Is it appropriate to ask a job candidate if we can record their interview?How to interview a faculty candidate?How do search committees use feedback from one-on-one faculty meetings during an academic interview?What questions should I ask as a candidate during an interview for a tenure-track assistant professor position?Is it appropriate to ask professors to give you a mock interview?What questions should I ask as a candidate during interview for a PhD program that assigns you an advisor?Discussion of hiring practices and underrepresented groups during interviewsFaculty job on-campus interview: changing flightsTalking about accepted offer in job interviewWhy is a job interview needed if I am the only suitable candidate for a research-assistant position?questions for the candidate to ask during a skype faculty interview
Is a Wick rotation a change of coordinates?
Dissuading my girlfriend from a scam
A magician's sleight of hand
Is the Levitate spell supposed to basically disable a melee-based enemy?
Why did Boris Johnson call for new elections?
How do I make my fill-in-the-blank exercise more obvious?
What quests do you need to stop at before you make an enemy of a faction for each faction?
What's the eccentricity of an orbit (trajectory) falling straight down towards the center?
Would you recommend a keyboard for beginners with or without lights in keys for learning?
Entering the US with dual citizenship but US passport is long expired?
Where on Earth is it easiest to survive in the wilderness?
First Number to Contain Each Letter
Is it risky to move from broad geographical diversification into investing mostly in less developed markets?
How were the names on the memorial stones in Avengers: Endgame chosen, out-of-universe?
To which airspace does the border of two adjacent airspaces belong to?
Do 643,000 Americans go bankrupt every year due to medical bills?
French equivalent of "my cup of tea"
What fraction of 2x2 USA call signs are vanity calls?
Why are some hotels asking you to book through Booking.com instead of matching the price at the front desk?
Undefined Hamiltonian for this particular Lagrangian
What's the difference between a share and a stock?
If magnetic force can't do any work, then how can we define a potential?
Why does the seven segment display have decimal point at the right?
RAW, Is the "Finesse" trait incompatible with unarmed attacks?
Is it appropriate to ask a job candidate if we can record their interview?
How to interview a faculty candidate?How do search committees use feedback from one-on-one faculty meetings during an academic interview?What questions should I ask as a candidate during an interview for a tenure-track assistant professor position?Is it appropriate to ask professors to give you a mock interview?What questions should I ask as a candidate during interview for a PhD program that assigns you an advisor?Discussion of hiring practices and underrepresented groups during interviewsFaculty job on-campus interview: changing flightsTalking about accepted offer in job interviewWhy is a job interview needed if I am the only suitable candidate for a research-assistant position?questions for the candidate to ask during a skype faculty interview
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I am part of a faculty search committee. One round of our process is Skype interviews of top candidates. Not all of our committee will be able to attend each interview (even remotely).
Would it be appropriate to ask candidates if we can record their Skype interview to share among the committee? My concern is that candidates might not feel free to say no if they're uncomfortable being recorded.
In case it matters, this is in the United States.
interview privacy audio-video-recording
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
add a comment |
I am part of a faculty search committee. One round of our process is Skype interviews of top candidates. Not all of our committee will be able to attend each interview (even remotely).
Would it be appropriate to ask candidates if we can record their Skype interview to share among the committee? My concern is that candidates might not feel free to say no if they're uncomfortable being recorded.
In case it matters, this is in the United States.
interview privacy audio-video-recording
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
It just seems a bad idea overall. Will the absent committee members even have time to watch recorded interviews? It's also a privacy issue.
– Herman Toothrot
Mar 28 at 6:25
add a comment |
I am part of a faculty search committee. One round of our process is Skype interviews of top candidates. Not all of our committee will be able to attend each interview (even remotely).
Would it be appropriate to ask candidates if we can record their Skype interview to share among the committee? My concern is that candidates might not feel free to say no if they're uncomfortable being recorded.
In case it matters, this is in the United States.
interview privacy audio-video-recording
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
I am part of a faculty search committee. One round of our process is Skype interviews of top candidates. Not all of our committee will be able to attend each interview (even remotely).
