If another hiring season has come and gone, and you still haven't landed a teaching position at a community college, you might be starting to wonder if the problem is you. Well, it's not.
OK, maybe it is. To the extent that you engage in Socratic self-discovery, you would know better than I. But the truth is, many of the factors that affect your chances of being hired, especially in this year's brutal job market, have nothing to do with you as a person.
Before I examine those factors, I should probably issue the following disclaimer: Nothing I write here is meant to explain the result of any particular search in which I've been involved—especially the two nonfaculty searches I chaired this spring. Instead, I'm writing in general about a process with which I've become exhaustingly familiar over the last 23 years, at five different colleges, as an applicant, a serial committee member, and an administrator.
Internal candidates. As they hire more and more faculty members on contingent contracts, community colleges are creating ever deeper pools of "homegrown" talent. While it's often said that being an adjunct for too long can be a mark against you in faculty searches at research universities or liberal-arts colleges, that's not necessarily the case at two-year colleges.
Such faculty members have taught at the institution for some time, perhaps for years, as part-time adjuncts or lecturers. They may even be full-time instructors, just not on the tenure track. They know the curriculum, they know the culture, they know (and may even be good friends with) members of the tenure-track faculty—including, perhaps, those on the search committee.
Most important, if their contracts have been renewed year after year, they must have made a positive impression on the department chair and other administrators who influence the hiring process. When a tenure-track position becomes available at a two-year college, it's only natural that some of those "temporary" hires will be among the front-runners for the job.
If you don't happen to be in the pool of internal candidates, there's not much you can do to offset their natural advantages. Perhaps you can take some comfort in the knowledge that being on the inside isn't always an advantage, as colleagues and supervisors who recognize an insider's strengths may also be uncomfortably aware of that person's weaknesses. Moreover, although some two-year colleges feel strongly about promoting from within, others prefer to bring in new faces with fresh ideas, and still others are just looking for the best teachers they can get, regardless.
Personal agendas. Another dynamic that sometimes exists within hiring committees—and one that you have no way of knowing about, much less countering—is that one or more members may have strong personal agendas. Every member of a search committee will bring some sort of bias to the process. But some people are more attached to their biases than others.
For instance, perhaps a faculty member on the committee has a close friend among the college's longtime adjuncts who is applying. You might think that, under those circumstances, the faculty member ought to recuse himself or herself. But the truth is, if half the people who apply for the job already work in the department, the college can't possibly find enough people who don't know those applicants to form a committee.
Other agendas may have nothing to do with the applicants but everything to do with teaching philosophy or political ideology. I've had colleagues in the English department, for instance, who made it clear that they weren't interested in hiring anyone who didn't share their views on teaching composition. Thus some pretty strong candidates were doomed from the moment they began their teaching demonstrations, and never even knew it.
Committee infighting. Sometimes, when more than one person on the committee has a clear agenda, those agendas can compete. I've seen a number of committees that were sharply divided, with one member strongly favoring a particular candidate while another member backed a different one. If the opponents happened to be senior faculty members, the rest of the committee members often felt they had to choose sides.
In such cases, what often happens is that a third candidate emerges as a compromise. Although not the most qualified person in the pool, he or she is eventually offered the job as a way to keep the peace and make everyone, if not happy, at least less disgruntled.
Administrative interference. One of the questions that arises during any search is, "Who makes the final decision?" At most community colleges, the committee screens the applicants, conducts interviews, and then makes a hiring recommendation, which is, while not binding on the administration, given a great deal of weight (in theory, at least).
Most of the faculty searches I've been involved with followed that pattern, and in most cases our recommendations were accepted. But I do know of situations in which administrators told the committee, upfront, which "type" of candidate to look for—sometimes with enough detail that it was clear they were talking about a specific person. I've also seen cases in which administrators went out of their way to block a committee's recommended candidate, for reasons known only to the administrators (and guessed at by committee members).
