In today’s academic hiring landscape, one cannot help but ask: Are doctoral research and publications considered valuable in academic interviews, or is it just about knowing the syllabus? In recent times, a troubling pattern has emerged in academic hiring practices: candidates with rigorous PhD training and multiple peer-reviewed publications often find themselves overlooked during faculty interviews. Despite having demonstrated intellectual commitment, academic productivity, and discipline over many years, their efforts are met with silence or superficial questions. These interviews, rather than engaging with the candidate’s research contributions or scholarly innovations, seem narrowly focused on testing knowledge of basic syllabus content, as though the primary qualification for a teaching position is mere familiarity with textbook outlines, not a history of research-driven inquiry.
What remains invisible in such interviews is the immense emotional and intellectual labor that goes into earning a PhD and publishing in reputed journals. The candidate spends countless sleepless nights working through literature reviews, wrestling with theoretical frameworks, collecting data, and painstakingly revising drafts in response to feedback from supervisors and anonymous reviewers. Each paper published is not just a document; it is a testament to resilience, original thought, and critical engagement with existing scholarship. The journey is long, often isolating, and always intellectually demanding. Yet in many interviews, this journey is neither acknowledged nor inquired about.
Even after submitting detailed CVs, candidates often experience complete indifference from interviewers regarding their academic achievements. There are cases where CVs and application forms clearly mention publications in highly reputed journals, PhD research, Post-Doctoral Fellowships, teaching experience, involvement in research projects, international academic collaborations, participation in international conferences, paper presentations, and attendance at workshops – yet none of these points are brought up in the interview. Such silence is not merely a missed opportunity for meaningful dialogue; it reflects a systemic disregard for scholarly accomplishments. When the only questions asked are limited to classroom syllabi, one is left to wonder whether academic hiring has lost its intellectual seriousness altogether.
This disregard is more than just a personal slight; it represents a deeper malaise within the academic recruitment process. When interviewers fail to ask even basic questions about a candidate’s dissertation topic, research orientation, publications, or paper presentations, they are essentially signaling that scholarship has little weight in hiring decisions. This fosters a system where performative fluency in course content is rewarded over long-term academic investment. In doing so, institutions send the wrong message to aspiring scholars: that intellectual contribution is secondary to teaching convenience. Academic research, especially at the doctoral level, is not a mechanical process. It requires creativity, risk-taking, and often a rethinking of dominant frameworks. When a PhD candidate gets their work accepted in a reputed journal such as those published by Springer, Taylor & Francis, or other international publishers, it signifies a rigorous peer review process and approval by experts in the field. These contributions do not merely fill a CV; they push the boundaries of knowledge, stimulate academic debate, and lay the groundwork for future inquiries. Yet, the silence of interview panels on such achievements suggests a troubling disconnection between institutional practices and academic ideals.
Moreover, academic interviews should serve as a dialogue between scholarly minds, not as rote tests of surface-level information. While knowledge of the syllabus is important for teaching responsibilities, it cannot be the sole or even primary criterion in faculty selection. The very soul of a university lies in the interplay of teaching and research, and to ignore one in favor of the other is to cripple the institution’s intellectual life. Interviews that reduce candidates to syllabus providers disregard the core mission of higher education: the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The issue is not simply that candidates are being undervalued; it is that academic excellence itself is being redefined in narrow, bureaucratic terms. By prioritizing checklist-style interviews over genuine intellectual engagement, academic institutions risk becoming administrative shells rather than thriving centers of thought. Hiring committees should be held to a higher standard, where candidates’ research contributions, theoretical insights, and published works are given the respect they deserve. Only then can we restore integrity to academic hiring processes.
If academic institutions are to remain spaces of critical thinking and knowledge creation, they must critically examine the practices by which they select their educators. PhD work and publications are not ornamental; they are foundational. To ignore them during interviews is to dismiss years of rigorous intellectual labor. The failure to engage with a scholar’s research not only demoralizes individuals but also undermines the very values academia is supposed to uphold. True academic interviews must move beyond syllabus familiarity and embrace the full spectrum of what it means to be a scholar: someone who teaches not just what is known, but who also questions, explores, and expands what can be known.
Academic hiring must be reimagined with greater integrity, depth, and vision. PhD work, research publications, post-doctoral engagements, and intellectual contributions must be recognized not as optional credentials, but as the heart of a scholar’s identity. Interviewers must prepare thoughtfully, read candidates’ profiles with care, and pose questions that reflect an appreciation for scholarly labor. If we continue to reduce academic interviews to syllabus quizzes, we not only disrespect the candidate’s years of work, but we also degrade the future of academia itself. It is time institutions remember that behind every journal article and thesis lies not just content, but critical thought, struggle, and a genuine effort to push the boundaries of knowledge.
Dr. Avothung Ezung
Post-Doctoral Fellow (ICPR)
Dept. of Philosophy
NEHU, Shillong
Tuesday, August 26, 2025