With so many people conducting interviews there's also the problem of addressin everyones's concerns over the candidate. I think one-on-one interview cover much more in that they allow the interviewer and the one being interviewed to know each other much better, plus it's easier, in my opinion to put the candidate at ease and conduct the interview in a candid environment, 

Mitch,

I think, being a genious doesn't give anyone a right to be a jerk. The  acknowlegded one can afford it, of course, but I am sure, we would know much more geniouses if they didn't justify their jerkness by their genius.

Good way of putting it, Mitch. Unfortunately though, our society has made it very well known that employees are replaceable and therefore they have to walk on egg shells. What's worse is how employers take advantage of this. I live in Maryland where it's clearly a "for the employer" state, and because of that, you can get terminated for absolutely no reason at all. 

I've never found these unpleasant but talented people to be worth the time. Irreplaceable geniuses like Steve Jobs, who are so smart they can afford to be jerks, are -- literally -- less than a billion. The rest of us have to behave in a civilized fashion because we can be replaced. 

@Mitch - faculty have a lot of freedom in academia. They are not required to use college branded e-mail. Administration usually prefers that everyone use the college branded system. When college branded e-mail policies are too restrictive with mailbox size limits and attachment size limits, they can really hamper the work of faculty. I do believe there was a history of overly restrictive policies at this institution and the IT department was operating as the department of "no".

I totally agree, @slfisher. I think most of us would prefer to work with someone we get along with but, perhaps, doesn't know everything about the position vs. an ace who is impossible to deal with! (Having once, a long time ago, suffered through someone like that, I know first-hand how painful it can be.) Anyone involved in IT is always learning anyway; it's not exactly an industry that remains stagnant! Flexibility, a willingness to learn, and the ability to lead/be part of a team are vital.

I agree that phone interviews can winnow down the pool of candidates far more effectively than wasting so many professionals' time. Locally, we had several high-level positions that were open--things like city managers, police chief, etc. Despite getting many candidates, in all cases the final round of in-person interviews were limited to a handful of people, maybe four to six for each position. This way, those responsible for interviewing and hiring spent more than 30 minutes with each candidate, and could ask a lot of questions and interact with each individual in various ways (over a meal, in an office, driving around the area, etc.) to get some sense of how each candidate was in real life vs. on their "best behavior."

I wonder where the question about personal email came from. It seems oddly specific. I wonder if there was a past incident.

Alison raises a good point. If they had limited applicants by budget size at the outset, they could have saved everybody a lot of wasted time. 

I agree. Interviews are done to see what more there is to the individual aside from what's on paper. What's she going to be like? Is she going to be a team player? Can she make a point understood to a large group?

These questions do sound a bit cliche and it's a shame that they didn't do a better job preparing for the interview as some of the interviewee's probably did.