Budget considerations. We've all heard of searches that were withdrawn because of budget cuts. But even when the money for positions escapes the ax, many colleges are still operating on shoestring budgets and may need to take other financial considerations into account.
For instance, if an applicant pool is adequately stocked with highly qualified candidates who live close by—such as might be the case when a college employs large numbers of adjuncts—the committee (or the administration) may balk at paying travel expenses for out-of-state applicants. Or the college may want to hire someone with a master's degree instead of a Ph.D., to save a few thousand dollars in starting salary, potentially extrapolated and compounded over a 25-year career.
Moreover, as many studies have shown, the number of tenure-track positions nationwide is shrinking. That, too, is a budgetary consideration. Which segues neatly into my next point.
Sheer numbers. The single factor most likely to sink your candidacy is simply that, in today's academic job market, more and more people are applying for fewer and fewer jobs.
As a department chair, I often had to explain that reality to angry adjuncts who had been passed over in the search process. Some even failed to get an interview. I tried to help them understand that, if 40 of our own adjuncts had applied for a tenure-track position, as was common, there was no way we could interview them all, much less hire them
The same reasoning goes for people applying from outside the college. If anything, they may be at more of a disadvantage, because they lack the insider's edge, assuming such an edge exists. The bottom line is that, in any given search, you have a slightly better chance of being hired than you do of inheriting millions from a rich uncle you never knew you had. But only slightly.
Just kidding ... kind of. I'm supposed to be making you feel better, and I'm failing miserably. But at least if you recognize that the reason you haven't been hired is not that you're genetically unemployable, then perhaps you'll also understand that, with a little persistence (OK, a lot of persistence), you stand a decent chance of landing a full-time teaching position somewhere at some point.
That's not a lot of encouragement, I know, but it's the best I can do right now. Next month I plan to talk about steps you can take to improve your chances. In the meantime, try to stay away from the hemlock.
Comments
1. robjenkins - May 17, 2010 at 07:35 am
I realized, in reading this through, that I left out an important point: institutional fit, which in the community college world is code for "community college teaching experience." Committees are leery of hiring people who've never taught at a two-year college because we're afraid they don't know what they're getting themselves into.
This is not a form of snobbery, unless you consider it reverse snobbery. It's not that we believe people without community college experience aren't good enough for us but rather that they might be too good--or at least think they are. We're concerned that, once they get a taste of the teaching load (5/5 in most cases), once they're exposed to our students (many of whom are less than prepared for college), they might just drop everything and run away screaming. Hey, it happens.
This is expecially true of people who are coming to us from research institutions or who otherwise have a professional agenda that is clearly research-driven. It's not that we disapprove of that sort of thing; we're just afraid you won't have time for it while teaching your five classes each semester, and that we won't have the money to support you adequately, and that once you discover as much, you'll, well, run away screaming.
Hey, it happens.
Rob Jenkins
2. robjenkins - May 17, 2010 at 09:50 am
Sorry. "Expecially" should of course read "especially." Please excuse the typo. And thanks to Sam for the nice catch. He was concerned that some might question my mental acuity based on that one error. I assured him that such a thing could never happen in the Chronicle comments sections.
Rob
3. atana09 - May 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Another factor is that in the wreckage of what's left of our economy many schools would be prone to hire internally, avoiding the time and cost of a normal search.
The problem here is that internal hires can often devolve into what amounts to as a veneered form of cronyism. Which can cause resentment by the non-selected adjuncts who remain academic sharecroppers, and by those who may apply in good faith without knowing there will be no good faith attempts to hire outsiders. Most states require position postings be publicized even if within a department there is no intention of hiring outside interviewees.
Obviously these situations are currently a limited problem usually associated with schools which already have some moral toxicity, but as budgets decrease the tendency to these type of games will increase. Unfortunately in a collapsing economy self interest will take precedence over proper ethics. And crony hires are decidedly a strong form of self interest allowing people to develop a form of henchmen (or women).
