Guidelines for Interviewing Candidates
Appendix B-I: Affirmative Action Guidelines for Interviewing Candidates
Discrimination in an interview can result in discrimination charges being filed against Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. As federal and state legislation regulating pre-employment inquiries increases, the institution must keep all procedures and forms up-to-date.
1. All committee members MUST review all applicants’ folders.
2. In the event that an applicant’s file is incomplete, notification must be given to the applicant.
3. Establish a criteria/rating sheet that is consistent with the position as advertised.
4. Compile a list of job-related questions to be asked of all candidates. This will ensure consistency and equality in all interviews.
5. Prior to the interview, the candidate and all interviewers should be given an interview schedule.
6. If needed, request assistance from the Office of Social Equity.
The purpose of the interview is to obtain more in-depth information about the candidates’ background and training relative to the responsibilities, duties and qualifications of the position.
1. All committee members should be involved in the interviewing of all candidates.
l Once the interview has begun, confidentiality should be maintained.
l Avoid receiving phone calls or other interruptions during the interview.
2. All candidates should have a job description to read before being interviewed.
3. All candidates should be asked the same questions. It is understood that follow-up questions may vary.
4. It is inappropriate to ask questions that are NOT pertinent to the job description.
5. Unless candidates volunteer personal information, none should be requested.
6. Candidates should be given an opportunity to ask the search committee questions pertaining to the position.
After each interview the committee should evaluate procedures conducted and the quality of responses by the candidate.
Appendix B-II: Contemporary Employment Interviewing
On Campus Interview Itinerary for Candidate
5:00 pm - Arrive at LHU (Ulmer parking lot, parking passed reserved) Brief tour of local community
5:45 pm - Dinner with faculty (Santino’s)
7:30 pm - Check-in at hotel (Comfort Inn)
7:30 am - Check-out of hotel Arrive on campus for breakfast with department faculty (Bentley)
9:00 to 9:30 am - Meeting with Provost, Dr. Stewart and Social Equity Director, Albert Jones (Sullivan)
9:30 to 10 am - Meeting with Dean of Arts and Science, Dr. Roger Johnson (Stevenson)
10:00 to 10:45 am - Meet with Chemistry faculty and tour Ulmer hall
11:00 to 11:50 am - Teaching demonstration: Organic lecture (Ulmer planetarium)
12 to 1:15 pm - Lunch w/ department faculty (Bentley faculty/staff dining)
1:15 to 2:00 pm - LHUP Campus tour
2:00 to 3:00 pm - Research talk and meet with students
3:00 to 4:00 pm - Meet with Dr. Laura Lee, Dept. Chair
4:00 to 5:00 pm - Exit interview procedures
Appendix B-III: Interview Process
All applicants should be treated equally under the same circumstances.
What to Do
1. Ask job-related, objective, questions that can be quantifiably measured and consistently applied.
a. Determine what the person has done in previous job experiences that make him/her able to perform the job.
b. Determine only the job-related educational experience the applicant has that makes him/her better able to do the job.
c. Concentrate only on the applicant’s ability to do the job.
d. Concentrate on the essential functions of the job and determine whether the individual can perform each or most of the functions.
e. Review applications/resumes to ensure accuracy.
f. Explain the job in detail to the applicant.
Questions and topics to avoid that have no bearing on qualifications of applicants
Appendix B-IV: Sample Interview Questions
1. What are the pros and cons of remedial courses? (What is the value of these courses?)
2. What is the objective of the remedial class?
3. On what basis would you place students?
4. What specific skills would you expect to develop in a semester?
5. What type of assignment have you found helpful in assisting students taking remedial classes?
6. What is your view of the purpose of a freshman comp?
7. Describe what you do in the comp course.
8. Take us through an assignment.
9. What kinds of teaching techniques have you found to be effective?
10. What is the role literature in the freshman comp course?
11. Describe your grading criteria.
12. Give us some examples of writing assignments. How does reading relate to teaching comp?
13. Describe your relationship with (to) your students.
14. Tell us how you keep current in your field.
15. In the last year, what have you done to develop professionally?
16. Describe the relationship between faculty and administration.
Appendix B-V: Sample Second Review Scoring Form
The search committee may use the blank form on the reverse side to develop criteria for each position. Note: Scoring can be adjusted to reflect the value each characteristic has to the Search Committee
Candidate: Joe Smith _______________
Position: Assistant Professor of Business Administration_________
Appendix B-V: Sample Second Review Scoring Form
Note: Scoring can be adjusted to reflect the value each characteristic has to the Search Committee
* - Minimum as advertised
Appendix B-VI: Sample Standards for Criteria Ranking
Questions and point values for the review of applications for the position of Assistant Professor of Management in the Department of Computer Science, Management, and Accounting. Standards should be altered to reflect individual department needs and requirements. Italicized text is to be used as sample text only.
