Interviewing for Teaching Jobs: Succeeding Through Rejection and Reflection

William Christopher Brown, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota Crookston

In the discourse on job searches, community college interviews and university interviews generally are segregated as two different experiences that bear no relevance to one another. Part of this categorical separation lies in the distinct interview processes that characterize each type of institution. Traditionally understood, two-year college interviews focus on teaching, while university interviews address teaching, along with research.

On the surface, the two jobs and interview processes seem so disparate that they are rarely considered in the same breath; however, the core interviews and teaching demonstrations for teaching positions at both types of institution resemble greatly one another. With the continued diminishment of traditional tenure track positions at universities and the increasing reliance on contingent faculty, it is important for graduate students preparing for the market to be flexible in terms of career opportunities.

In what follows, I will offer some advice on what I learned about interviews and how I improved my performance at them. I take the information not from memory but from written reflections I wrote immediately after the interviews. My post-interview reflections took the form of emails to friends, family, and mentors. I highly recommend writing detailed post-interview reflections because they allow the candidate to pinpoint strengths and weakness in his or her performance during the interview and teaching demonstration. Identifying weaknesses makes it possible to strategize improvement. This article models the process of experience and reflection that allowed me to improve my performance as a job candidate.

On the surface, this article relies on my own experience, but my experiences were informed by researching open access articles on the job search. In a bibliography of “Further Reading” at the end of this article, I have included a categorized list of sources that helped me to understand and strategize the job search.

I. Blurred Distinctions between Two-year Colleges and Universities

For readers new to the academic job market, I will provide a brief overview of tenure track job searches at two-year colleges and universities. Two-year colleges and universities often hold in common an initial first round, or screening, interview that may take place over the phone or by Skype; universities may follow suit, but may also require a meeting at the yearly convention of the major organization in the field. If the initial interview is successful, subsequent second round, or campus, interviews are quite different in community colleges and universities. In general, two-year college interviews require interviewees to pay for the travel and lodging. The interview process moves quickly, often completed in less than two hours: an interview followed by a teaching demonstration, or vice versa. Interviews with key administrators may or may not occur. A campus tour may or may not be part of the interview, depending on how many candidates have been invited.

Universities often pay for the travel and lodging. The interview process may take two days. In addition to the interview and teaching demonstration with the search committee, candidates will have lunches and dinners with key players on campus, as well as interviews with a variety of administrative figures. Tours of the campus and community usually feature as part of the university’s arrangements with the prospective candidate.

A quick review of job listings regularly reveals an increasing preponderance of non-tenure track yearly renewable positions at universities. This is significant because these positions often are almost indistinguishable from positions at two-year colleges. The standard teaching load at a community college is 5/5. Increasingly, non-tenure track yearly renewable positions at universities are also 5/5. These teaching-heavy positions have lower pay than tenure track positions because they require no research or publishing. The teaching emphasis in the position means that anything published while off the tenure-track, no matter how prestigious, has no bearing on the yearly performance evaluation. Additionally, performing well in a non-tenure track position rarely holds the promise of promotion because tenure lines are categorized differently. Although administrators at universities are quite happy to see the institution’s name in print, publishing while off the tenure track offers the non-tenure track yearly renewable lecturer little reward other than a line on a CV.

This increasing reliance by universities on teaching-oriented non-tenure year track yearly renewable positions has the effect of blurring the absolute differences between the two-year college and the traditional university. This blurring of boundaries based on teaching is significant for the graduate student going on the market because it homogenizes the interview process between universities and two-year colleges. Lecturer positions at universities may require little or even no discussion of research during the interview.

When I was on the academic job market for the first time in 2011 and 2012, I applied to 106 jobs. At the time, I was only halfway through with my dissertation, so I did not bother to apply to tenure track positions in literature at universities. Instead, I applied to teaching-oriented positions. Approximately eighty percent of the positions to which I applied were at two-year colleges while the remaining twenty percent were non-tenure track yearly renewable positions at universities. I had three campus interviews at two-year colleges, five phone interviews at both two-year colleges and universities, and one campus interview at the University of Minnesota Crookston. I was successful in this latter interview and accepted a non-tenure track yearly renewable position there. In my experience on the job market, applying for teaching-oriented positions, I found that interviews at two-year colleges prepared me well for the non-tenure track teaching position that I ultimately gained at the University of Minnesota Crookston.

