Teaching demonstration at University level
October 20, 2010 12:24 PM Subscribe
I have a teaching demonstration at University level tomorrow. This is my first. I have some questions on what to expect from the audience/evalution panel. I heard from another candidate (there are three positions open being managed simultaneously) about her experience on Monday and it sounded like a deliberately hostile audience and interview session. Is this normal or to be expected?
She said there were hostile faces when she walked in for the demonstration. For the interview, there were ten panel members interogating her on questions which were answered in her CV. Is this just one person's subjective take or is this a potential minefield I should be prepared for in this situation?
I'm wholly prepared on my material but have no formal prior teaching experience. I have three competing candidates for the position I've been shortlisted for and am the only woman, non European, at least a decade younger than the others and they've all taught previously in this University. No, there's no EEO&E here (not in the United States)
Any insights on the subtleties of academic selection, political or other consideration or even "hostile" audience as a test would be much appreciated. There is also a dinner with all the candidates and all the evaluators tomorrow, after our demo and interview. What kinds of things are they looking out for?
Thanks in advance
She said there were hostile faces when she walked in for the demonstration. For the interview, there were ten panel members interogating her on questions which were answered in her CV. Is this just one person's subjective take or is this a potential minefield I should be prepared for in this situation?
I'm wholly prepared on my material but have no formal prior teaching experience. I have three competing candidates for the position I've been shortlisted for and am the only woman, non European, at least a decade younger than the others and they've all taught previously in this University. No, there's no EEO&E here (not in the United States)
Any insights on the subtleties of academic selection, political or other consideration or even "hostile" audience as a test would be much appreciated. There is also a dinner with all the candidates and all the evaluators tomorrow, after our demo and interview. What kinds of things are they looking out for?
Thanks in advance
There may be some old white males who just can't quite deal with the likes of you. Be gracious, bite your tongue if you really want and/or need the job. Have you looked into the research members of the committee have done? Do it quickly and tie into it if you can in your presentation. When you go out to dinner do not drink alcohol, even if they all do. You need to keep yourself together.
Can you practice your presentation on a friend who has some knowledge about your field? Even one without might be able to give some constructive criticism on your timing, your delivery, etc.
In the US you would have no way of knowing who the other candidates are, weird that you do there.
Good luck.
posted by mareli at 12:57 PM on October 20, 2010
Can you practice your presentation on a friend who has some knowledge about your field? Even one without might be able to give some constructive criticism on your timing, your delivery, etc.
In the US you would have no way of knowing who the other candidates are, weird that you do there.
Good luck.
posted by mareli at 12:57 PM on October 20, 2010
"In the US you would have no way of knowing who the other candidates are, weird that you do there." Um, U.S. academia, invented this.
posted by caek at 1:06 PM on October 20, 2010
posted by caek at 1:06 PM on October 20, 2010
In my experience with academic audiences of another academic, people can put on their critical game face. They're listening to you and critiquing you (sorry to freak you out.)
Present as well as you can and take a deep breath before you answer questions.
And yes, it is entirely possible that they haven't read your CV and/or cover letter.
posted by k8t at 1:18 PM on October 20, 2010
Present as well as you can and take a deep breath before you answer questions.
And yes, it is entirely possible that they haven't read your CV and/or cover letter.
posted by k8t at 1:18 PM on October 20, 2010
Asking questions about information already on a c.v. might be a way to verify that the information listed is true. Being "hostile" might be a way to see how you would react to some unfriendly/difficult student. There are of course other possibilities.
Be professional at all times, do not pretend to know what you don't know (i.e. it is ok to answer "I don't know" to some questions rather than faking it) and ignore what other candidates are telling you.
Good luck!
posted by aroberge at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Be professional at all times, do not pretend to know what you don't know (i.e. it is ok to answer "I don't know" to some questions rather than faking it) and ignore what other candidates are telling you.
Good luck!
posted by aroberge at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: What country? Practices vary.
"Hostile" hasn't anything to do with the candidates, but at the most with the process. Most panel members likely would prefer to sit at home and be done with it. The people in the commission who really care could be few, and if they haven't already made up their minds (and just do the interview for the sake of procedures), they're the ones wanting something from you, not the reverse. Try to ignore the sour faces and act friendly and non-desperate all around.