Would it be appropriate to ask candidates if we can record their Skype interview to share among the committee? My concern is that candidates might not feel free to say no if they're uncomfortable being recorded.
In case it matters, this is in the United States.
interview privacy audio-video-recording
interview privacy audio-video-recording
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:55
Ellen SpertusEllen Spertus
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
5,38624 silver badges43 bronze badges
It just seems a bad idea overall. Will the absent committee members even have time to watch recorded interviews? It's also a privacy issue.
– Herman Toothrot
Mar 28 at 6:25
add a comment |
It just seems a bad idea overall. Will the absent committee members even have time to watch recorded interviews? It's also a privacy issue.
– Herman Toothrot
Mar 28 at 6:25
It just seems a bad idea overall. Will the absent committee members even have time to watch recorded interviews? It's also a privacy issue.
– Herman Toothrot
Mar 28 at 6:25
It just seems a bad idea overall. Will the absent committee members even have time to watch recorded interviews? It's also a privacy issue.
– Herman Toothrot
Mar 28 at 6:25
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There may be more issues than you raise here. Some people will say yes and feel intimidated. Some people will say no out of general principles. Some people will say yes and regret it later. Some people will say yes initially but decide otherwise in the middle of the interview.
I suggest that before you implement such a process you game it out thoroughly, developing a lot of what-if scenarios and how you will respond to them. I think an essential element, possibly with legal ramifications (though I don't know), is that you don't disadvantage anyone for giving either answer or for declining to give a reason.
Another possible issue is that some candidates may not be as candid as they would otherwise if they are being recorded. It isn't a case of being devious or calculating, just being cautious. Can my words come back to haunt me?
You will also need to decide what to do with the tapes and when to delete them and how to assure the candidate that you will do so, especially if requested. In particular, who will have access to the tapes and for how long?
Finally, if you develop a policy with a lot of nuances, you should publish it, probably online, and let the candidate have access to it prior to an interview.
But, overall, I'd suggest that in the case you mention of not everyone being available, that you make it possible for a follow up interview rather than taping. There are probably other issues here that I haven't considered.
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
add a comment |
Buffy gives an excellent, and pretty comprehensive answer. I have one consideration to add:
What message does it send to the candidate about your institution, that your entire committee is not available (even remotely) to attend the interview?
Perhaps it tells the candidate that the position is not terribly important to you.
Or that your institution is not organized enough to interview the right number of candidates, or include the right people on the committee.
If I'm a candidate for a job, there are rituals I'm used to encountering. If you disrupt the rituals, even with what seems like "good reason" on your end, it's possible you will inadvertently discourage the better candidates.
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
2
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
3
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
2
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
2
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
1
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127167%2fis-it-appropriate-to-ask-a-job-candidate-if-we-can-record-their-interview%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There may be more issues than you raise here. Some people will say yes and feel intimidated. Some people will say no out of general principles. Some people will say yes and regret it later. Some people will say yes initially but decide otherwise in the middle of the interview.
I suggest that before you implement such a process you game it out thoroughly, developing a lot of what-if scenarios and how you will respond to them. I think an essential element, possibly with legal ramifications (though I don't know), is that you don't disadvantage anyone for giving either answer or for declining to give a reason.
Another possible issue is that some candidates may not be as candid as they would otherwise if they are being recorded. It isn't a case of being devious or calculating, just being cautious. Can my words come back to haunt me?
You will also need to decide what to do with the tapes and when to delete them and how to assure the candidate that you will do so, especially if requested. In particular, who will have access to the tapes and for how long?
Finally, if you develop a policy with a lot of nuances, you should publish it, probably online, and let the candidate have access to it prior to an interview.
But, overall, I'd suggest that in the case you mention of not everyone being available, that you make it possible for a follow up interview rather than taping. There are probably other issues here that I haven't considered.
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
add a comment |
There may be more issues than you raise here. Some people will say yes and feel intimidated. Some people will say no out of general principles. Some people will say yes and regret it later. Some people will say yes initially but decide otherwise in the middle of the interview.
