The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 19: flyouts

In this series, I've tried to convey the "inside story" on various parts of the academic job-market, at least as I've experienced it having served on three search committees. In today's post I am going to focus on flyouts/campus visits. What are search committees looking for? What comes of well? What comes off poorly? And how do campus visits affect final hiring decisions? The answers I will share to some of these questions are admittedly anecdotal, once again stemming from my particular background hiring at a "teaching school" as well as my experiences as a job-candidate. Consequently, while I hope readers find them helpful, I will as always be curious to hear from others--particularly people who have hired at different types of institutions--how accurate or generalizable my impressions are.

With these caveats in mind, here are come impressions I've come to have about flyouts:

The candidate with the best flyout tends to get the job offer: In all three searches I've served on, we extended offers to the candidate that the department judged had the best flyout. The candidates' performances in their flyouts, by all appearances, seem to have been the deciding factor in who we hired. I think--or at least hope--that this will come as some consolation to candidates. While many things about the market may be unfair and/or arbitrary, my general sense (again, based on my experience) is that these features may play a more minimal role when the final hiring decision is made. Again, in every search I've been on, we hired the person who we judged performed best in the flyout--no more, no less. Of course, this is not to say this is how things always go. In one case, when I was a candidate, I was informed privately by a search committee member after the search was over that although I was judged to have performed the best in the flyout, political considerations (the nature of which I have no interest in disclosing) ended up leading the other finalist to be hired. Consequently, while I have some reason to believe flyout performance can be outweighed by other matters, my general sense is that performance tends to matter the most.

Personality matters: I am sure some (many?) readers will take exception to the notion that candidates should be judged during flyouts on the basis of their personality. I do not think we can settle these normative matters here--but, as an aside, matters are complicated here. On the one hand, judging candidates on the basis of things like personality runs the risk of introducing irrelevant and/or morally problematic biases into the decisionmaking process. On the other hand, my spouse academically specializes in these matters, and it is my understanding that personality traits have statistically real, demonstrable effects on workplace performance and the workplace more generally (including whether the workplace climate is one where others can perform effectively). On the third hand, as anyone who has worked at a university or other workplace organization will probably tell you (and science also suggests), there are very real hazards in not taking such matters into account, as particularly toxic personalities can ruin a workplace. Because I do not think we can settle these matters, I want to suggest that we deal with the fact that it is very likely--given general facts about human beings--that how you come across "personality-wise" during on-campus interviews matters. I want to focus on this not, again, because I am confident that it should matter, but because I strongly suspect that--like or or not--it does matter (as another aside, I say all of this as a shy, introverted person whose personality, I strongly suspect, almost certainly counted against me in a number of contexts as a candidate). 

With all this in mind, what should candidates do? I was once given what still seems to me a very good piece of advice: on the academic job-market, don't just "be yourself" (as that can showcase your personality or character "flaws"), but also don't try to "be someone else" (as that can come across inauthentic). Instead, work hard to present your best self. As my spouse and other people who have mentored me have impressed upon me, this takes practice. If, like me, you're shy and introverted--and struggle with things like small-talk, being comfortable around new people, etc.--don't try to artificially act like an extrovert. Instead, just try to develop some self-awareness about things you do that may come off negatively to people who don't know you, and try to develop some cognitive-behavioral "tricks" for avoiding those things and come off more positively. Also, one final point (one that I hope assuages those who are concerned about these issues): performance can very much outweigh personality issues, and indeed, search committees can be very sensitive to not letting personality biases outweigh performance. The following types of comments, in my experience, at not all rare in search committee meetings: "X is a very nice person, I'm sure we would get along great. But I wasn't that impressed by their job-talk or teaching demo", "Y comes across as a little withdrawn, but I don't think we should read too much into it: interviews are stressful, and their job-talk and teaching demo were great!" In short, personality likely plays a role--but try not to get too bent out of shape about it: as my first comment above noted, performance matters a great deal.

The research talk and teaching demo are not just about philosophy, but how you respond to people: This is sort of a follow-up to my previous point about personality, but not quite. While research talks and teaching demos are very much about your "chops" (i.e. your abilities as a researcher and teacher), they are also venues to display professionalism (or lack thereof). I don't mean professionalism in its pejorative sense (i.e. "falling into line"). I mean professionalism in a more positive sense--such as actually listening to what people (students and faculty) have to say, interpreting them charitably, treating them with respect, and so on. 

Make it clear you want to be there: I've talked about the "flight risk" issue many times before, but even setting flight-risk issues aside it matters to people on the hiring side whether a candidate would be happy in the job. Is this a university and department you really want to work in? If so, then show it! I know, I know: some of you have said before you would genuinely be happy in any job. Alas, you would be surprised at just how many people are not very good at conveying this in their language or demeanor. If, for instance, during the flyout you don't show much interest in the place--asking, say, what the city is like to live in, or what the students are like, and so on (these are just banal examples)--the people interviewing may very well wonder whether you want to be there. They may especially wonder this if the other finalist(s) is/are more effusive about the place. Indeed, I think this is a particularly important tip for people like me (i.e. introverts), as I am by nature not a very "demonstrable" person (it is a running joke with my spouse that when I get good news, like a new publication or tenure, that "this is my happy face", i.e. a rather detached look indicating that I am not nearly as excited as I really am!).

