Job Description Changed at Interview

[Godstopper]

Hi All,

I am an ECR and have had two rather strange interview experiences the past week. Not looking so much for advice, but venting. Both were for teaching jobs, and chosen because I believed, from the job descriptions, that both were compatible with my research. The job descriptions significantly changed at both interviews. Here's what happened:

Interview no.1: "Although this post is advertised at 0.5, would you be happy to teach multiple seminars five days a week?" Well, if I wanted to do that, I would have applied for a similar job at my own institution for twice the pay. The whole interview was a catalogue of errors from start to finish, and it was only my partner saying it would be a black mark that stopped me from withdrawing from the process immediately afterwards - pretty appalled by the dept. for various reasons, but the changing of what was required stood out.

Interview no 2. Far nicer people, but ... they asked if I could teach four modules that were NOT ON THE JOB DESCRIPTION, and the ones that I had been prepared to say something about. They said something about having "new teaching needs", and by the way, could I move to location X at one week's notice ?! It seemed a bit unfair to spring new modules upon me at interview, and then say I didn't "meet their teaching needs." Well of course I bloody didn't as I hadn't a clue they had suddenly changed - as it was, I wouldn't have taken that either as the teaching load was more than officially advertised.

Is this diverging from the job description without warning candidates normal? Institution no.1, in particular, was a complete waste of my time.

So, I find myself without an official job at the moment, but a research project for this year, invitations to present at major conferences, and an invitation to write a paper for a decent journal - doesn't strike me as a bad position to be in.

Just a vent! Wonder if anyone has experienced anything similar?

Tricky.

I can see why both situations really bothered you. But personally, I don't follow why being asked to teach new modules is a huge issue? Maybe this is subject-specific, but in my subject, permanent and temp staff would regularly be asked to do new modules. It's not a big deal. Ok, sure, it's annoying to be blindsided, but I don't think it's that odd. When I interviewed for my TA post a few years ago, the interview included questions about how I'd respond to changing teaching needs, and I thought that was a fair question. The whole point is to see how well you adapt to a new department's own shifting needs.

Being asked to teach more than 0.5 for 0.5 pay is really bizarre.

I've had fairly big divergences from job spec, though. For my TA job, I interviewed for a 12 month post. They asked me if there was any reason I'd not applied for their other, 26 month post, and when I said no, they offered me that instead, which was better for me as I wanted the stability. That happened in interview and obviously meant that the job expectations were slightly different.

So I think it sounds like a mixture of reasonable questions and really odd, unreasonable expectations.

Hi LDR,

I completely take the point about being responsive to changing teaching needs. Allow me to clarify.

When teaching fellow jobs are advertised in my discipline, they specify the modules you will teach. We tend to have expertise in topics x and y, so asking how you would teach z at interview is alien. It's fine if the modules change throughout the year, but all job descriptions are pretty clear on the modules required originally.

My own view is that they should have e mailed candidates about the new modules rather than blindside them at interview as that's changing a fundamental part of the job. People have "areas of competence", and of course won't have anything to say if a bomb is dropped at interview.

Yes, 0.5 job was an exploitative route to nowhere: it's tricky determining which teaching jobs are a real opportunity vs merely propping up a senior academic's career at the expense of your own.

I don't think it's reasonable to ditch the modules advertised if they were specialist and ask people to teach a completely different set, and four is a lot if it were a part time job. Sounds like they reshuffled internally to cover the specialist stuff and got left with a load of generic stuff no-one wanted to do, or someone got bought out and they were hoping for a truly desperate candidate. That said, it's quite typical in my field for people at teaching fellow level to be asked to teach pretty much any of the generic modules (e.g intro to discipline, skills modules, dissertations, standard ones most UG do) and these change from year to year, so you might come in to teach one set of modules, then get shifted the year after. They aren't 'your' modules, so to speak usually, as it's usually cover for a grant or maternity or buy out so is temporary. That's frustrating for the TF and means more work, that's the nature of the TF job.

Oh, ok, that sounds really bad, then.

I did wonder, because I can imagine that some subjects will require quite different levels of preparation for a new module.

