--GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY JOB INTERVIEW-Before I get to the particulars of those preparations, let me say a few words about what generally
to expect in an interview. The typical interview takes between half an hour to 50 minutes -- you
should ask the school how long they expect it to be, when they are setting it up with you -- a
committee will typically slot an hour for each candidate, and want a little bit of time between
candidates both to talk about the interview that had just been conducted, and also to catch their
breath, look over notes for the next candidate, etc. Many interviews take place in hotel suites, in
a living room/conference room space; also, increasingly departments (especially those that
cannot afford such rooms) interview at tables set up in a ballroom in the hotel. A committee may
range from only 2 people for a very small department, to as many as 5 or 6 for a larger one. Be
sure, if it is a larger group, to try to speak in a manner that is directed to everyone & that
everyone can hear -- even if one member of the committee is 'monopolizing' you, try to be
engaged with the whole committee. One partial exception to this is if one interviewer is an
expert in your field; in such a case, make sure you are fully addressing whatever concerns, etc.
they may be raising. But if at all possible, do so in a way such that the other members of the
committee don't feel 'shut out'.
WHAT YOU SHOULD PREPARE AND/OR PRACTICE
(a) Die Drei Dissertationenspielen
(b) Likely research-related questions
(c) Your bread-and-butter courses
(d) Your 'reach' courses
(e) Curveballs
(f) Your questions for the committee
These are not all equal: for research institutions, (a) and (c) will be perhaps the most important,
with (b) close behind; for more teaching-oriented schools, (c) and (d) will be the most important,
with (a) close behind. (e) is, by its nature, something to be more aware of than literally practiced;
and (f) is something just to take note of & devote a little bit of thought to, but clearly not as
important as the other components.
(a) The Three Dissertation Spiels
A common misunderstanding that interviewees have is that they should prepare a spiel, which
they will expect to deliver more-or-less intact. In fact, you can almost certainly count on getting
interrupted fairly early on in your delivery -- sometimes right off the bat. Think of it this way:
you're giving a sales pitch, not an academic lecture. So I recommend thinking of it as three
spiels, nested one inside the other: a 30-second spiel, a 90-second spiel, and a full 5-minute spiel.
(I can't imagine anyone getting past 5 minutes -- if they've let you talk for much longer than that
without interrupting, then I'd estimate there's about a 3% change that you've wowed them into
awestruck silence, and a 97% chance that you've lost them completely.)
Since you're not going to count on getting past the first 30 seconds -- and even that may be
stretching things! -- the first rule is: the most important stuff goes first & get right to the point.
Get right down to business about the problem you're trying to solve in your dissertation, and how
you're going about solving it. Don't try to give a lot of set-up or background (though see the
third rule, below). That's the 30-second spiel. The 90-second spiel would present more of an
overview of the dissertation -- what you'll do in the various chapters, for example. Don't feel
locked in to giving a book report on the diss, though. If there are parts that will just be hard to
explain in so compressed a format, or which will be painfully boring to non-experts, or which
will raise problems that you really have no solution for (and, really, everyone's project has some
of these lurking around), then don't include them in the spiel. The full 5-minute version can
include more details, particularly where it showcases the more innovative/clever/'sexy' parts of
what you've done; and, if you've got something good in development, you might include it in the
longer spiel, too, especially if it's something you think you could have a good conversation about
with the committee.
This brings me to the second rule of the spiel: frame the discussion so it goes where you want it
to go. Set them up to ask the kinds of questions you're interested in answering; namely, the ones
you've got good answers for. Don't bring up any objections to your project, unless they are ones
that you know exactly how you want to reply to. (One of the best feelings in the world,
interview-wise, is when an interviewer brings up an objection for which you can honestly say,
"I'm glad you asked that!")
The third rule of the spiel is: know your audience. Occasionally a school will add interviews to
its roster at the APA, but more typically you'll have had a moderate amount of time between
being invited for the interview, and the interview itself. Use that time wisely, and do some
digging on each school & department that will be interviewing you. (Usually a school will be
happy to tell you who will be on the interviewing committee.) If anyone on their faculty already
works in or near your area, then try to read a bit of that person's work. Don't artificially include
references to that work -- you don't want to look obsequious -- but know what kinds of concerns
they might raise, what general methodological or ideological approach they might have, etc.