The other thing we all have, is a fear of revealing no formal teaching expertise in an interview. Colleagues here tell me "if they really want you, they're gonna tell you exactly what you're gonna have to do, before you start working there", so what you'll have to demonstrate now is that you're cool with what you can do, that you can get a story across un-maimed in x time, and perhaps (I once had that spelled out in the interview timetable) present a smooth little PowerPoint presentation with a bunch of slides and stuff, but rather no glitter and bunnies (sorry. "artwork") around the edges.
Look closely at the job description: do they want a researcher who isn't too lofty to do some undergrad classroom work, do they (I just saw a job in Germany that radiated just this) want a teaching slave who doesn't get to do anything else, and will never face promotion, or what else do they want? I've heard a lot of talk here in UK humanities this last half year about how a research profile is ultimately the thing that keeps the wheel turning, plus post-grad coaching abilities. Make sure you fish out the background vibe of the job profile.
So whatever they're looking for is in these things, and in your ease in getting across who you are. If the latter doesn't get you the job, you will not want the job anyway.
posted by Namlit at 1:59 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Hostile" hasn't anything to do with the candidates, but at the most with the process. Most panel members likely would prefer to sit at home and be done with it. The people in the commission who really care could be few, and if they haven't already made up their minds (and just do the interview for the sake of procedures), they're the ones wanting something from you, not the reverse. Try to ignore the sour faces and act friendly and non-desperate all around.
The other thing we all have, is a fear of revealing no formal teaching expertise in an interview. Colleagues here tell me "if they really want you, they're gonna tell you exactly what you're gonna have to do, before you start working there", so what you'll have to demonstrate now is that you're cool with what you can do, that you can get a story across un-maimed in x time, and perhaps (I once had that spelled out in the interview timetable) present a smooth little PowerPoint presentation with a bunch of slides and stuff, but rather no glitter and bunnies (sorry. "artwork") around the edges.
Look closely at the job description: do they want a researcher who isn't too lofty to do some undergrad classroom work, do they (I just saw a job in Germany that radiated just this) want a teaching slave who doesn't get to do anything else, and will never face promotion, or what else do they want? I've heard a lot of talk here in UK humanities this last half year about how a research profile is ultimately the thing that keeps the wheel turning, plus post-grad coaching abilities. Make sure you fish out the background vibe of the job profile.
So whatever they're looking for is in these things, and in your ease in getting across who you are. If the latter doesn't get you the job, you will not want the job anyway.
posted by Namlit at 1:59 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thank you all for some great insights. I need to go get some sleep now and hopefully it will come. I'll hold off on resolving this till morning as I've set the alarm early to come in and read it once more for good luck :)
ps. I actually have a slide that says "I don't know..."
posted by The Lady is a designer at 2:00 PM on October 20, 2010
ps. I actually have a slide that says "I don't know..."
posted by The Lady is a designer at 2:00 PM on October 20, 2010
Best answer: This 'hostile audience' thing is surprising, in the US or Britain anyway. Why would they shortlist someone they actively disliked? The only explanation I can think of, with a panel of 10, is that some of the panellists really liked that candidate's application and insisted on shortlisting her against the wishes of the others--who then used the interview as an opportunity to shoot down her application.
In fact, no, there's a second explanation, perhaps more plausible: candidate was understandably stressed and read the situation as more hostile than it actually was. I have a friend who does this: when she did her practice job talk, I asked a question about something she hadn't mentioned, which I very carefully phrased (in a polite, 'tell-me-more' voice) as "That's extremely interesting. How do you think [----] might fit into your analysis?" She reacted, however, as though I'd impatiently said "Yes yes, but you haven't considered this." Her job talk was very good, the material was sound, and being unnecessarily defensive in response to a polite question would only harm her chances (as I warned her). She got the (good, tenure-track) job, and deservedly.
From my own experience, I've been up before large panels before (6-10 people) and while it was clear that some of them liked the application more than others, I've never felt anything approaching outright hostility. Likewise job talks to a larger crowd including students, and interviews with only the 3-5 members of a search committee. Searching questions, yes; also sometimes slightly dumb questions. But hostile ones, no. I've seen some of this process from the inside, too, and even where it was clear that one person had strong reservations about a candidate that didn't express itself in anything like hostility.