II. Strategizing Improvement through Post-interview Reflections

I owe the success I ultimately had on the first year of the job market (i.e., getting a teaching position at the University of Minnesota Crookston) to campus interviews for two year college positions and phone interviews. For me, the interviews at two-year colleges were invaluable because of their brevity as compared to campus interviews at universities. A campus interview at a university is a two or three day affair that consists of a whirlwind of meetings, interviews, a teaching presentation, meals, and conversations while touring the campus and community. The amount of time candidates have to spend being “on” means that it is difficult to process the experience and assess strengths and weaknesses. Although it turned out to be a successful campus interview, after my visit to the University of Minnesota Crookston, I had difficulty assessing strengths and weaknesses in my performance. This was in direct contrast to my experience doing phone interviews and campus interviews at two-year colleges.

I found the brevity of the two year college campus interviews and phone interviews incredibly helpful. The entire interview and teaching presentation at a two-year college often only lasts between 1 to 1 1/2 hours; phone interviews can be between 15 and 30 minutes. The compressed amount of time allowed me to assess the experiences more comprehensively and critically. After each interview, I was able to determine my weaknesses, which helped to strategize how to improve. Again, compare this to the whirlwind that is a multi-day affair for a university position.

For this article, I will omit the names of the schools at which I interviewed. With that said, I am grateful to all of the schools for giving me the opportunity to interview. The practice I gained at each interview ultimately made it possible for me to improve so that I could succeed at attaining a job in a perpetually tight job market.

III. Phone Interviews for Two-year Colleges and Universities

The five phone interviews I had in 2011 and 2012 were intended to determine whether the search committee wanted to invite me to the campus interview or not. Three of my phone interviews were with universities for positions teaching first-year composition; two of the interviews were for community college instructor positions.

Many people do not like phone interviews because they feel disconnected from the audience. They complain that the interviewee cannot see the audience’s body language, which makes it difficult to read the audience. Critics of phone interviews also complain that communicating over speakerphone depersonalizes the experience and removes subtleties in tone conveyed in person.

These criticisms are valid in many respects, but I question the extent to which face to face interviews promote greater transparency compared to phone interviews. I have found that good interviewers mask their feelings behind a veneer of courtesy and encouragement. As William S. Swan notes (online) in “The Art of the Interview,” good interviewers hide what they really think or feel so that the interviewee will “relax and open up.” In the same way that an interviewee is showing his or her best self, search committees are ideally also presenting idealized versions of themselves as professionals and representatives of their institutions. Their goal is for the candidate to relax his or her guard and show his or her real self.

During phone interviews, personalized contact with your audience may diminish, but the candidate gains greater control of his or her environment. Phone interviews allow candidates to spread out their notes and research in front of them. Among the notes and research, applicants can compose notes and reminders to plant in the conversation.

Most importantly, for me at least, I have found phone interviews to be invaluable learning experiences because of the brevity of the conversations. Generally, these phone interviews can be as brief as fifteen minutes or as long as forty-five minutes. A good average is one-half hour. Phone interviews focus solely on responding to questions for approximately one-half hour.

The brevity of the conversation gives the candidate the greatest opportunity to assess strengths and weaknesses after the interview ends. For me, it was easy to pinpoint where I did well and where I fell short in my responses. For improving one’s interviewing skills, phone interviews are enormously helpful. Even the briefest campus visit to a two-year college involves traveling to a new place, staying in a hotel, eating out, dressing up, navigating a campus, meeting new people, preparing a teaching presentation, participating in an interview, and returning home. The phone interview allowed me to review my performance as an interviewee with minimal distraction.

IV. Campus Interviews for Teaching Positions

In Fall 2011, I had three campus interviews for two-year college teaching positions. To my surprise, none of the campus interviews were preceded by a phone interview. In this section, I offer some personal reflections on my campus interviews. Although I was ultimately rejected from each position, the interviews were great learning experiences that allowed me to grow and develop as an interviewee. My reflections below are not comprehensive; instead, I have focused on moments that carry the most resonance to readers who may be new to the job search process.