And be prepared, in the longer spiels, to pitch the conversation somewhat to a specialist level.
Or, more commonly, a department might not have anyone currently on their faculty who works
in your area: the reason they are hiring in area X is that they are currently X-less. In that case,
make sure that your spiel is constructed in a way that does not presuppose your audience has any
specialist knowledge, both substantively and linguistically (i.e., avoid terms that are highly
specific to your area, or at least be prepared to gloss them quickly if they are ineliminable). A
further, perhaps more important aspect of this is framing your work -- and yourself -- in a
manner that sounds interesting to people outside of your specialty.
Remember that departments aren't just hiring a paper-producing/student-teaching machine -- they
are hiring a colleague, and part of what you're looking to demonstrate is that you'll be a good
person to have around. (This also means being prepared to answer some annoying sorts of
'personal' questions; see (d) below.)
If what you are working on bumps up into something that a lot of people in philosophy are
talking about these days, try to find the time before your interview to read something in that area.
Hopefully you have been going to philosophy dept. colloquia, reading widely in philosophy,
talking with people about different issues in philosophy throughout your grad. career and can
draw on what you've picked up to say something about these issues you don't address but are
connected to what you work on. A LOT of schools care enormously about your ability to talk
about a wide range of philosophical topics with colleagues, advanced undergraduates (and, if it
has them, grad students). This is all especially true if the department is small.
Note: I've put most of the above in terms of a dissertation spiel. If you've been out for a while,
then you'll want to frame it all more generally in terms of your research program(s). All the
basic advice still applies, though.
(b) Other research-related discussion - Be prepared to talk about not just what you've already
accomplished, but also what you're planning on accomplishing in the near future. A common
kind of question is "Where do you see your research going next?" or "What sort of work do you
plan to be doing for the next 3 years?" What you're trying to show here is that you haven't spent
all your intellectual dough on writing the dissertation -- that you have new directions to take your
research in, new ideas to explore. It's good, obviously, if these directions and ideas pertain to the
AOS that they are listing, of course. A general framework for such an answer is "I plan to write
an article on X, arguing that…. After that I have in mind…exploring the question of…" (Note
that it's fine if you can be specific on one but not on the next two or three.)
If it's not a tenure-track job, then probably they won't be talking more than fairly briefly about
your research in the first place; these guidelines are mostly aimed at tenure-track positions.
Also, if you've got some research interests that aren't well-packaged with your dissertation, then
have a short spiel ready on those, too. Hopefully your CV will have done a good job of
indicating the existence of such interests (in terms of your others AOSs, your AOCs,
papers/presentations, and your list of courses you can teach) so that it will be natural for the
committee to bring it up. (See also part (e) below.) The 'know the audience' rule applies here,
too: suppose you've got a background in (e.g.) aesthetics, and there's an aesthetics person on the
committee. Then even if the job is in something entirely unrelated to aesthetics, you'll want to
find a way to indicate to that member of the committee that they'll have someone useful to talk to,
if they were to have you as a colleague. (Nothing special about aesthetics there, other than that's
the area that was relevant in this way for me when I was on the market -- just mutatis mutandis
for your own interests.)
(c) Bread-and-butter courses: Based on your AOSs/AOCs, as well as what you've already taught,
you should have a set of courses for which you have a very clear idea how you will teach them.
Ideally, you'll have a syllabus prepared for each such class, and you'll have copies with you in
each interview that you can give to the committee, if it comes up. Just the act of preparing such
a syllabus, even if you don't end up with a copy on you, will do wonders towards getting your
thoughts together on how to talk about such a class. At an absolute minimum you should be
prepared to talk about what texts (preferably what specific texts) you'll want to use, what topics
you'll want to cover, and your overall teaching strategy for them. And be ready to answer stupid
questions along the lines of "Why are you using text/topic/author X instead of Y?" … and be
careful how you answer such questions. Don't say "Because Y is a marginal figure", when one
of the interviewers has published 4 articles on Y! (Once again: know your audience.)
