Comments on Interview Meals

• American System Requires Reform
• Posted by Bret on September 23, 2009 at 5:30am EDT

• Coming from the British model in the UK and Australia, I am constantly amazed at how expensive and frivolous the American hiring process is. This essay, while well meaning, is indicative of the corrupt and subjective nature of American hiring decisions. In the UK, you are interviewed for the position, not to be a dinner mate. Some might argue that colleagues don't get to know a person as well if you don't go to dinner. Fine! We are hiring professionals, not friends, and when we mix the two up we get corruption and playing favorites. It is also very expensive, time consuming, and stressful to be interviewed day after day. The American hiring process requires reform, and this article should be indicative of some of the problems that need to be corrected. This all stems from the tenure process in the US. While tenure itself need not be abolished, the idea of not hiring people worthy of a job is rather odd. In the UK and Australia positions are either temporary (usually for new PhDs) or they are permanent. The distinction of having a possible long-term permanent job with the fear of losing it is stressful and perhaps not the best way of achieving the levels of scholarship and teaching we want and need.  

• My goodness, Bret
• Posted by Emony at Somewhere in the South on September 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT

• Why the vitriol? Having dinner with potential future colleagues is not a crime, nor is it harmful to anyone. Accept it as a cultural convention and move on-- Lord knows every culture has its quirks that seem perfectly normal to those within the system but odd to those without. There are far more pressing issues that call for reform.

• Maybe...
• Posted by John , History at Community College on September 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT

• Brett, I see your point in that the US is overally liberal in the expenses when it comes to hiring, but I also see part of the interview process over a meal as something that gives the interviewers a picture of how the candidate might interact in a social setting, which we know is important since many of these employees will be traveling in the same social circles. Additionally, 'business lunches' are another way of getting something done during a day when people might find thier schedule booked. Granted it sucks up funds that might be utilized elsewhere, but done properly and without excess it is a very legit part of an interview process. The differences, culturally, of how things are done in the UK and the US are and have been apparent for ages: the UK has always given off a feeling of no nonsense and less willingness to be free with funds for this type of thing and the US has been known to less inhibited when it comes to spending money. I am sure that if we look into our historys we can find factors that lead us to this observation...maybe along the lines of the 'land of plenty'.

  Anyhoo, I wanted to make a comment about table manners and the present day lack of them in all social strata of the US. I, many times, find myself almost embarrassed by close friends and co-workers lack of them....and they don't have to be perfect, just better. Talking while ones mouth is full, elbows on the table, hunching over ones food, etc... are all things that are not attended to and can make or break an impression that person is trying to give. One doesn't have to be up on the finer points of table etiquette, but a modicum of table manners can go a long way into creating a good impression. Poor table manners show an inconsiderate attitude, selfishness, lack of smarts when it comes to common sense, laziness and a whole host of other things. I can't stress this enough, it shows very tellingly how a person conducts themself in a less formal business environment and answering a question with a mouthful of food is NOT going to leave a good impression. But then again why should it, if a person doesn't have the sense to exhibit good table manners over the space of an hour, how can they be expected to exhibit a sense of more important things over the space of years?

  Excuse me while I slurp my 100 dollar a bowl soup....just messin with ya..;)

• Well-meaning but...
• Posted by Marie on September 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT

• I would tend to agree with Bret. I'm an American graduate student and not quite ready for the job market, so I haven't experienced the interview process yet. But professional socialization has so far stressed one thing almost above all others: the structure of US academia is such that being able to fit in and socialize well seems more important than being a good scholar or teacher.

• general rules don't always work for all
• Posted by Wendy on September 23, 2009 at 11:00am EDT

• Much of the article is on point, but I worry about giving job candidates the advice not to ask for substitutions when they order at a restaurant, not to ask about ingredients in a dish. There are any number of job candidates with medical conditions or religious practices that come with dietary implications. These people can manage their lives if they are knowledgeable about what they eat. The only way such management can be accomplished is if one is willing to ask the waiter about ingredients and if one is brave enough to ask for substitutions. Within reason, that is.

• Usefulness of mealtime; Dietary Restrictions
• Posted by Jeanne Phoenix Laurel , Assoc Prof & Chair, English at Niagara University on September 23, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

• On the utility of meals: My department has found that comments during meal discussions very often reinforce or counteract our hunches about things said in more formal interview circumstances. While nobody wants to grill or psych out a candidate over a meal, it can provide a valuable opportunity to get a sense of the candidate's interests, personality, interactions; a parallax effect, a more 360 view.

  On dietary restrictions: After finding ourselves in one interview situation with 3 vegetarians interviewing a vegan at a meat-first restaraunt, our department has made it a point to ask about dining preferences, and to select cuisine based primarily on candidate's expressed wishes/needs (and of course accommodating the needs of others). Discrete questions about things like shellfish allergies, Ramadan fasting, or otherwise ought (IMHO) to be extended by the interviewing school well in advance of the meal itself, so that all can enjoy as much as possible.

