My School has been going through a period of expansion, appointing candidates to a range of lectureships and senior lectureships. These interviews are different from approaching post-doc positions, and I wanted to share some of the reflections and discussions that happen behind the scenes.
Most institutes in the UK will have at least three components to the hiring process – the interview, a sample teaching activity, and a presentation to the broader school/department. The reflections below are based on the discussions after candidate presentations
- The candidate’s fit with the hiring need. The institute normally has a purpose for hiring a new post – this can be headcount replacement, expansion of teaching interests, consolidation of subject expertise or some combination of these factors. I have been in discussion where we have had outstanding candidates – amazon researchers, or fantastic teachers – but they don’t fulfil the brief we are looking for. Sometimes they are hired anyway, sometimes not – and when unsuccessful, it could just be that your profile wasn’t the exact fit being looked for. Therefore two pieces of advice:
- 1) always ask for feedback
- 2) preparation – always read up on the institute and department you are applying to. If there is a contact person, reach out and have the conversation. It really surprises me how few people do this, and it makes a difference when candidates have made the effort.
- Having a clear narrative. One of the common discussion points after presentations is the narrative presented. Poor presentations tend to fall into one of two camps – either talking about a single project in such depth, there isn’t time to present the candidate’s broader vision; or talking about everything the candidate has ever done at such a surface level, it is impossible to establish the quality of what has been achieved. Better presentations tend to be more selective, with a clear narrative that progresses between two or three research projects or papers, highlighting both the research questions they are interested in, why they are important, and where they want to go in the future.
- Update your online presence. This should almost go without saying – having a clear online presence, with your research up-to-date on Google Scholar, and your current institutional profile highlighting your achievements. If nothing else, At our institute, faculty attending the presentation have not seen candidate’s CVs, and therefore searching your online profile once you have presented is not uncommon.
- Highlight excellence. If you have funding grants, paper awards, teaching awards, accreditation – drop these in. They are not worth spending a lot of time on during the presentation, but mention them as asides as part of your overall narrative.
- Making the most of what you have. Most institutes in the UK are looking for expertise in teaching, research and administration. Particularly for people moving into their first lectureships, teaching experience can be challenging to evidence as it is rarely a priority during post-doc roles. If you have sought out teaching experience in any context, highlight it as demonstrating your commitment to teaching. In a recent round we hired a post-doc as a lecturer, in part on the strength of his educational YouTube channel.
- Opinions will vary. This is perhaps the hardest aspect to contend with, as you have no control over it. I have been to presentations for approximately 12 posts over the last few years, and likely 60 candidates. In no more than a handful of these have all of the attendees had the same opinion on a candidate. Given the nature of academic work, this shouldn’t be surprising – different people value different skillsets, and academic opinions frequently diverge.
The hiring process is tough, and few candidates are hired for the first interview they go for. You have to view each interview as an opportunity to refine your message, and do the best that you can.