Preparing for structured interviews

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, anonymoose writes:

I have a practical question about interviews. It seems like there are two kinds of interviews--(a) those where the committee asks follow up questions, and (b) those where they don't. I assume (b) happens because of HR regulations, but I am really bad at these interviews. My answers tend to run short even when I have a lot to say. And that's bad, since a lot of fixed term lecturer jobs have (b) type interviews, and that's mostly what I'm competitive for right now. Should candidates plan responses to certain typical questions to fit a target time-length, so they don't run short? Or is it expected that this stuff happens? Is there some way to turn it into a conversation that I'm missing? There's often not even any nodding or eye contact during my answers, let alone follow-ups. Sometimes these interviewers skip important questions too, like "How would you teach Intro?" I'm pretty good at (a) type interviews, but utterly bewildered by (b).

This is an excellent query. My experience isn't that '(b) type' interviews tend to occur because of HR regulations. Rather, it is because science supports them. Allow me to explain, and then offer a few tips on preparing for such interviews.

Interviews with a set list of questions and no 'back and forth' conversation are known as structured interviews. Strictly speaking, interviews can be more or less structured on a continuum (less structured = lots of 'back and forth', more structured = less back and forth). But in any case, more and more these days, hiring committees seem to be turning to highly structured interviews: ones where committees do not ask follow-up questions or engage in conversation. Why? The short answer is that highly structured interviews have been found to (A) substantially reduce interviewer bias, and (B) better predict post-hire performance on the job than less structured "conversational" interviews. In brief, it's the best kind of interview for a committee to hold if they want to hire the best person for the job.

Anyway, for these reasons, it's likely that more and more academic interviews will be like this. So candidates really can't afford to be bewildered by them. Which brings us to anonymoose's question: how should one prepare for structured interviews? I'll be frank here: I'm not the best interviewee myself! So perhaps I'm not the best person to ask. However, I have interviewed a lot of people (I've been a part of four search committees now), and here's my general sense.

First, super-short answers can make someone look unprepared and not give much information. So, it's important to have something substantial to say in response to questions. On the other hand, I've herd many interviewers say it is important not to ramble--and to look like one is prepared for the questions one is asked, rather than appearing like you are making up the answer on the spot. For these reasons, I'm inclined to think it may be a good idea to prepare 3-5 bullet-points you want to hit on any particular question, and to draw up bullet-point answers to likely questions. This strategy, I think, ensures that you have "enough to say" while at the same time giving you a set framework to avoid rambling!

For example, suppose a job ad says the person is expected to teach course X. You should probably then prepare 3-5 bullet-points for the question, "How would you teach course X?" I would in turn think a good answer to this question would be organized around the following bullet-points:

1. How you would structure the course as a whole (order of topics, authors to cover).
2. How you structure daily in-class meetings (do you lecture?, use powerpoint?, have in-class assignments?)
3. A vivid example of something you do in the classroom (i.e. an actual group assignment, how it works).
4. Assessment methods (exams?, term-papers?, final-presentation?).

Similarly, if the question is, "Tell us about your research", you should again have 3-5 bullet-points you want to hit: 

1. One minute "elevator speech": big picture of your research topic.
2. Current major project(s) (a couple papers or book).
3. Future plans (where you plan to take your research in the future).

And so on. My sense is that if you prepare in this way, your answers won't be too short--but they also won't be long and rambling. Rather, they will be well-structured, just like the interview you are taking part in!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[return of moose]

Thanks a lot for answering my question! This approach sounds good to me--and is pretty much what I actually covered in the interview that prompted my question. (As it happens, I got invited on campus, so maybe it wasn't so bad.) I still worry about running short, which it seems like that interview did, since I can be pretty concise. It's also good to know that this is what "assessment" usually means. I've had other interviewers ask about curricular assessment, which threw me.

[Trevor Hedberg]

One complication to these structured interviews is that you can be asked questions that seem pretty far out of left field. In every interview of this type I've had, there have always been 1-2 questions that I have never been asked before and that don't turn up on the typical "common interview question" lists. It can be hard to prep for those situations. There have also been several where there are technical problems with the connection, which has affected how the interview proceeds and how I have to moderate the time I take to answer questions. (In each case, it was something on the hiring committees side that was amiss.) That's also pretty hard to prep for.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Trevor: That's something I've run into as well, as an interviewee. It's one of the (many) reasons I don't like interviews! If you get questions you didn't prepare for and all of a sudden you're put on the spot, you might not give the best answer--one that's not reflective of how you actually think about the issue, if only you had a bit more time (and a bit less pressure!) to think about it.