Thursday, August 31, 2017

On interviewing: to Skype or not?

As the academic year begins, it is also the beginning of job search season for TT applicants. In my field, the typical timeline is to have application deadlines in the Fall, with most interviews complete by Feb or Mar. Last year, I took place in some Skype pre-interview screening for the first time (it is not common in my field). Traditionally, my department has made the interview list using materials from the application file alone (see here for more details on our usual process). Then we bring in 4-5 candidates for a two day interview.

After seeing how helpful I found the Skype interviews (we used Skype--we had our candidates share their screen and give us a brief research overview), here are the pros as I see them:
  • We can screen more candidates--it is hard to go from the long list to the short list just on the paper applications, and often we'd like to see more than 4 or 5 applicants
  • We don't waste trip money plus 2 days of departmental time on candidates who obviously won't work (English not good enough, can't explain their research live, can't answer questions, etc)
  •  It is harder to fake a presentation and answer questions than a written proposal (after some of our interviews, I have wondered if the candidate wrote the proposal)
  • We can clarify points of possible research overlap/fundability/feasibility that may be unclear in the application due to the inexperience of many of our candidates in writing proposals. Naivete in a proposal may be due to moving into a new area and not being fully immersed yet, or it may be holes in thinking. 
  • Skype pre-screening seemed to help less experienced candidates who are perceived as riskier choices to bring out for an interview.
It is not all positive though. There are some significant downsides too, and some of my colleagues are reluctant to add an additional step to an already long and intense process:
  • It is not the norm in my field (though I think this is changing to be honest), and we may turn off good candidates 
  • It is another time and work intensive thing to add to the search committee's burden (already large, since there are lots of files to read in a short time that overlaps with Fall proposal season)
  • Technical glitches may influence opinions unfairly
  • It can be hard to schedule time when all (or even most) of the search committee can be present at the same time as the candidate, and this is not considering time differences
  • It is yet another hoop/timesink for candidates (since we asked for a brief presentation)
The bit about helping less experienced/riskier interview choices might end up more important in the end. I've noticed since joining ProdigalU that our faculty candidates (and therefore our new hires) tend to have more and more experience prior to getting a TT job. The percentage of applicants in the pool applying from their first postdoc without other experience is dropping, so in some sense, candidates are self-selecting (so if you are in your first postdoc, apply anyway!)

I am not sure this experience creep is a good thing (or even a bad thing, but it is a thing). It isn't even that we have loads of people doing multiple postdocs (we have some of this too)--many of these more experienced people just plain did something else at some point in life (like me!) before the TT. But life experience (especially writing experience) is a major advantage in a tight field, and it is hard to compare the files of a newly minted postdoc who has been in a student or trainee somewhere since age 5 to someone who has been a group leader, or a decorated educator, or an experienced science editor. With pre-screening, we can see both.


Anonymous said...

One variant I've seen: Skype/phone interviews with, say, 2-3 members of the search committee, rather than the entire panel. I'm not really a fan of this, because I think it means the input will be wildly variable depending on member involvement. At an extreme case, I once had a phone interview in which none of the search committee members showed up until after I emailed to remind them (and one, not even then). Yes, this might have been a bad sign.

I suppose using smaller groups could be a sane way to handle interviews if you wanted to cast a wide net: have a small number of people interview people who might be a good fit, and see if they seem great.

(My results are consistent with this hypothesis: I got invites from almost all my Skype interviews with full panels, even ones I was convinced I had blown entirely, and didn't get invited by any of the two-person chats - often a stretch on fit.)

prodigal academic said...

Thanks for the comment from the other side, Anon! We've discussed having the 2-3 members with the "best" overlap in background cover screening interviews in order to cover more ground. But I am not a fan of this approach. I agree with your first comment here--it is really hard to make it fair with essentially a different panel for each candidate.

I think eventually we will need to discuss this as a department to have a consistent policy, but for now it is being left to the search committee chairs to decide on how they want to proceed. The more traditionalists are not even considering screening interviews right now, so our process will start to vary from search to search...