Two European economists have told me of their experiences interviewing for senior, tenured positions in the U.K. In both cases they, and the other two finalists, visited the campus at the same time, had rotating interviews with the hiring committee, and were even taken out to dinner together. My experience in the U.S. is just the opposite-we try to keep the identities of finalists for jobs hidden from their “competitors.”
Why is there a totally different culture within the same occupation? Which approach is better at achieving a university’s goal of hiring the best person? Which makes the participants feel better about the process? Which side of the Atlantic has it right? Bottom line to me is the importance of the role of culture, even within a very narrowly defined market.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Well, at least for junior positions, I would say the tougher American system is better in determining better matches.
In the US a candidate ends exhausted after a full day of interviews, a full seminar presentation and dinner, but faculty got to meet the candidate.
In the UK panel interviews tend to be short, leave the candidate feeling they were unable to convey their research interests and without really meeting anyone or getting a feeling for the University and its people. Also, UK ones tend to give a larger weight to teaching competency.
Plus anonymity is not such an issue. You know you’re competing against other people, and if you don’t get the job, can easily find out who beat you afterwards. But being all bundled together is definitively awkward, but it has to do with the fact that not all interviewers belong to the University and devote one day of traveling to be in the panel so they have to bundle candidates together.
I vote for the American method primarily out of a sense of confidentiality and the opportunity, if I am doing the interviewing, to get an additional free meal.
Years ago I was interviewing candidates for a job in the corporate sector and had two applicants from different companies. One of the applicants was supervised by the spouse of the other (it took a while to figure out…the couple did not share the same last name) and having them run into each other could have been devastating. The supervising spouse, by the way, wrote one of the lamest letters of recommendation I’ve ever read most likely trying to sabotage the applicant’s chances.
As John Travolta says in Pulp Fiction, it’s all about “the little differences…” you dig it the most!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLtwFugudZE
If it is the case that in the UK there is larger weight given to teaching, I assure you that it not obvious at an undergraduate level. In fact, a lot of the teaching is left to the GTAs, and that is frankly insulting.
Don’t.
I would rather be interviewed using the US system, but that shouldn’t be much of a shock since I grew up in the American culture. I’m not an academic, but job interviews are typically very stressful affairs for candidates in most professions.
It’s often an intense and private process where you might be asked to talk about very personal things. I wouldn’t want the added burden of having to see the others under consideration for the position.
How many posts were there? If the four interviewees, and only four, were the most highly qualified for them, then they almost certainly knew each other professionally, and being academics, probably socially too. it’s a fair bet they would have had dinner together anyway to share notes – so the question is, do you a) eavesdrop on the dinner conversation covertly; b) do it overtly; or c) ignore a potentially valuable source of information about the candidates’ true strengths and weaknesses?
Combining candidates seems lazy and I don’t see the benefit in terms of better selection.