This is from a philosopher with considerable experience interviewing junior candidates for a top liberal arts college; although it's too late for those who interviewed at this year's Eastern, it will hopefully be helpful to others going forward:
Candidates should not be nervous about being nervous during interviews. We expect that candidates will be nervous, and we take this into account in our evaluation of their performance. Indeed, sometimes a visibly anxious candidate will impress us very much because of the form and content of what he or she says. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being cool and collected either, but it's the exception rather than the rule. So if nervousness is not a problem, what is? One of my colleagues has a lovely phrase to describe a key virtue in a candidate: "She accepted the question I offered." What this means is that, if an interviewer poses a question to you, don't dismiss it, ignore it, or try to shut the dialogue down. This does not mean that you have to agree with the premise of the question or even have a ready answer. It is perfectly fine to argue that the question reveals a misunderstanding, or to acknowledge that you had not thought about it before, and then think out loud about how you might respond. But "accepting the question" shows that you are willing to be a good philosophical interlocutor with both colleagues and students. Finally, candidates should keep in mind that they might not be advanced to the next interview stage for reasons that do not reflect poorly on them as a scholar or potential colleague. For example, prior to the interview, we might have concerns about the fit between a candidate's interests and the needs of our department. A face-to-face interview might reassure us on that score, or it might confirm our suspicion that they're merely "not right for us."