Learning to Answer Easy Questions

My first interview was at a two-year college in the southeastern United States. As a first time interviewee, I prepared for questions about my teaching, my understanding of pedagogical theory, and my influences. Oddly and embarrassingly, I nearly went blank at a question that was probably designed to put me at ease: “tell us about your educational background and training.” For some reason, I did not expect this simple question. I was initially irritated at it, thinking to myself, “Didn’t you read my CV and cover letter?” Though my stumble was only minor in the conversation, I found myself groping to answer this question because I made it more difficult than it was. I was trying to think about how I could articulate something new and different when all they wanted was a quick review of my education and training. I found that in many interviews after this one, a variation on this question opened the interview.

My sense is that a committee who asks about one’s education and training wants to see if the candidate’s response accorded with the documentation provided to them. Hearing how a candidate discusses his or her professional life gives the committee a greater understanding of the person whose professional life is on display in the CV.

The challenge for a first time interviewee is getting past one’s rigidity caused by the lack of experience. The first interview feels like an oral examination rather than a conversation among colleagues. I was unprepared for such an easy question because I went into the interview with my own preconceived notions of what I wanted to discuss. I recognized that if I were lucky enough to receive more interviews, I would need to learn how to be “on” and yet relaxed enough to carry on a conversation.

Despite my embarrassment at fumbling an easy question, I ultimately decided that I enjoyed the experience. Reflecting on the experience, assessing strengths, and identifying weaknesses gave me a confidence that made me hope for another interview—not only for employment but also for further practice at more interviews. I could tell that I would need much more practice to hone my skills as an interviewee.

Reigning in Enthusiasm

Fortunately, I had another opportunity to practice my interview skills, this time at another two-year college in the southeastern United States. Once again, I was asked to discuss my educational background and training. As I expected the question, I did better than the first time. Expecting the question helped to set a tone of confidence in my interview that I felt I lacked at my first one.

The most important thing I learned from this experience was that too much enthusiasm can be overwhelming for a search committee interviewing multiple candidates in a short period of time. I thoroughly enjoyed the interview, but I realized afterwards that I talked too much. My recurring error was over-amplifying my responses. By “over-amplify,” I mean that I gave two or three examples for every question when one would have sufficed. Instead of being succinct and letting the audience follow-up with further questions if they had any, I dominated the interview.

I think I did this because the interview was in a classroom. My previous interview had been at a table in a meeting room. Being in the classroom seemed to put me in lecture-mode. I think part of this derived from my personal situation. I took off the 2011-2012 academic year to finish my dissertation. This interview occurred in the middle of the semester when I normally would have been teaching. I missed teaching, and I think I overcompensated in the interview. I needed, as George Harrison once sang, to “cheer down.” I turned responses to interview questions into mini-lectures. Once I made this self-criticism, I determined to improve on it the next time I interviewed for a position.

Reading the Audience and Handling Surprises

While at my second interview, I received a campus interview request for the following week at a two-year college in the southwestern United States. If you are lucky enough to receive multiple requests for interviews, do not be surprised if the interviews fall closely together. Later that semester, two phone interviews fell on the same day.

I was pleased that for the most part I improved at restraining my loquacity. This restraint proved useful because the chair of the search committee timed the responses to the eight questions they asked me. The chair stopped me only once, but the breached time was not my fault—I was responding to a follow up question.

This search committee provided me with a new experience: they had a copy of the questions taped to the table in front of me. They intended this to be helpful, but, in retrospect, I wish they had not provided a copy of the questions to me. I found it impossible not to look at the written questions. Because I had the questions in front of me, I found my eyes drawn to the paper rather than focused on the audience. The written questions had the effect of disengaging us from one another.

The practice I had interviewing at the other schools helped me to gain more from the interviewing experience than I previously had. Because I was more confident about interviewing, I felt able to be fully present and self-aware in the interview, while evaluating the committee simultaneously. Despite my improvement as an interviewee, I inadvertently made an error in judgment in how to respond to a question about plagiarism.

Unlike the other interviews, they had a specific question about plagiarism and how I would handle a paper that I suspected was plagiarized but couldn’t prove it. I alluded to one of my strengths as a teacher: creating assignments that are context-specific to my class yet able to convey transferable skills. I said that I would invite the student to my office to chat about the improvement s/he had made. In a follow-up comment, I may have come across a little arrogant because I also stated that successful plagiarism by a student can point to a problem in the assignment.