Score 3 if the candidate possesses academic coursework, teaching experience, and work experience in operations management or a subset of the field like quality management, production planning and control, purchasing, etc.
Score 2 if the candidate possesses academic coursework and teaching and/or research in operations management or a subset of the field.
Score 1 if the candidate possesses academic coursework in operations management and had demonstrated interest in teaching and researching in operations management as a primary focus of his/her work.
Score 0 if the candidate possesses a background in operations management, but has not demonstrated continued interest in or has other primary teaching or research interests.
Part 2: Teaching other management courses including operations management majors courses (for example the TQM course, the production planning and control course), other CBT courses (like organizational behavior and business policy), or other courses offered in the department (like supervision and industrial relations). Identify one of the following for the candidate.
Score 3 if the candidate has the necessary coursework, teaching or work experience, and appears to have a willingness to teach courses including operations management majors courses and core or other courses offered in the department.
Score 2 if the candidate has the necessary coursework, teaching or work experience, and demonstrated an interest in contributing to the department by teaching majors courses in operations management, but is not willing to teach courses outside operations management.
Score 1 if the candidate lacks the necessary coursework, teaching or work experience, but has demonstrated an interest in developing so that they may contribute with core or other courses offered in the department if needed.
Score 0 if the candidate lacks sufficient coursework and interest to contribute by teaching courses other than operations management courses.
Part 3: Teaching Experience (This position is listed as an Assistant Professor position. A “senior” assistant might be one who has several years of full-time teaching experience after completing the doctorate. A “junior” assistant might be one who has taught less than three years after completing the doctorate. Some candidates may have experience as an instructor or lecturer (full-time) or as a graduate/teaching assistant during their doctoral program.) Identify one of the following for the candidate.
Score 3 if the candidate has taught more than three years as an assistant professor at another university.
Score 2 if the candidate has taught three years or less as an assistant professor at another university.
Score 1 if the candidate has taught as an instructor or lecturer or as a graduate/teaching assistant at another university.
Score 0 if the candidate has not taught at the university level.
Part 4: Research activities (Candidates will be in varying stages of their careers. To appropriately evaluate the extent to which one is likely to participate in these activities may require more than simply counting the number of referred journals which one has published (or accepted), or has in progress. Counting activities in the last two or three years may be a more appropriate measure of the level of research activity. Another approach might be to develop a ratio of number of articles to the number of years since their degree was completed (with the doctoral program counting as one year). Please choose an approach that you feel is fair and apply that approach consistently. Identify one of the following for the candidate.
Score 2 if the candidate has demonstrated quantifiable significant ability, interests, and effort to do research and publication activities.
Score 1 if the candidate has demonstrated quantifiable moderate ability, interests, and effort to do research and publication activities.
Score 0 if the candidate has demonstrated lack of ability, interests, and/or effort to do research and publication activities.
Bonus point: Add one point of you believe the person has a specific topic, paper being prepared, research project begun, etc. which is likely to make a significant contribution to the literature and be published in a prestigious discipline journal.
Part 5: Service activities: This component may include service to their universities, communities, professional organizations, academic organizations, leadership positions and memberships, and professional certifications.
Score 2 if the candidate has demonstrated quantifiable significant ability, interest, and willingness to serve in a variety of contexts to the university, community, and/or academic or professional organizations.
Score 1 if the candidate has demonstrated quantifiable little interest in service activities to the university, community, and/or academic or professional organizations.
Score 0 if the candidate had demonstrated no interest in service activities.
Bonus point: Add one point to the candidate if he/she has participated in one of the specific professional organizations related to discipline.
