Top News, Articles, and Interviews in Philosophy

Preparing for structured interviews

Philosophy News image
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. . .

Continue reading . . .

News source: The Philosophers' Cocoon

blog comments powered by Disqus