Know where you are: This is also really important. In my experience, one of the worst things you can do is present yourself as having different professional priorities than the institution, department, and people interviewing you. For instance, if you are on a fly-out at a teaching school but you spend the vast majority of your time talking about research, asking whether it is possible to negotiate a lower-teaching load, etc., chances are that will look bad. It may make you look like someone who "really wants to be elsewhere", i.e. at a research school. Again, for better or worse, the people interviewing you during the flyout want to know whether you are a good fit.

Good out of your way to be kind and thankful to everyone: I was once told by a mentor that you can "tell everything you need to know" about a candidate by how they treat administrative and other support staff, as well as students. While I wouldn't go that far, my sense is that there is something to it--at least in the sense that people may think it reveals something important about your character or the kind of colleague you might be. Why might they think this? Well, to share a modestly-related autobiographical detail, I have been at philosophy conferences before where I've seen people (in some cases, myself) either ignored, left out, or tacitly maligned because, or so it seemed, the person treating them that way "didn't think they were important enough" to treat better. Sadly, my experience--and I suspect others probably identify with this as well--is that this sort of thing is all too common in human life, academia included: that there are people in this world who, either as a result of malice or benign neglect, fail to treat "unimportant" people as though they matter. Suffice it to say, I think few people want to hire someone like this--which is why I give the tip above. Treat people well on your fly-out. In fact, treat people well in general. People want to hire "good people." Be one of them.

Anyway, these are just a few impressions I have. Again, they may be idiosyncratic, or they may only be partially generalizable (I would be particularly interested to hear from people who have hired at different types of institutions what their impressions are about what helps and hurts candidates during flyouts for their jobs). I also expect that some readers may not like the points about personality (though, again, I didn't mean to endorse judging candidates this way). But I hope you all find these remarks helpful regardless, and look forward to hearing what others who have experience in these matters have to say!

Comments

[Recent grad]

I'd add: know a little about each member of the department. I don't think you need to go read an article written by each member, but at least know what area they work in. This is especially important when interviewing at smaller departments, because it's so easy to do. I've seen finalists who had no clue what members of the department did and the candidate comes off as lazy or uninterested in the department.

[Marcus Arvan]

Recent grad: YES. I had a feeling I was forgetting something when finishing up my post, and you hit the nail on the head. If anything looks bad during an on-campus, it’s showing up looking like you know nothing about the place or the people who work there.

[Craig]

Thirding: If you know a little (or more!) about various members of the department, that can give you material for 1-1 conversations! You can ask questions about their work, etc. That will a) take some of the pressure off of you to constantly talk and b) convey interest in them in particular, which is a good way of showing interest in the department more broadly.

[Number Three]

This is anecdotal, taken from my experience witnessing job searches in graduate school, going on several flyouts, and ultimately landing a tenure track job this last year at a teaching school.

This is sort of basic job interview stuff, but under "Make it clear you want to be there", I would add: be energetic and enthusiastic, consciously. It is easy to feel tired during a flyout. Don't let yourself. Energy and enthusiasm almost always come across well. Don't be self-deprecating, don't bemoan the status of the job market or profession, and don't, under any circumstances, talk badly about your or their students.

Here is another idea, which is something that I did during my last flyout. It seemed to help me. If you have specific ideas for new courses, initiatives, ways to advertise the department, or anything else, don't wait around for the chance to bring them up. Say something like, "Hey, I have a few ideas for x. Do you want to hear them?" If you're sitting down for a formal chat with the search committee, that's an ideal time to talk about those things. Not only will this likely help you, but you will feel less regret if you don't get the job. (Leave it all on the field, for those amenable to sports metaphors.)

[Anonymous TT prof]

Does anyone have advice for what to do if you land a fly out, but interview dates necessarily conflict with your teaching schedule? I'm thinking specifically about those on the market whose departments do not know they are on the market/ faculty wouldn't be cool about it.

[Another anonymous TT prof]

Anonymous TT prof, I was in the same situation this year. It's fine to tell the hiring department the dates you prefer to work around your teaching schedule if possible, but this won't always work (e.g., if you're teaching 4 - 5 days a week or you have multiple fly-outs.) Does your school have any precedent for converting single class sessions to online classes for the day? If so, I'd recommend converting the class sessions you'll miss to online classes, and telling the students that you won't be there because you're giving a research talk at another university (which is true.) The kind of class you have will make a difference too: in addition to the gen-ed courses I converted to online, I had a small upper level class and I had them gather without me to work on group study guides or group assignments that I then gave them feedback on when I got back (which they said they found these sessions really helpful.) If you're only missing one class, canceling may be fine - it depends on your school's institutional norms. What makes this stressful is that you won't know in advance which classes you'll have to cancel/convert! But there are options.

[Anonymous TT prof]

Thank you, Another anonymous TT prof! It will definitely be tough to get around my teaching schedule in the event that I get an on-campus interview. My colleagues will also likely notice my absence. I worry that, if I get an on-campus, they will for sure find out; and it is a very stressful situation to be in. Glad I'm not alone.