I suggest that before you implement such a process you game it out thoroughly, developing a lot of what-if scenarios and how you will respond to them. I think an essential element, possibly with legal ramifications (though I don't know), is that you don't disadvantage anyone for giving either answer or for declining to give a reason.
Another possible issue is that some candidates may not be as candid as they would otherwise if they are being recorded. It isn't a case of being devious or calculating, just being cautious. Can my words come back to haunt me?
You will also need to decide what to do with the tapes and when to delete them and how to assure the candidate that you will do so, especially if requested. In particular, who will have access to the tapes and for how long?
Finally, if you develop a policy with a lot of nuances, you should publish it, probably online, and let the candidate have access to it prior to an interview.
But, overall, I'd suggest that in the case you mention of not everyone being available, that you make it possible for a follow up interview rather than taping. There are probably other issues here that I haven't considered.
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
add a comment |
There may be more issues than you raise here. Some people will say yes and feel intimidated. Some people will say no out of general principles. Some people will say yes and regret it later. Some people will say yes initially but decide otherwise in the middle of the interview.
I suggest that before you implement such a process you game it out thoroughly, developing a lot of what-if scenarios and how you will respond to them. I think an essential element, possibly with legal ramifications (though I don't know), is that you don't disadvantage anyone for giving either answer or for declining to give a reason.
Another possible issue is that some candidates may not be as candid as they would otherwise if they are being recorded. It isn't a case of being devious or calculating, just being cautious. Can my words come back to haunt me?
You will also need to decide what to do with the tapes and when to delete them and how to assure the candidate that you will do so, especially if requested. In particular, who will have access to the tapes and for how long?
Finally, if you develop a policy with a lot of nuances, you should publish it, probably online, and let the candidate have access to it prior to an interview.
But, overall, I'd suggest that in the case you mention of not everyone being available, that you make it possible for a follow up interview rather than taping. There are probably other issues here that I haven't considered.
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
There may be more issues than you raise here. Some people will say yes and feel intimidated. Some people will say no out of general principles. Some people will say yes and regret it later. Some people will say yes initially but decide otherwise in the middle of the interview.
I suggest that before you implement such a process you game it out thoroughly, developing a lot of what-if scenarios and how you will respond to them. I think an essential element, possibly with legal ramifications (though I don't know), is that you don't disadvantage anyone for giving either answer or for declining to give a reason.
Another possible issue is that some candidates may not be as candid as they would otherwise if they are being recorded. It isn't a case of being devious or calculating, just being cautious. Can my words come back to haunt me?
You will also need to decide what to do with the tapes and when to delete them and how to assure the candidate that you will do so, especially if requested. In particular, who will have access to the tapes and for how long?
Finally, if you develop a policy with a lot of nuances, you should publish it, probably online, and let the candidate have access to it prior to an interview.
But, overall, I'd suggest that in the case you mention of not everyone being available, that you make it possible for a follow up interview rather than taping. There are probably other issues here that I haven't considered.
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 0:10
BuffyBuffy
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
81k21 gold badges250 silver badges356 bronze badges
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
add a comment |
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
Of course it is understood that you'll be disadvantaged if you say no, no matter what the policy says. Otherwise there is never a good reason to say yes. Even if (hopefully) declining the recording simply means that you'll have to undergo more interviews with other committee members, this is still a disadvantage.
– Zeus
Mar 28 at 1:24
add a comment |
Buffy gives an excellent, and pretty comprehensive answer. I have one consideration to add:
What message does it send to the candidate about your institution, that your entire committee is not available (even remotely) to attend the interview?
Perhaps it tells the candidate that the position is not terribly important to you.
Or that your institution is not organized enough to interview the right number of candidates, or include the right people on the committee.
If I'm a candidate for a job, there are rituals I'm used to encountering. If you disrupt the rituals, even with what seems like "good reason" on your end, it's possible you will inadvertently discourage the better candidates.