This question marked an important learning curve in doing interviews. The other two departments made no mention of plagiarism in their questions even though I am sure that they, like most English Departments, have to contend with plagiarism. The question on plagiarism was the first time it occurred to me that an interview question could reveal something about the department or school. I assumed that plagiarism must be a significant problem at this school if they devoted a question to it in the interview.

I believe that my intuition turned out to be correct based on a paper that they had me grade. After the interview, rather than walk me to the exit as the other schools had done, they sprang on me that part of the interview process involved grading a paper in thirty minutes and commenting on it. This was not shared with me in the itinerary for the interview, which, I must confess, I resented. Technically, I had less than thirty minutes to grade the paper because I had to read instructions that I had not written.

Further, the grading task was awkward because of the contradiction between their assessment methods and mine. They required me to handwrite my comments even though I have typed my comments on students’ papers since 2002. I put my comments into categories like Focus, Support and Development, Organization, Style, Citations, Integration of Quotations, and Grammar. I find that typing my comments on these categories helps the students to see more easily patterns of errors across their rough and final drafts than scribbles in the margins. When I asked about access to a computer to type my comments, the chair refused my request and said that my comments must be handwritten.

The directions to the assignment were a revelation that made me understand possibly why there was a significant problem with plagiarism on that campus. The assignment was a generic rhetoric analysis of an advertisement, an assignment that has long been ubiquitous in composition classrooms. I was surprised at the poorly written directions of the assignment. The directions were the worst formatted I have ever seen. The font was smaller than twelve. It was rife with embedded (rather than bulleted) lists of information that covered multiple lines per item. The lists lacked parallelism. There was little effort to use the directions to guide students to excellence.

With this third interview, I finally was able to critique my audience as much as I did myself. Having had two prior campus interviews, I had a sense of perspective about the experience and could compare my interlocutors to previous committees. Most significantly, for the first time, I was interviewing the committee as well as being interviewed. The interview was no longer a passive experience done to me, but an active experience that I contributed to and evaluated during and after the interview. I only gained this newfound ability through the rejections and my post-interview reflections.

Conclusion

Before I close, I want to emphasize that I do not intend for this essay to be a foolproof guide to getting a job; instead, this essay seeks to demystify the interview process and to provide a model for self-improvement through self-reflection. Though I have been successful on the job search, I do not assume that I will be automatically successful the next time I apply for a position. Numerous factors outside of my control determine whether I will succeed or not at a job interview. All I can do with my experience is to assess my performance and then aspire to improve.

As I reviewed the post-interview reflections for my interviews from the 2011-2012 job search season, I noticed an optimism in the face of failure that is essential when applying for jobs. In my emails to friends, family, and mentors, I always assumed that I did not get the job, yet I consistently asserted that the interviews were great experiences because of what I learned. As I noted at the beginning of this article, I would not have gotten the job I landed had I not gone through the repeated process of rejection and reflection.

Works Cited

Swan, William S. “The Art of the Interview.” Working Woman.University of Wisconsin-Platteville Human Resources, 1990. Web. 09 July 2014.http://www.uwplatt.edu/human-resources/art-interview

In Progress Journal

peer-reviewed journal of graduate studies

Interviewing for Teaching Jobs: Succeeding Through Rejection and Reflection

I. Blurred Distinctions between Two-year Colleges and Universities

II. Strategizing Improvement through Post-interview Reflections

III. Phone Interviews for Two-year Colleges and Universities

IV. Campus Interviews for Teaching Positions

Learning to Answer Easy Questions

Reigning in Enthusiasm

Reading the Audience and Handling Surprises

Conclusion

Works Cited

Further Reading

Articles about Job Search Resources

Overviews of the Application Process

Overviews of Two-year College Positions

“Fit”

Search Committees

Job Ads

Cover Letters

Teaching Philosophies

Research Statements

Diversity Statements

Requests for Additional Materials

General Interviewing Tips

Screening (First Round) Interviews

Campus (Second Round) Interviews

Q&A Advice

Interviews at Teaching Colleges

The MLA Interview

Teaching Presentations (“Job Talks”)

Rejection Letters

Multiple Job Offers

Accepting Jobs

Negotiating Job Offers