I’ll lay off now. Susan and I know that people who aren’t involved in planning conferences sure do have a lot of *opinions*, and I don’t want to be one of those people who just complain complain complain all of the time…

However, I’m willing to spearhead a resolution for next year’s business meeting (San Diego? I’ll be there) that it be a condition of the AHA using a site. We can’t change anytihng for the next few years, I’m sure, but this is ludicrous.

Oh, and at the Hilton you also pay $15 a day for the Fitness Center. As a woman i met in the elevator said, I can walk the streets, really I can. You end up feeling nickel & dimed on everything, and they get away with it because they cater to business travelers on expense accounts.

Of course, that’s all assuming that this incident wasn’t totally fabricated in the first place.

I also take Squaadrtomagico’s point about there being a shtick at play here. As I said, I don’t know Archie or his persona, but GayProf is absoutely 95.5% shtick.

Still, in this very specific instance of interviews, it is too easy to make targets out of people’s inexperience or uncertainty on the job market. Even in jest, it is at the expense of some pretty darn vulnerable people and continues to promote a gatekeeper mentality within academia (Not to mention demoralizing others who are on the market who might start second-guessing their very good preparation or fear that their own interview will be posted about in a blog). If Archie’s RL identity was revealed (or is known), it would be a short set of steps to figure out to whom he referred. Interviews are confidential and Archie could find himself in deep legal trouble.

I know, I know that I am taking this way more seriously than intended. Probably it shows some deep personal psychological issue that I need to work out. Or it’s a reflection of my unending gravitas.

But perhaps I’m being naive and he really does mean it. What do others think?

In his defense, immediately after this profanity-laced rant, Archie writes: “I would like to blame the advisors for this debacle, but the candidate has to share the responsibility here.” I agree: this candidate may not have been advised well, but this candidate also seems incapable of picking up on obvious cues from the people interviewing him, and that may be due more to personality or brain chemistry than to poor advising.

Imagine what it might be like to be this guy’s advisor! He may not take advice or direction from anyone. It’s rare, but I’ve met at least a few people like this in my career. It’s occured to me to wonder if they have Asberger’s Syndrome or some other form of Autisum Spectrum Disorder, because I can’t believe that anyone would self-consciously want to present themselves in such a hostile or clueless fashion. But in the end, it probably doesn’t matter: to be successful in academia, you have to be able to read social cues from students, colleagues, peers, etc., and if you can’t–whether it’s because your brain can’t see them, or because you think everyone else is an idiot and you don’t need to pay attention to their cues–you won’t succeed.

It seems a wee bit ungenerous to me. It sounds like a bad interview, but how much did it really affect Archie and his life? This was 40 minutes for Archie, but potentially the rest of the applicants’ entire career. Why the deep emotional (and hostile) investment? And, if there are people with whom to be angry, I suggest that it is the applicants’ advisors at his/her home institution who did not take the time to prepare the student for an interview. I would recommend that Archie find a way to politely inform the candidate about the error in judgment to make it a productive 40 minutes.