In Reply to: There are studies that show interviews are worthless or worse. posted by mh on January 15, 2024 at 10:30:53
LOL - for me they always felt like something of a crapshoot.
As an interviewee i discovered pretty early that if you can know what they job really needs to be better than the person who is in charge and is interviewing you - and they are actually willing to listen and think about what you're telling them - it's a definite advantage. (Of course the trick is getting into such a situation.)
Hiring you're always so cognizant of all that you don't and can't know (as in 'that was there and this is here' and 'that was then and this is now' and what are the differences and what may have changed....)
Agree with you but do think history is a solid and good indicator. In this thread the question was raised of perhaps this particular job might be above the hire's experience and readiness - always a reasonable question (DeBoer's total control of himself and his circumstances seem remarkably mature to me and really stand out so my response is I don't think so. At least, there's as good a chance as with any hire new to a system that that won't prove the case in this situation but we can't know until we find out.)
It's an interesting situation anyway in that it is actually a recruitment rather than an employment interview. The Alabama AD set his sights on the rival HC he most wanted to poach; the interview part was in large part an interview conducted by the candidate - is this something I really want to do? - than the prospective employer on whose part the primary concern was to woo the recruit and secondarily just to make sure no flags arose as to whether (a) the candidate was indeed 'the man' and (b) the candidate wa someone with whom the AD wanted to saddle himself to working closely with for the next ten or more years.
If UCLA had an opening (and the money to do something about it) as you have posted previously, DeBoer would top my list of coaches I'd wish we would hire