US, and the information gained by interviews is not worth the cost. However, I will say that in an era of very strong dossiers, narrowing down an extraordinarily strong pool to 4 visitors without interviews is very very hard, and search committees do feel the burden of not making arbitrary decisions in these matters. Skype interviews can help, but I would be more in favor of them if there were a more robust conference calling capacity — one that can handle more than three participants. (If anyone knows how to do that, please let me know.)

    Given that the reality is that schools will continue to have hotel room interviews (and really, it is not that hard to arrange for the room to look like a regular room rather than a bedroom — just request a room with two double beds, have one removed, and replace the open space with a room service size dining table and chairs and make the focus of the room THAT — maybe the hotel has a screen to block the bed) I would be in favor of the APA setting standards of behavior, suggestions for furniture arrangement, and even sending people around for unannounced visits to check.

    Reply
  41. Jon Lawhead

    I'm somewhat puzzled about why we even conduct first-round interviews in person at all these days. As John Doris said, either phone interviews or (even better) Skype interviews would be more than sufficient for the first pass. Applicants who are being seriously considered are (I gather) almost always interviews again on campus anyway, so why go through the hassle and stress of the first-round APA interview? While I agree with Alex Taylor (if you're made uncomfortable by the fact that I'm not wearing shoes, I'm not going to fit in your department anyway), I can understand that the informal atmosphere of a bedroom interview might make some people (on either side of the bed) uncomfortable. So who needs it? Go with Skype: then we don't even have to wear pants.

    Reply
  42. S Johnson

    It strikes me that the solution to this problem is so obvious that even a philosopher could figure it out. Stop holding the APA interviews at a hotel. Since Eastern APA is scheduled to coincide with winter break, there is surely a university campus large enough to accommodate it during this time. Classrooms and seminar rooms would make an ideal location for a professional interview and (gasp!) would even be an appropriate (and comfortable) setting to interview a future teacher. Perhaps a rotating roster of campuses could host APA. Job interviews should not be held in a "home" (even a temporary one), unless you're interviewing a housekeeper or nanny.
    Even better, just stop forcing unemployed philosophers to shell out hundreds of dollars for job interviews — get your university A/V dept to set up video interviews.

    Reply
  43. Rebecca Kukla

    Interestingly gendered list of professions on the part of S. Johnson. Surely potential flooring contractors, air conditioner installers, etc., should also be interviewed in the home? Here we have another example of why the gendered dynamics of bringing a potential employee into a domestic space are complicated, and exceed the overt threat of sexual harassment.

    Reply
  44. R. Kevin Hill

    This whole discussion seems a bit odd. What's wrong with the tables? We've used them and didn't find them insufficiently private or uncomfortable, so this seems like a non-conundrum. As for the suggestion that departments rent suites, we were lucky enough to get funds to attend the APA all. Funds are not unlimited (really!) and suites seem an unnecessary luxury. Having all interviews be on-campus is prohibitively expensive if an equal number are interviewed, and too risky if not. Given the exigencies of the market, the hiring department may not be free to choose which of the on-campus finalists it gets to hire in the end (we have had our offer rejected in more than one search by candidates accepting positions at higher ranked institutions), so the choice of the finalist list is all the more important for us. In person interviews help one assess teaching ability and collegiality to some small degree, and if one goes by paper alone, this leads to overvaluing the ranking of the producing department instead of an in-the-round assessment of the candidate.

    I'm really surprised we're still having this discussion, as it was settled years ago, and nothing has changed to warrant re-opening it. Assuming the APA meetings are going to happen anyway, it's a sensible common location, distance interviewing is less effective, no screening interviews at all are too risky, funds are scarce and tables are fine. So the debate is about what again?

    Reply
  45. Shelley Tremain

    Rebecca wrote: "Here we have another example of why the gendered dynamics of bringing a potential employee into a domestic space are complicated." I suppose if one doubted that gendered dynamics will potentially be at work in an APA interview conducted in a hotel bedroom (or any other context for that matter), one could simply consider Mohan Matthen's expectation that women applicants (depending on their attire and what furniture is available of course) should "be graceful".

    BL COMMENT: This strikes me as an unfair, and out-of-context, characterization of Professor Matthen's remarks, which readers can view, above. But Professor Tremain has put her name to the criticism, so I have approved it for consideration and comment from others.

    Reply
  46. Mayo

    A few of points that I don't think were raised:

    1. I do think things have relevantly changed since the bed-ban was "settled years ago", e.g., number of women in the field, co-ed dorm living (no longer shocking in the least), sky-high prices for suites

    2. The suite requirement (adding as it does several hundreds of dollars to the costs a dept must foot) prevents departments from sending as many faculty as would like to attend the interviews, and that tends to mean less younger faculty at the interviews. It seems worth pondering whether this does not lower the probability of a successful interview rather than raise it.

    3. Negotiating suite arrangements (there are never, ever enough, and they are reserved in the first few hours after they are announced—before some universities have even had their jobs approved) is one of the biggest headaches for APA planners.

    Reply
  47. Job-seeking Woman Grad Student

    Given the context of a discussion of professional Philosophy's treatment of gendered communication, it is particularly curious to me that Prof. Tremain's comment, which at least thoughtfully concerned itself with the question at hand, was accompanied by a disqualifying comment–while Robert Allen's suggestion that we simply grin and bear "boys being boys" was allowed to pass without remark.

    BL COMMENT: The difference is obvious: Professor Tremain criticized someone else by name, Professor Allen did not. And Professor Allen's comment was, shall we say, rather obviously 'far out.'

    Reply
  48. john doris

    R. Kevin Hill wrote:

    "distance interviewing is less effective"

    If this is true *and the difference is substantial* it has important implications regards the use of technologies like Skype for interviews, in philosophy and out.

    Is there systematic evidence for the assertion?

    –Doris

    Reply
  49. Rebecca Kukla

    There was clearly nothing in Mohan's comment that indicated that he expected that women should be more graceful than men. His point was that traditional interview attire for women makes sitting in dumb chairs a special grace challenge for them. Shelley's comment was clearly unfair and out of context. I believe this is obvious, but Brian more or less called upon us to respond, and since my name was linked with Shelley's post, I figured I'd better. I also agree that Robert's comment was 'out there' and best left unacknowledged.

    BL COMMENT: I would hope it is obvious when one looks at Mohan Matthen's original comment, which is what I wanted urge readers to do. I thank you for adding a comment on this.

    Reply
  50. Notorious Ph.D.

    In response to Lisa Shapiro's question about what other academic orgs do in this regard:

    I'm a professor and member of the AHA. Here's an excerpt from the "Employment" section of the AHA's Satement on Professional Conduct:

    Fairness also involves equal treatment of all qualified applicants and procedures that are considerate to all applicants. […] [I]t should ensure that those who conduct interviews adhere to professional standards by respecting the dignity of candidates, focusing their questions on the qualifications needed for the position, and avoiding questions that violate federal or state antidiscrimination laws."

    Nothing in here specifically about beds & interviews, but most departments have always erred on the side of caution and respect for candidates.

    For the record, I've been interviewed in a suite, the Pit, and yes, one interview where someone was sitting on a bed. As to the last of those, I didn't personally feel harassed, but I would understand how someone else might. Even worse, it made me doubt the professionalism of the department and its members.

    Also for the record, and in reaction to Robert Allen's comment above: faculty in other disciplines are well aware of the serious gender imbalance in Philosophy departments, and many of us have heard horror stories from our colleagues (both women and concerned men) in those departments. I'm glad to see that people are thinking and talking about it, but it looks like it's still an uphill battle, no?

    Reply

Designed with WordPress