It is depressing, isn't it?

One job was 0.8 but apparently wanted five modules. That's one more than the 1.0 jobs at my own institution this year, and the whole reason I was more selective was so that I could get the necessary pubs.

Yup. We have specialisms in my discipline. If you were a historian, for example, and specialised in a time period, this would be like asking you to teach another period altogether, so of course you won't know what's cutting edge, the relevant texts etc. I'd prepared for the modules on the job description, and was only asked about one. Had I had some notice, I could have looked up the others, and considered if I wanted to withdraw my application as I didn't have the relevant expertise.

The whole thing is depressing as you say. There will be someone desperate enough to take the job at the expense of their own research. In the long term, they are likely to be worse off.

It's better for me to maintain an affiliation with my institution, pursue a project with a prof and get pubs out of it (one expected to be under contract soon), than to have an official job but with nothing to show for it.

Oh, I see.

I'm a medievalist - I think if, in interview, I were asked to teach early Modern, it would be harder work. It's not unusual for job adverts to ask for you to be prepared to teach outside your time period, but I'd be irritated, like you, if it were sprung on me in interview. I was thinking more along the lines of me preparing modules on texts a, b and c in the medieval period, and then saying, actually, we want texts d, e and f that you've never read. That would be acceptable, I would say, because I would expect the department to be in the middle of figuring out who'll teach what as they advertise a post.

I also think it's worth thinking about if you can teach outside your usual topics of expertise- I have a permanent job from being willing to take on a course no-one else wanted to do/didn't have much expertise in, and it was stressful at the time, as I was only a step ahead of the students, but it got me a foothold in the department as I wasn't competing with 100 other post-docs who could also teach my areas which is one of the problems in the humanities/some areas of social science.

That said, on both these occasions, it sounds like the departments were chaotic and they didn't know what they wanted/the hours were more than you wanted anyway, so having some time to write up publications and work on a project, if you don't need to work for a few months for salary, is probably a much better bet, then you can re-enter the hiring fray hopefully in a better bargaining position (but at junior levels, there will always be some chaos and taking on of modules which aren't your thing).

It sounds like you are best off out of it. IME if an organisation changes its mind at the job interview stage, it is likely you are going to be messed around something chronic from then on.
The publications route sounds better; also a good idea to ask people in your field about the internal states of other departments, and then single out the healthy ones (or at least, not terrible ones) for future job apps.

Example 1 is shocking, Example 2 irritating but it happens.

I work on eighteenth-century stuff, but at UG level I'd be prepared to teach 1550-1900. Part of my training was learning to pick up a new area fast, well enough to do a credible job with undergrads.

It is not ideal but teaching needs change at short notice.

The problem with example 2 is that it places candidates who have little knowledge of the new areas at a substantial disadvantage. I felt like I wasted my time preparing to say something about the modules in the job description. Don't get why we couldn't have been told before interview, and preferably, with the option to withdraw from the process.

The original modules were outside my area. I'm happy to teach beyond it, and indeed, this strikes me as the best way to learn about new stuff when research time us limited. But still can't shake the impression that springing new stuff on candidates at interview is unprofessional (this is a top ten dept).

Well, yes, but candidates who have little knowledge of the new areas are at a substantial disadvantage! It's not very surprising if a university wants to hire someone who can contribute in several different ways. Sure, it's a bit annoying if you think they've moved a huge way from the job spec, but I can understand how it happens. In June there's a meeting to discuss the job spec, and they think they want someone to replace Dr Smith who is an early Modernist. By July, when the applications are all in, it's become clear that someone needs to teach a Victorian module too. So they ask about that in the interview, because they might as well take someone who can do both.

They might not know all of this much before interview.

I do find this stuff depressing. It's frustrating to feel you prepared an application in good faith, and only later realised that, with the best will in the world, you weren't going to be a contender. But I don't think it is unprofessional to ask if you can teach outside your area, because it's such a common requirement.