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
2
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
3
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
2
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
2
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
1
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
|
show 3 more comments
Buffy gives an excellent, and pretty comprehensive answer. I have one consideration to add:
What message does it send to the candidate about your institution, that your entire committee is not available (even remotely) to attend the interview?
Perhaps it tells the candidate that the position is not terribly important to you.
Or that your institution is not organized enough to interview the right number of candidates, or include the right people on the committee.
If I'm a candidate for a job, there are rituals I'm used to encountering. If you disrupt the rituals, even with what seems like "good reason" on your end, it's possible you will inadvertently discourage the better candidates.
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
2
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
3
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
2
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
2
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
1
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
|
show 3 more comments
Buffy gives an excellent, and pretty comprehensive answer. I have one consideration to add:
What message does it send to the candidate about your institution, that your entire committee is not available (even remotely) to attend the interview?
Perhaps it tells the candidate that the position is not terribly important to you.
Or that your institution is not organized enough to interview the right number of candidates, or include the right people on the committee.
If I'm a candidate for a job, there are rituals I'm used to encountering. If you disrupt the rituals, even with what seems like "good reason" on your end, it's possible you will inadvertently discourage the better candidates.
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
Buffy gives an excellent, and pretty comprehensive answer. I have one consideration to add:
What message does it send to the candidate about your institution, that your entire committee is not available (even remotely) to attend the interview?
Perhaps it tells the candidate that the position is not terribly important to you.
Or that your institution is not organized enough to interview the right number of candidates, or include the right people on the committee.
If I'm a candidate for a job, there are rituals I'm used to encountering. If you disrupt the rituals, even with what seems like "good reason" on your end, it's possible you will inadvertently discourage the better candidates.
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 0:18
Pete ForsythPete Forsyth
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
6324 silver badges11 bronze badges
2
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
3
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
2
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
2
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
1
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
|
show 3 more comments
2
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
3
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
2
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
2
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
1
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
2
2
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
Almost always at least 10 candidates are given a Skype interview; interviewing 30 is common; I have heard of interviewing 80. The point of the Skype interview is to give as many candidates as possible to make an impression on the committee. Real interviews for a small number are held later and taken more seriously. The position is important, but, with those numbers, no particular candidate is. Frankly, it would be impossible to schedule all of the search committee for 15 hours of interviews.
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 0:52
3
3
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
@AlexanderWoo That sounds to me like the problem is that the committee can't figure out how to delegate and divide responsibilities. If you're just doing these as a filter you don't need the entire committee in on it in the first place. All you need is enough of the committee there to make a basic decision on whether someone is qualified to move on to the next round or not. You don't need the full committee until you need the full committee.
– zibadawa timmy
Mar 28 at 2:08
2
2
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
@Alexander: Although I believe you that someone skyped with 80 people for a position, I do not believe that it was a good idea. If I were an applicant, I would rather that I and everyone else only be interviewed for positions for which we were seriously considered.
– Pete L. Clark
Mar 28 at 4:10
2
2
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
@AlexanderWoo Interviewing 80 people for a position is a waste of time for 79 applicants and for all of the interview panel. With a large number of applicants, you just raise the triage bar until you have an acceptably small number to interview. The number interviewed should ideally be constant, whether you have 10 applicants or 1000.
– Michael MacAskill
Mar 28 at 5:29
1
1
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
When you have a lot of applicants, raising the triage bar is meaningless - the difference between the best looking applicant and the 50th best looking applicant will be just noise. Maybe the right thing to do is to randomly throw all but 100 applications in the trash and evaluate just those 100. (But let me make it clear that I don't advocate interviewing 80, and I also agree there's no need for every preliminary interview to be looked at by every committee member.)
– Alexander Woo
Mar 28 at 6:25
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127167%2fis-it-appropriate-to-ask-a-job-candidate-if-we-can-record-their-interview%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It just seems a bad idea overall. Will the absent committee members even have time to watch recorded interviews? It's also a privacy issue.
– Herman Toothrot
Mar 28 at 6:25