Further to the sensible words above, adapt the advice I recently read here on AskMe, in a datefilter question: "Someone who is nice to you but not to the waiter is not a nice person." In the department where I saw several searches from the inside (as a member of staff, though not as a search committee member), any candidate who was rude or curt with the secretary put a big black mark against their name in everyone's eyes. The senior academics specifically asked her opinion: after all, someone who is brusque or dismissive with a person they would be working with every day is not a nice person, even if they're all sparkly and charming with the search committee.
A practice job-talk is a great idea if you've got time. The advice I got at my last one helped me make my talk much more engaging at the real thing, and, uh, it worked. Otherwise, be calm, and remember that you're getting something out of the experience regardless of whether you're selected or not. My first interview was with a 10-person panel of Big Names, for a very competitive postdoc. I didn't get it, but I didn't mind: first, getting shortlisted for that one reassured me that I wasn't a complete no-hoper, and that getting a job somewhere wasn't wholly implausible; second, having fielded 45 minutes' worth of questions from a panel of ten Big Names, later interviews were much less intimidating.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 2:32 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
In fact, no, there's a second explanation, perhaps more plausible: candidate was understandably stressed and read the situation as more hostile than it actually was. I have a friend who does this: when she did her practice job talk, I asked a question about something she hadn't mentioned, which I very carefully phrased (in a polite, 'tell-me-more' voice) as "That's extremely interesting. How do you think [----] might fit into your analysis?" She reacted, however, as though I'd impatiently said "Yes yes, but you haven't considered this." Her job talk was very good, the material was sound, and being unnecessarily defensive in response to a polite question would only harm her chances (as I warned her). She got the (good, tenure-track) job, and deservedly.
From my own experience, I've been up before large panels before (6-10 people) and while it was clear that some of them liked the application more than others, I've never felt anything approaching outright hostility. Likewise job talks to a larger crowd including students, and interviews with only the 3-5 members of a search committee. Searching questions, yes; also sometimes slightly dumb questions. But hostile ones, no. I've seen some of this process from the inside, too, and even where it was clear that one person had strong reservations about a candidate that didn't express itself in anything like hostility.
Further to the sensible words above, adapt the advice I recently read here on AskMe, in a datefilter question: "Someone who is nice to you but not to the waiter is not a nice person." In the department where I saw several searches from the inside (as a member of staff, though not as a search committee member), any candidate who was rude or curt with the secretary put a big black mark against their name in everyone's eyes. The senior academics specifically asked her opinion: after all, someone who is brusque or dismissive with a person they would be working with every day is not a nice person, even if they're all sparkly and charming with the search committee.
A practice job-talk is a great idea if you've got time. The advice I got at my last one helped me make my talk much more engaging at the real thing, and, uh, it worked. Otherwise, be calm, and remember that you're getting something out of the experience regardless of whether you're selected or not. My first interview was with a 10-person panel of Big Names, for a very competitive postdoc. I didn't get it, but I didn't mind: first, getting shortlisted for that one reassured me that I wasn't a complete no-hoper, and that getting a job somewhere wasn't wholly implausible; second, having fielded 45 minutes' worth of questions from a panel of ten Big Names, later interviews were much less intimidating.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 2:32 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
It depends on the field, the school, the department, a lots of variables. At least we need to know the field to be of help.
posted by vincele at 3:04 PM on October 20, 2010
posted by vincele at 3:04 PM on October 20, 2010
Why would they shortlist someone they actively disliked?
In cases of hostile audiences/interviewers that I know about [in the US], there has typically another explanation -- they are hostile people who are just not good with others, and/or the department has an institutional culture of being difficult/challenging to outsiders despite the faculty members being ok one on one. There are lots of non-collegial academics out there. Keep in mind that you are evaluating the department, too, and collegiality of the department is something to investigate during a job visit (just as they are investigating how collegial you are).
In the US you would have no way of knowing who the other candidates are, weird that you do there.
