Did you get another interview? Or is it still just the one (that you mentioned a couple entries back)? Not that one is bad, mind you. On the contrary, given the state of things this year, one is fantastic!How has everyone else fared, interview-wise?And what is everyone doing for interview prep? Just curious...
Just the one. I am still holding out hope for more, but things are obviously starting to get wrapped up out there.Expect a post about interview prep shortly.
2 so far
I have a lot. I'm not bragging, I actually feel kinda bad about it because it is such a crappy year, and I know a lot of very god philosophers who don't have many. but I do, and feel like I missed an axe blow on this year's market. it remains to be seen if any will turn into an offer.for interview prep, I am practicing the hell out of my dissertation spiel, and thinking about my pedagogical approach. I'm coming up with a list of useful things to mention somewhere, including good teaching anecdotes, so that if the right question comes up, I have the story right there in my mental filing cabinet.
I have two interviews. I've been on the market for a few years now and this is the best I've ever done. I'm sort of disappointed that I don't have more. I'm all but certain that one of the jobs I'm interviewing for will go to someone I know who is more established than I am and the other job I'm interviewing for has expressed a preference for someone who is closer to tenure than I am. I've basically had six pieces accepted for publication this year (I think they were in good places, two were invited and one of these was good while the other was meh), a few conference acceptances, and another teaching award. This apparently doesn't count for much as I'll likely be unemployed come May.
I feel your pain, 2:52. Last time out I was but a doe-eyed ABD youth with nothing but chutzpah and a swagger. Now I fucking rule. What does that get me? Half the number of interviews apparently.
One nice thing about a .000 batting average is it doesn't (appear to) get any worse as the number of at-bats increases. So, I'm not doing any worse now (with no interviews) than I was after my first rejection. Unless you're counting rejections. In that case, my numbers are skyrocketing.I must say I'm disappointed. I defended my dissertation in November, as advertised in my applications; I have two publications forthcoming in decent places, along with a few conferences presentations; I have a lot of teaching experience with great evaluations; and I have a decent pedigree. But not so much as a nod for a long-list. If only there were some way for search committees to check off a box (or ten) explaining why rejected applicants were rejected....
anon 1:33 --Without saying enough to reveal your identity, could you tell us what about your application you think is netting you a lot of interviews? I think those of us, like anon 5:49, who thought we would be pretty appealing on the market but are striking out, would like to know. (Please don't read anything antagonistic into this question--I don't begrudge you your success, and wish you the best in your interviews.)
I assume that candidates having the following get the most interviews (for open positions)1. In or from a top 10 program.2. Core area AOS3. All Rec letters from huge names (typically from a top 10-20 program).4. Above letters being super specific and super positive about candidate's current and future work.5. Writing sample in field X read and deemed suitably bad-ass by someone on hiring committee or in dept. who does field X.I take it that having 1-4 guarantees that your file will be read, and that then 5 gets you interviews. Having a stellar publication record can make up for deficiencies in 1-4.I'm not 1:33 by the way.
I completely disagree with the above post listing these as the keys:1. In or from a top 10 program.2. Core area AOS3. All Rec letters from huge names (typically from a top 10-20 program).4. Above letters being super specific and super positive about candidate's current and future work.5. Writing sample in field X read and deemed suitably bad-ass by someone on hiring committee or in dept. who does field X.As a file reader, I would substitute:1) Teaches/can teach what we need.2) Wrote a cover letter showing s/he has some clue as to who we are and is interested.3) Has good letters that highlight teaching and collegiality as well as research. 4) Has good evaluations.5) Seems to be intellectually lively/has broad interests.
not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but I'm anon 1:33. I'm not entirely sure what resulted in the high success rate (interviews or flyout at about 25% of the places I applied to). My hypothesis involves the following:1) I come from a top ten dept. This alone is not sufficient - I have seen a LOT of extremely well qualified grads, with good pubs and excellent recs, tank on the market for no explicable reason. But I do think it at least gets my CV a good second read.2) While my pub record is not big, the little that is there is solid, and I have a lot of other things that make me look good on it (no disclosure there, too personal).3) I haven't gotten to read them but I think my letter writers, especially my advisor, wrote me great letters. I think the advisor was very specific about my work, and I think the letter specifically mentioned teaching.4) I have heard from at least two SC committee members that my writing sample really stood out. That seems lucky to me, I don't know what goes into having a writing sample that does it (although I'm glad mine did).5) I got a lot of independent teaching experience as a grad and both did it well and enjoyed it. I think the fact that I actually enjoy teaching comes across, and explains a lot of interest from SLACs.not sure if any of that helps.
Post a Comment