The Chronicle of Higher Education

half of the 1980s and in the 1990s, USAID significantly reduced its focus on these key areas. But recently it has started to embrace them again.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the agency worked to get back into the neglected areas. And significant steps have been taken with President Obama and Rajiv Shah, the current USAID administrator. It’s now the agency’s policy to again expand the involvement of American higher education. In recent months, USAID committed $125- million for the Higher Education Solutions Networks for innovation and new technology, and the agency is strongly supporting

Continued From Preceding Page

certain agriculture research.

Additionally, there has been increased support for partnerships with American and African universities, including those created a few years ago. For example, there is a new $25-million long-term partnership between Ohio State University and Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania—just the sort of partnership which had such a powerful impact a few decades ago. This partnership, which will involve the U.S. training of over 100 graduate students, will help build the capacity of Sokoine to educate thousands more and will strengthen the university’s capacity to innovate for its country.

Yet this renewed alliance between the gov-
ernment and higher education could succumb
to budget pressures. Some in Congress have
questioned U.S. support for higher education
in other countries as the sequester affects
federal programs closer to home. We need to
argue to policy makers that poverty is still a
major global issue and higher education must
play a crucial role, with the strong support of
the government. We must continue, and ex-
pand upon, our work to educate people, build
and strengthen institutions, and generate new
technology.

Peter McPherson is president of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.

Not Dressing the Part,

and Other Interview Mistakes

SPRING IS INTERVIEW SEASON for aspiring presidents, provosts, and deans. It’s when search consultants spend a lot of time sitting in meeting rooms at airport hotels watching candidates engage with hiring committees in the ritual dance of the preliminary interview. Even after 15 years of that, I am constantly surprised by the approaches and tactics that candidates think will provide them with a win- ning edge—but that inevitably produce the opposite result. With thanks (and apologies) to David Letterman, here are the top 10 interview techniques that backfire on administrative candidates when they meet with search committees.

10. Eschewing graciousness. Your
hosts may or may not be lucky that you
agreed to show up, but it seldom scores
points with them to communicate
that message. Whether in words or in
body language, signals
that you are an unwill-
ing or unhappy guest
are read loud and clear
by search committees, whose anxiety
over making a good hire will usually
lead them to exaggerate any perceived
slight. Sitting with your arms folded
defensively, daring the committee
to impress you, is very unlikely to
impress them. So act like your mother
is looking over your shoulder and be
polite. The Golden Rule also applies
to job interviews.

warrant breaking out their Sunday best. Sloppy appearance tends to be equated with sloppy performance.

8. Overzealousness in showing your stuff.

Not doing your homework is an obvious negative, but working too hard to prove your grasp of the institution and the search committee is, in some ways,

even worse. The quintessential example is the candidate who, on first meeting the committee members or responding to their questions, gratuitously spews out some arcane biographical factoid about each person. That almost always comes off as forced at best and creepy at worst. Look for an organic way to show you’ve done your homework on the institution.

DENNIS M. BARDEN

9. Not dressing the part. Academics
aren’t known for their sartorial style, but
that doesn’t mean they want their leaders
to dress down. Administrative job candi-
dates are expected to respect the committee,
the institution, and the process sufficiently to

7. Handing out material during the interview. For some reason, that always backfires.

A longtime academic executive once shared with me why: It comes across as an effort by the candidate to take away the gavel from the search committee and, thus, to control the interview. I have never once seen that stunt play positively for a candidate.

6. Excessive seriousness … or excessive levity. People tend not to want to associate with people who cannot find the absurdity—or, at least, the humor—in the world in which we live. On the other hand, they don’t want to work with a clown, either. This is a tightrope that has danger on either side. My observation is that interviews go better when there is humor in the room, but it is torturous to watch someone trying too hard to get a laugh or, even worse, to make light of a deadly serious subject.

5. Ignoring the obvious. Look, the
search committee has done its homework
on the candidates. The committee mem-
bers know how to search online, and they
may even have broken the rules and spoken
to “off list” references. If there is anything
out there in the ether or on the grapevine
that will raise questions about your candi-
dacy in the minds of the search committee,
you must deal with it during the inter-
view. Sometimes committees are more
polite than they should be and don’t ask a
straight question. It is up to the candidate
to give a straight answer nonetheless. Ig-
noring the obvious does not take it off the
table. It stays there, moldering along with
the candidate’s chances.

4. Telling the search-committee
members what the candidate thinks
they want to hear. It may seem counter-
intuitive, but search committees really are
not interested in having their posteriors
kissed. They are looking for leadership,
and that frequently involves telling people
things that they don’t want to hear. Also,
in my experience, it is rare, if not unprec-
edented, for everyone on an academic
search committee to agree on what they
want to hear, anyway, so no matter what is
said, it is bound to be contrary to some-
one’s liking. The candidate might as well
just say what she believes to be the case;
simply remember that tone and context
matter.