In every job I've ever had, I've been asked to teach things a long way from my own specialism. Usually things I know nothing about and have no interest in. As far as teaching goes, universities generally expect you to be very flexible and work around them. It's probably best to anticipate them wanting you to teach anything and everything and to prepare accordingly.

The job market is brutal.

But still can't shake the impression that springing new stuff on candidates at interview is unprofessional.

But in the current academic climate things are changing very quickly and staff have to be able to respond to changes quickly - we do get new stuff thrown at us all the time. It is not entirely unreasonable to test how they respond to new stuff at interviews.

There's just no way to be prepared to teach specific modules that you've never heard about until interview. Though you can, of course, express enthusiasm and say you'd be happy to do so - asking for specifics at interview (e.g. familiarity with texts) is unreasonable. Beyond that, I completely agree that flexibility is a must.

The job market in my discipline is a complete joke, and exploiting people on teaching only contracts is becoming the norm - some places are better than others.

I've got quite a few options at present in terms of a research project and pubs, and don't think I'll be touching a teaching only job for a while - no need to be propping up someone else's career when I need to be thinking about my own!

I just don't follow why you think it's unreasonable.

I agree it's a question that might well result in 9 out of 10 candidates responding as you say, with general enthusiasm. But perhaps the 10th will say oh, yes, I taught that a few years ago and I could do it again. Or, I've been wanting to teach that period and I've worked on this related text.

That might be all they're looking for.

Surely there will be people who happen to have read quite widely, as well as people who're more narrow in terms of specialism?

I'm not being holier than thou, btw - I've been in job interviews where I felt really gutted that all my careful preparation was clearly a waste as they were simply looking for skills/knowledge I didn't have. But I'm not sure where unreasonable or unprofessional comes into it.

I wonder if it's more common in other disciplines, r.e., modules changing at interview. For these teaching fellowship jobs, shortlisting is (usually!) done on the basis of your expertise matching their teaching needs. In this case, I had expertise in one module, and was prepared to talk about the others on the description. I also completely agree it makes sense to opt for the candidate who - purely by luck if the modules changed at interview - has some background in more modules.

I suppose the unreasonableness is feeling like I've been led on a merry dance. Before the interview, I got an email which said "we may ask you about x in addition to those in the job description", and I prepared - they didn't say Y and Z too which would have been nice!

But I suppose I've got more of an insight into how these things work (sometimes chaotically, as it turns out). And I'm now getting interviews, so that's good. For me personally, I think I'm far better off pursuing my project and getting pubs out there now (did a TF this year, hence trying to be choosier about what I apply for now given how research time tends to vanish!).

I think it must be a disciplinary thing, yes.

If you have the option to go for research, you'd be daft not to - if you've done a teaching fellowship, you'll have the CV experience already. I would jump at the chance to do funded research, over a teaching fellowship (and I love teaching). So it sounds as if it wasn't particularly a great match of a job anyway!

I had an interview where they asked me what I could contribute to teaching a completely different subject to the one advertised in the job spec. For example, a sociology post where they say, 'oh, what could you contribute to an economics programme?'.

What level if job is it?! If the job description says teaching but generic wise then you'll need to teach outside your comfort area but be expected to expand your plethora of teaching - things will no doubt get dropped on you

What was the advertised % of teaching?! If it's an assistant professor role or upwards it'll be a fair amount I'm sure and you'll have to fit in your research around it

Does the uni you're applying for have bad TEF results?! They may be stepping up their game so posts may have need recently amended

Both were simply Teaching Fellowships, and the modules were specified in the job description. This is how things normally run, and it's not the done thing to change them at interview. The situation is not dissimilar to the one that Milday mentions.

The advertised percentage of one was 0.5, so teaching five days a week isn't on. That'd easily become a full time job. The other was 0.8, but apparently that means five modules! Again, I can't speak for other disciplines, but even a 1.0 FTE is almost always 3-4 modules, so this is most unusual. I mentally disengaged when they said five and was relieved to get the rejection e-mail.

It depends on the institution how many modules are considered FT. In my ex-poly, a lecturer can often have 6+ modules alongside everything else. I dread to think what they'd expect of someone in a teaching only post.