What classes will these be? Roughly speaking: at least two of the three standard 100-level
classes (intro to philosophy, informal reasoning, intro ethics); at least one upper-level undergrad
class in any AOC or AOS that you list; and at least one grad course in any AOS (iff you're being
interviewed by a department with a grad program). That's a minimum: it's even better if you
have a couple of different such courses to talk about, especially at the mid- to upper-undergrad
level. E.g., if you have an AOS in epistemology, it would be great to be prepped to talk about
not just a 300-level 'recent issues in epistemology' course, but also a historically-oriented version,
and a more focused 400-level course on a particular issue. It also goes without saying that you'll
want to get yourself especially prepared to talk about any courses that you can teach, for which
the department has advertised particular teaching needs.
You should feel free to make heavy use of other people's teaching materials, in developing your
own syllabi or course plans. The faculty and your fellow grad students will usually be very
happy to show their syllabi to you, which you can then use as a starting point in developing your
own.
(d) 'Stretch' courses: What I have in mind here are courses outside of the bread-and-butter, so
which you're maybe not already prepared to teach, but which you'd be willing to teach if needed
& given time. You may well be asked, "Could you teach X?" for courses outside your main
areas, and you can say no to some, but not too many, and you also don't want to sound barely
willing if you are not ruling it out. But it's fine to say "if I had some advanced notice; I'd need to
spend a good bit of time preparing for that, but would be happy to" or something along those
lines. But you might want to spare a little bit of time thinking about what courses like these you
might want to have some small rough idea about; and what courses you might consider just
beyond the pale for you.
(e) Curveballs - Outside of the sorts of issues discussed above, different interviewers sometimes
ask different sorts of questions, to try to get a sense of you as a person & as a philosopher. Some
standard ones include:
"What do you like to do, when you're not doing philosophy?"
"If your house were on fire, what one book would you save?"
"We have a very heavy teaching load. Will you be able to handle four courses/term, direct
undergrad. honors theses, go to lots of dept. and college meetings, take part in the undergrad
philosophy club, and also keep current with philosophy and engage in at least some research?"
"How did you get interested in X (whatever you are working on)?"
"Do you have any interest in Y (where Y is a topic of interest to the interviewer, and of course of
no real interest to you at all)?"
Also, they may pose questions about specific kind of teaching problems, and how you'd handle
them:
"How do you interest the students who are only taking the course because it is a requirement?"
"How do you handle students who really can't write a decent, grammatical sentence?"
"What techniques do you use to prevent the common classroom scenario where maybe 5 people
talk a lot, and the rest are silent?
"Do you call on people who don't have their hands up?"
If you have a clear sense of yourself as a teacher, these shouldn't be too hard to answer. It's
really, really good if you have a 'telling anecdote' or two from your teaching experience, about
how you handled any such issues.
(f) Your questions for the committee: It's very standard, at the end of the interview, for the
committee to ask you whether you have any questions for them. It's not 100% necessary that
you do so, but it's definitely good if you can use it as an opportunity not just to find out any
information you might want, but moreover as a chance to indicate that you've thought about the
school & taken the time to learn something about them. For example, if you've got an
interdisciplinary interest, and you googled up the relevant department or program, you might ask
the committee about connections between the philosophy department and gender studies, Judaic
studies, cog-sci, etc. If you've been involved with a philosophy club in the past (either IU's or
from your own undergrad institution), and you see from their website that they have one, you
might ask about it. Do a basic implication check on any such question, though -- e.g., although
you might well want to know it, asking "How easy is it to get releases from teaching at your
university?" doesn't exactly send the signal that you're excited about a career in the classroom….
Some last things that almost go without saying: dress neatly, show up on time, try to use open &
friendly body language; confidence, but not arrogance; learn & use people's names (if you can;
but don't stress yourself into getting them wrong!); listen closely, try not to interrupt, and don't
be afraid to ask clarifying questions ("Do you mean, how would I teach a specific topic course in
X, or a more general course on X?"); don't be afraid sometimes to say "I don't know"; remember
that the committee is tired & has talked with at least a dozen other philosophers that day, so go
easy on them.
And, above all, and I know this sounds crazy, but … try to have fun! Or, at least, look like
you're having fun -- but the best way to do that is to actually have the fun in the first place.
Remember, you're a philosopher, and you enjoy talking about philosophy. And the philosophers
on the committees also enjoy talking about philosophy, and want to hire someone else who does,
too.