Identifying the Inequities in Refusing Interviews Before Graduate Application Deadlines—And What We Can Do About It
Pre-application interviews involve meetings between supervisors and individuals who intend to submit a graduate application in the upcoming cycle. Though these interviews are considered beneficial for both supervisors and applicants, they are controversial due to their potential to create inequities. For example, marginalized student populations are less likely to engage in academic help-seeking behaviours, and therefore less likely to reach out to professors to request interviews prior to the application deadline. Pre-application interviews also require ample preparation, which is not always feasible for marginalized students, such as students with caregiving responsibilities and those of lower socioeconomic status.
Additionally, pre-application interviews may create inequity through the variability of information shared by professors to interviewees. Implicit biases may lead a professor to view one interviewee more favourably than another, such as based on gender and race, which may influence the interview outcomes. For example, a professor may provide more advantageous information to favoured students whom they deem as strong candidates, which may significantly impact the quality of application materials.
Moreover, a supervisor will likely become more acquainted with a student after an interview; for favoured students, this will advantageously influence how their application materials are later perceived. For non-favoured students, the biases developed from the interview may negatively affect the perception of application materials, more so than if the interview had never occurred. Overall, these interviews are considered inequitable because they contribute to a “hidden” curriculum that is primarily reserved for students with privilege
Pre-application interviews can also be onerous for faculty, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who are often expected to complete “invisible” work, such as mentorship. For professors, the resources spent conducting these interviews could be better allocated to several other obligations usually held in academic roles.
Supervisors are increasingly refusing pre-application interviews to address these problems; yet, by doing so, they may unintentionally reinforce other inequities in academia. Eliminating pre-application interviews means that candidates must infer what supervisors may prefer in applicants and their materials. Acquiring such information is equally inaccessible because it requires students to receive information from opportunities not equitably available. Removing interviews forces applicants to rely on advantageous knowledge from hidden curriculum for one’s graduate candidacy. Thus, the inequities of pre-application interviews are easily replaced by the inequities of acquired academic knowledge.
If pre-application interviews are inequitable and no-interview policies are not entirely effective, then there is a need for a better alternative. I propose that the solution to this dilemma is for supervisors to consistently enforce no-interview policies while simultaneously providing accessible resources — such as a website — that allow all potential applicants to receive an impartial amount of relevant information to enhance candidacy.
Why a website?
Having a frequently updated, online resource for students addresses the aforementioned issues because it ensures that virtually any student can access an equal distribution of information that a supervisor would wish to relay to potential candidates. This helps balance the graduate competitive field by sharing hidden curriculum in a manner that limits opportunities for biases. For professors, creating a detailed website involves a short-term investment of resources, but once implemented, immediately saves greater time by eliminating the need for repetitive interviews.
Establishing available resources also allows professors to evaluate whether potential candidates demonstrate initiative, a commonly desired trait for graduate school. It may also evaluate potential candidates’ respect for a supervisor’s boundaries, as a website provides an opportunity to place explicit, firmer communication guidelines with applicants.
Please note that this solution does not completely eradicate the inequities in academia. Reading several supervisors’ websites still requires significant effort that not all students can equally afford. It also does not eliminate the advantage students earn when they are internally recruited from a lab or acquainted with a supervisor. Nonetheless, instilling a useful website can significantly help reduce the existing inequities in the graduate landscape.
Below, I have provided a broad outline of general information that may be helpful to include on a website. I was advised to seek the suggested content from graduate, post-doctoral, and faculty mentors, conference workshops by affiliated student associations, and online and published resources. The suggestions are not exhaustive and likely could be better refined for specific disciplines. Please use this list as a basic foundation for what information you may consider providing to potential candidates.
Suggested General Information to Include on Websites
Suggested General Information to Include on Websites
- In lay terms, the research focuses and objectives of the lab, and links to significant publications
- An up-to-date status on whether new graduate students will be considered for the upcoming application cycle, or information as to where applicants may find the status (e.g., department website)
- Open-access resources related to developing skills/competencies that are an asset for applicants (e.g., programming tutorials, recommended books on writing, etc.)
- Note: may also include resources used within the lab
- Frequently asked questions:
- What skills and competencies are an asset for students applying to your lab? (E.g., programming, previous and existing applications for funding, etc.)
- Note: May be best to also direct readers to (3) in this section
- What is your supervisory style?
- How often do you prefer to meet with students?
- How frequently does the lab host meetings?
- How is authorship determined in the lab?
- How often do you expect lab members to work in person? Can this expectation be accommodated?
- What are common career pathways taken by lab alumni (e.g., academic career, industry, etc.)?
- What methodologies/technologies are students expected to receive experience with during their graduate studies?
- What skills and competencies are an asset for students applying to your lab? (E.g., programming, previous and existing applications for funding, etc.)
- An email addressed to someone other than the supervisor (e.g., lab manager, lab email) where interested persons may ask questions not found on the website, or provide feedback. Alternatively, provide a contact form where applicants may anonymously submit questions or feedback they wish to be updated on the website.
References
Baglow, L., & Gair, S. (2018). Australian social work students: Balancing tertiary studies, paid work and poverty. Journal of Social Work, 19(2), 276-295.
Eaton, A. A., Saunders, J., Jacobson, R., & West, K. (2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82(5), 127-141.
Giroux, H. A., & Penna, A. N. (1979). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education, 7(1), 21-42.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.
Semper, J. V. O., & Blasco, M. (2018). Revealing the hidden curriculum in higher education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37, 481-498.
Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group. (2017). The burden of invisible work in academia: Social inequalities and time use in five university departments. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39, 228-245.
Winograd, G., & Rust, J. P. (2014). Stigma, awareness of support services, and academic help-seeking among historically underrepresented first-year college students. The Learning Assistance Review, 19(2), 17.
Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2018). No time for college? An investigation of time poverty and parenthood. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6), 807-831.
Attribution: Photo by Byron Sullivan from Pexels
The post Identifying the Inequities in Refusing Interviews Before Graduate Application Deadlines—And What We Can Do About It appeared first on ECR Community.