That's not true, though maybe it was once upon a time -- I personally knew nearly everyone on every short (or long) list I've been on; I talked to many of them about the searches. Also, many departments announce job talks in a way that makes them easy to identify (though not all, and sometimes secret ones don't get announced).
posted by advil at 3:17 PM on October 20, 2010
In cases of hostile audiences/interviewers that I know about [in the US], there has typically another explanation -- they are hostile people who are just not good with others, and/or the department has an institutional culture of being difficult/challenging to outsiders despite the faculty members being ok one on one. There are lots of non-collegial academics out there. Keep in mind that you are evaluating the department, too, and collegiality of the department is something to investigate during a job visit (just as they are investigating how collegial you are).
In the US you would have no way of knowing who the other candidates are, weird that you do there.
That's not true, though maybe it was once upon a time -- I personally knew nearly everyone on every short (or long) list I've been on; I talked to many of them about the searches. Also, many departments announce job talks in a way that makes them easy to identify (though not all, and sometimes secret ones don't get announced).
posted by advil at 3:17 PM on October 20, 2010
Best answer: I saw a teaching demo at our uni a little while ago, and one of the candidates got a fairly hostile response. She was the only female applicant, and it was in a department who had never ever employed a woman (and still hasn't). By "hostile", I mean that the questions she was asked were really hard (unlike the soft-balls thrown to the male candidates), one audience member grilled her repeatedly on why she hadn't cited him in something she wrote somewhere once, and another audience member suggested out loud to the room that the reason the candidate had used an example that she had was just so that she could name drop about who she had worked on that particular problem with.
The candidate was in tears afterwards.
BUT. I was also present at the discussions afterwards and everyone exclaimed about how hostile the room had been to her, and about how well she'd handled it (continued to smile, speak calmly, answer as best she could), and apart from the two people who had really been the most hostile, everyone regretted it. It probably worked in the candidate's favour to some extent. (Of course she didn't get the job, but that was a foregone conclusion given the department's lack of interest in female employees.)
From what I understand, though, that sort of atmosphere is really the exception. Remember that the audience are your peers, not your superiors, that most of them probably want you to do well, and that you can handle whatever they throw at you.
posted by lollusc at 3:48 PM on October 20, 2010
The candidate was in tears afterwards.
BUT. I was also present at the discussions afterwards and everyone exclaimed about how hostile the room had been to her, and about how well she'd handled it (continued to smile, speak calmly, answer as best she could), and apart from the two people who had really been the most hostile, everyone regretted it. It probably worked in the candidate's favour to some extent. (Of course she didn't get the job, but that was a foregone conclusion given the department's lack of interest in female employees.)
From what I understand, though, that sort of atmosphere is really the exception. Remember that the audience are your peers, not your superiors, that most of them probably want you to do well, and that you can handle whatever they throw at you.
posted by lollusc at 3:48 PM on October 20, 2010
Response by poster: Vincele - the field, unsuprisingly, is design
thank you for the timely reminder that the audience are my peers
posted by The Lady is a designer at 10:16 PM on October 20, 2010
thank you for the timely reminder that the audience are my peers
posted by The Lady is a designer at 10:16 PM on October 20, 2010
Response by poster: UpdateFilter: Dinner in 90 minutes.. I had a painful moment with the lack of teaching experience in the interview but thanks to this thread, I knew when they started helping me out in the interview that it was a positive signal. Thank you all
posted by The Lady is a designer at 7:33 AM on October 21, 2010
posted by The Lady is a designer at 7:33 AM on October 21, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
As one of the doctoral students. a friend in the same graduate program as I was in then, who'd witnessed that lunch explained to me when he recounted the incident: "Once you get to the final candidates, people assume that you'll be capable of doing the work. In the final interviews, they're just trying to find the person who isn't a freak, whom they wouldn't mind having lunch with once in awhile."
In the scenario above, I don't know if that woman didn't get hired because the grad students reported back to the hiring committee that she seemed like a freak (and that might be an unfair assumption based on one unfortunate cookie monster impression). However, even though this happened almost 20 years ago and the comment was neither aimed at me normeant as career advice, I think it's the best advice I've ever gotten. Show how you will fit into the academic/department culture and don't bust out your muppet impersonations at the post-interview dinner.
Good luck
posted by kaybdc at 12:56 PM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]