image credit: https://technofaq.org/posts/2018/07/is-your-hiring-process-really-fair-think-before-you-claim/

I just completed a mock interview using the InterviewStream platform. It had eight pre-programmed questions for a potential position in higher education. I responded to each question, then reviewed my whole interview. Here are my thoughts.

I smack my lips at the beginning of most of the videos, which I found a bit annoying when reviewing it. In terms of filler words, I used “um” or “uh” a total of 79 times! Yikes, that seems like a lot for a 20 minute interview! I also seemed to hunch over instead of sitting up straight and did not maintain eye contact with the camera. (These last two items I feel were more attributable to the platform, rather than them being my natural tendency.)

For the majority of the questions, I was on point and on topic, and was able to give concrete and meaningful examples. I also did a good job of explaining how I could have done better as appropriate or how my contributions had a positive impact on my organization. There were a few times when I was babbling or off topic.

Overall, I think I did okay. I would give myself a B-range grade. The two main areas of improvement I would like to work on are giving concise, on-topic answers and reducing filler words (e.g. um). I believe that I can improve in both of these areas by feeling more confident in my material and preparing specific “main points” to emphasize for each type of question.

Honestly, I was more nervous for this mock interview than I was for my most recent job interview (just a few months ago). I think part of the difference was 1) I was dressed confidently for my real interview (not jeans and a t-shirt), and 2) I had done copious preparation for the specific job (researching the institution, position, preparing a deliverable to share, etc.) where as for the mock interview, it was difficult to conceptualize the context as well. However, it was good practice to answer some generic questions that I find difficult at times (e.g. “tell me about yourself.”)

If you want to watch the video and give me feedback, I surely would appreciate it! Here is the link: http://outreach-psu.interviewstream.com/link/?nNbskux5DW4X

Be well!

image credit: http://www.callcentersurvivalph.com/2011/11/tips-on-getting-along-with-co-workers.html

States want to reduce duplication of programs and redundancy because this maximizes the effect that each dollar has towards producing education outcomes (assuming that it true duplication and resources such as time, space, personnel are not being maxed out in a similar school nearby). In other words, if College A and College B could reasonably serve the same population, why fund both? The redundancy wastes money.

However, academic institutions would naturally be opposed to being cut or shut down even if there is duplication. I see a few reasons why this would be the case. Let’s assume that College A is having programs cut in favor for the same type of program at College B. 1) Institutional pride and legacy – If College A has a history of running the designated program to be cut, it could suffer further losses to its prestige when the program is cut. This could disincentivize students from wanting to attend there. This would lead to 2) Loss of tuition funds – Closing down a given academic program due to lack of state funding would also potentially mean a loss of tuition if the students who would have attended at college A. Even if students transfer from College B to College A after a year or two, College A has still lost out on tuition dollars. State mandates for schools being required to accept transfer credits from other institutions makes this situation all the more frequent. 3) Loss of jobs – with a program being cut, College A now has to either fire those who were associated with the program or relocate them to other programs. Relocating them could be costly to the individuals as well as the college. It might mean taking a pay cut due to having fewer total responsibilities or being less qualified for the new position. All of these may initially damage the local economy.

I am not trying to pass judgment on whether or not transfer credit agreements should or should not be allowed or if states should seek to cut out programs that they feel are redundant. I am simply seeking to illustrate why academic institutions may oppose those measures. As mentioned earlier, there are advantages to “trimming the fat” of academic institutions. It is a manifestation of wise stewardship of government funds by reducing duplication and waste. It also seeks to empower students to be able to transfer from school to school as needed based on housing, work, or tuition costs. Hopefully, academic institutions and state and local governments can work together to produce a plan that will benefit as many people as possible to promote an educated citizenry and develop the local economy.

Be well!

For more about this issue, see the following resources:

image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_can_model

I work in a chemistry department for a large research university teaching and supervising introductory laboratory courses. Over the years since I have been here, there have been many complaints from students that the lab course is too long. It is a one-credit class that meets once a week for up to four hours. However, instead of a 15-week semester, it is only a 12-week semester. Nevertheless, the student perception is that the class takes too long. Since, I have been here, I tend to agree with the students. Often in the last 30 minutes or so, they are rushing around to try and finish up their procedures or write up their reports. It does not seem like an environment where they could think critically about the data or come up with a meaningful analysis, it was just too hectic.

So, some of my fellow supervisors and I brought this problem up to the Lab Director and suggested that we could try a variety of methods to fix the problem. Suggestions were made to cut out content from the labs, shift some activities (like the pre-lab quiz) to be outside of the formal lab time, help students understand how to better prepare, incentivize students to prepare more effectively through either rewards or punishments, the list goes on. Initially, he was hesitant to make any changes. Either he did not perceive timing of the labs to be a problem or felt it would be too overwhelming to try and fix. So nothing happened.

Over the course of months and even years, we have continued to try and take advantage of any open policy window we could find. Every time an opportunity presented itself, we tried to push this notion that the students were taking too long on the labs and we needed to do something. Eventually, he relented. He asked that some of the experienced Teaching Assistants provide recommendations. Here was the opportunity for everyone to dump their pet peeves onto the table to try and fix. Some didn’t like a particular procedure, others did not feel that the quizzes were appropriate, others that some questions were confusing. All of these things could have potentially alleviated the burden of time management, but the problem was that there was no systematic analysis of how the proposed solutions would really fix the problem. And, it seemed like there were more problems being added into the “garbage can” that were not directly related to the issue of students not finishing lab on time. However, we were all just sent out to do our best to address our pet peeves and work on a project that would no doubt improve the quality of the labs, but that was not necessarily going to solve the issue that was first identified.

The process of designing and implanting changes to the lab curriculum is still continuing. The culture of the department is such that there will likely be yearly tweaks for the foreseeable future. While this is a good thing in my mind to periodically reflect on the status of the curriculum and seek to improve it, I feel that it will tend to be a serious of decisions by flight and that true problem solving will be rare. Part of the issue is that early on this process, the dynamics of the decision-making group were changing relatively frequently (every 5-6 months or so) and each participant was allowed to choose their own project to work on regardless of how it tied together. This made it difficult to commission a long-term vision for change. Soon, the Lab Director will be retiring, so that renders it difficult to implement a long-term process as well. However, in one year’s time, with a new Director, perhaps the time will be ripe to address the issue yet again, but in a more systematic way.

For more information about the Garbage-Can Model of decision-making, here is the link to the Wikipedia page. The original idea was proposed by Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972).

Be well!

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P., (1972) A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. 17(1), 1-25. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392088