Appendix B-VII: Employment history and Reference check
Per Management Directive 515.15, Section 2a appointing search committees (as per search manuals) must secure three reference and confirm work experience which is directly related to the job.
Educational Attainment Verification
LHUP must assure that each candidate possesses the required credentials for the position as it was advertised.
Appendix B-IX: Sample Reasons for Non-Selection of Applicants and Candidates
(Note: The rationale for non-selection must be based on the advertised criteria)
A-1 Would not relocate.
A-2 Accepted another job.
A-3 Offered the position but declined.
A-4 Asked not to be considered.
A-5 Accepted another position within the University.
A-6 Not available for interview.
A-7 No job opportunity for spouse.
A-8 Candidate requires a higher salary than authorized.
A-9 Not available for full-time employment at the start of the project period or semester.
A-10 Failed to submit transcript/letters of recommendation required (incomplete file).
A-11 Failed to respond to requests for additional information.
A-12 Recommendations (or slides or publications) not. submitted in time to be processed and considered for the position.
A-13 Advertised position was at the junior level; this candidate was unavailable for a job except at the senior level.
A-14 See explanation attached.
B-1 Did not possess academic qualifications advertised.
B-2 Did not possess a terminal degree.
B-3 Not making satisfactory and timely progress toward a terminal degree.
B-4 Degree in a field not compatible with the needs of the department as advertised.
B-5 Dissertation not completed and insufficient evidence that it will be by the end of the year.
B-6 Degree granting institution not as strong in the field as that of the candidate selected. (Strengths of degree granting institutions should be widely disparate if this reason is used.)
B-7 See explanation attached.
C-1 Area of specialization or interest overlaps significantly with those of current members of the department and hence does not fit with the needs of the department as advertised.
C-2 Area of secondary competence not compatible with the needs of the department as advertised.
C-3 Candidate's teaching or performing experience was not suitable for this position.
C-4 Insufficient teaching experience or candidate selected had more teaching experience.
C-5 Interview revealed that this candidate was not interested in the teaching assignment required by this position.
C-6 Did not have sufficient technical competence in the primary area.
C-7 Seminar/lecture failed to demonstrate scholarly substance.
C-8 Seminar/lecture demonstrated a communication problem.
C-9 Seminar/lecture demonstrated a language barrier.
C-10 See explanation attached.
Research, Scholarship, and Publications
D-1 Candidate acceptable but candidate selected has more and/or better publications.
D-2 Insufficient publication, composition or exhibition record.
D-3 Creative artwork or musical composition judged inadequate by the research committee on the basis of submitted slides or tapes.
D-4 Lack of demonstrated research skills.
D-5 Research/Publications not appropriate to position as advertised.
D-6 Has done insufficient research or has not published adequately.
D-7 Research does not support teaching assignment.
D-8 See explanation attached.
E-1 History of difficult inter-personal relationships. (Use only in rare instances when a history truly exists and can be documented. Use cautiously, as racism and sexism are sometimes related to this difficulty.)
E-2 Potential conflict of interest with campus interests.
E-3 Candidate well qualified for the position, but quality of teaching and research was higher in the candidate selected. This candidate would be considered for the position if the first choice declines. This reason should not be used as a "catch-all.” It should be used only for candidates on the short list or interview list; departments may be required to offer the position to such a candidate if the first choice declines.
E-4 See explanation attached.
F-1 Candidate did not possess the degree(s) advertised.
F-2 Candidate's experience was outside the primary responsibilities of the position as advertised.
F-3 Candidate not interested in the teaching component of the position.
F-4 Candidate well qualified for the position and would be considered for the position if the first choice declined. (Should be used only for the very top 2-3 candidates; departments may be required to offer the position to such a candidate if the first choice declines.)
F-5 Candidate's contributions in the service area were insufficient. (Includes lack of participation in state or national organizations as well as a lack of participation in departmental or university committees.)
F-6 Candidate did not have a demonstrated record of obtaining external funding. (Use only when the person selected has such a record and when it is specifically mentioned as a job responsibility.)
F-7 Candidate had insufficient or inappropriate administrative experience.
F-8 See explanation attached.
Some reasons for
non-selection for administrative positions may be similar to those for faculty
A-3 Offered the position but declined.
A-8 Candidate requires a higher salary than authorized.
B-4 Degree in a field not compatible with the needs of the department.