• Dietary restrictions
• Posted on September 23, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT

• I'm glad I'm not the only one who brought this up, but there are a number of very common foods (meat, eggs, onions, and garlic, among others) I cannot consume due to religious restrictions, so I worry about mealtime interviews. I don't like to seem picky, but dietary laws are what they are, and I can't in good conscience violate them for an interview or any other reason. What should one do in that case? Is there a tactful way to tell the interviewers in advance if you know you're going to be sharing a meal?

• sabotage at mealtime!
• Posted by EGS , Planner at University of California, San Francisco on September 23, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT

• As a grad student, we watched in amazement as our professors returned from dinner with young applicants who then had to deliver an evening seminar. The faculty thought it was fun to get the candidate drunk, and sometimes themselves too. This was really mean. The only smart applicants were those who had graduated from our department themselves and knew better. So my suggestion about alcohol is to hold a full glass and take few sips, but not to drink very much or at all. This is the time you need your full wits about you.

  Another problem is that when you are having lunch with a group, you don't really have time to eat, they all bombard you with questions and you are mostly responding, not eating, so keeping some snacks in your briefcase is good advice. You'll be lucky to get in a few bites.

• It goes both ways
• Posted by ma on September 23, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT

• There's a lot of focus here on the issue of the hiring faculty using the interview meal as an opportunity to observe personal characteristics of the applicant. However, it is also true that the candidate can(and often does)use those same meals as a chance to observe interactions among prospective colleagues. Has any candidate ever "run away screaming" with negative impressions of the atmosphere in a department where that candidate is considering a job offer? Sure! Would it be valid to make a decision on an offer based on how (un)comfortable you would feel working in a specific department rather than on the objective facts about the department itself and the salary figure? Of course! Then, I'm not sure why should it be considered offensive for the candidates themselves to be considered in similar terms, as a sum total of both factual information about their qualifications and experiential fedback based on first-hand social interactions and conversation.

• yes, candidates can learn from interview meals too
• Posted by MRH , Assistant Professor at Dartmouth on September 23, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT

• I once had an interview meal at which a male faculty got drunk and made a pass at me. A junior female faculty member who was also at the meal told me to ignore him, that he often did that. I concluded that I wouldn't want a job in that department, even if it had been offered.

  On another occasion I was taken out by a group of faculty at a state university that had very limited resources. Although it was not during a recession, each faculty member at the meal had to pay for his/her own meal and part of mine. When they all got out their wallets and started figuring out what each person owed, it was a little awkward for me. More importantly, it taught me how strapped they were for resources. I ended up taking the job, but I went in with my eyes open.

• Still a Conformist, Corrupt, Useless Process
• Posted by Bret on September 24, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• I think the comments by people -- of drunkeness and other things -- prove how subjective and non-professional the whole idea of dinners are. The justifications include trying to 'really' get to know people -- i.e. looking beyond professional qualifications at the 'personal characteristics -- among other things only show how arbitrary the process is. This only can lead to conformity and to petty politics. Honestly, if one has to worry about eating -- eating!! -- to get a job, then there is a problem. It seems that people are just justifying a long, stressful, and rather conformist process because they've grown up with it. Hire people because they can teach or publish, not because they know what foods to pick or not to pick. I have no vitriol for the American model; I just think it is an expensive, conformist, and perhaps detrimental process. 

• Posted by Mike on September 24, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• I agree with Bret. I work in Hong Kong, where we routinely hire Assistant Professors on the basis of a 45-minute telephone interview-- plus the usual non-interview components, such as writing samples, recommendation letters, etc. Granted, it is easy to make up theoretical objections to the economical nature of our interviewing process, if we look to actual results I would put our track record of hiring long-term successful colleagues up against those of the American universities on whose search committees I have served. To put it another way: in my experience the superiority of a multi-day interviewing process, complete with meals, over a 45-minute telephone interview is PURELY theoretical, and has no connection with the actual results achieved.

  In addition, although I can certainly see this from the candidate's perspective-- I've been a candidate numerous times, after all-- I would point out the advantages from the search committee's perspective. Unnecessary time spent entertaining prospective candidates-- most of whom we would never see again-- is time that can't be devoted to teaching, research, playing with our children, and watching bad television. And since the superiority of the long drawn-out interview seems to be purely theoretical rather than actual, what's the point? Granted, some people ENJOY extra meetings...

• dietary restrictions
• Posted by Lydia Soleil, Ph.D. , Assistant Director, TA Programs and Graduate Student Development at Georgia Tech on October 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT

• If one has dietary restrictions for medical, religious or other reasons, it is suggested that you let your interviewers know in advance. Your hosts should want the meal to be a pleasant experience for you but they need to know in advance to be able to do so. If they don't ask if you have any dietary restrictions, don't be afraid to speak up.

  Also, by bringing up your needs in advance, you get to find out how they react (remember, you are interviewing them too!). When interviewing for my most current position I told them in advance I was vegan and they arranged to take me to a gourmet vegetarian restaurant. The food was wonderful and the fact that they made an effort to accommodate my needs made me feel welcome. It also served the purpose of introducing me to the vegetarian scene in the city I was considering relocating to.