Unfortunately all it will take is a few more schools to fall into those swamps and the perception of CC credibility will take another hit.
So as M. Jenkins noted there are pragmatic and ethical reasons for changing hiring protocols. But given how much economic difficulties cause or force people to shift their morals, the other unethical potentials within this situation will become more evident.
4. a_voice - May 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I find that engaging in a search process when a person has pretty much been identified for a position is a waste of money, time, and energy for all involved. Shouldn't an ethical person politely remove himself or herself from a rigged process?
5. honto - May 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Rob only dances around the main factor in CC "political" hiring considerations--which is of course affirmative action. Even in states where affirmative action has supposedly been made illegal, it is still carried out under the auspices of adherence to federal guidelines, as opposed to state guidelines. This is especially true at the community college level, and most notable in the Humanities.
In geographical regions where a subtle racism prevails, white women are still the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, and many CC departments are top-heavy with white women--who typically prefer to hire other white women, simultaneously espousing and denying their affirmative action preferences.
In more cosmopolitan areas, the quota of white women has been met (entire departments and divisions may be staffed almost unilaterally by white women), and another approved minority will trump--although that minority must fit one of the arcane governmental divisions on the AA form--East Indians, Asians, and Arabs don't count.
I have both the name and physical identity of an approved ethnic minority, but I refuse to check any boxes, as hiring by race is unfair, unsound, illegal, unethical, and stigmatizes the hiree with the searing burn of AA preferences--forever. This searing burn develops from continuous smirking, condescension, and doubt from administrators and other faculty (even white women, who refuse to acknowledge their own AA preferences). Because an affirmative action hire is by nature a hire not based on ability or merit, these factors will forever be in question.
An affirmative action preference gives the preferred individual an illegal boost over other candidates on the basis of race or gender. This is an obvious violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as a personal insult to "approved minorities" who wish to succeed on their own merits.
To counter the actual and perceived injustices of affirmative action, hired minorities form various cliques and formal ethnic identity affiliations which only serve to rigidify and instantiate the very racism which they are supposedly against.
Since I constitute a minority status that many administrators are drooling to hire (to solidify their government funding), failing to check the AA box throws them into a spasm of ineptitude as they try all manner of techniques, legal and illegal, to force me to self-identify. I have been told that the final step in the hiring process will be when the Affirmative Action Office "checks the fit" of the application, so I need to be ready for this. I have been asked by deans how I speak language X, where my mother and father were born, where I am from, what my citizenship is, and asked directly what my race is. This last question I answer truthfully: I am a human being. We are all brothers and sisters under the sun.
All manner of idiotic statistical measurements are adduced to support AA preferences, such as statements that the faculty demographics must match the student demographics or the population demographics of the surrounding community? Why? The very notion that people with highly specialized qualifications will exist in exact statistical demographic proportions denies the very concept of individuality which higher education purports to engender.
Institutes of Higher Education, especially community colleges, are not truly committed to diversity, for if that were the case they would look far beyond the categories for preferential treatment detailed on the AA forms to include a range of hiring considerations which far exceed differences in skin tone or genitalia. Such categories would include class differences, political orientations, experiential differences, etc. Community Colleges in particular are afraid of governmental sanctions for not conforming to Federal AA guidelines, so they hire in accordance with the absurd AA racial categories.
Until the festering bandages of AA are torn off and discarded, the wounds and injustices of racism will never heal.
Some people will say that AA is an imperfect system, but it is the best we have. Any system which poisons the hiring process and perversely undermines values of individual integrity cannot be tolerated.
Some people will say that AA makes up for past injustices. Is it correct that innocent individuals should be made to pay for historic events for which they bear no responsibility?
Part of the issue with AA is that it has become such a secretive and cultish endeavor, as the various AA adherents work feverishly in the nether regions between state and federal law to both deny and implement illegal racial preferences and cloak such preferences as meritocracy-- in a doomed effort to ward off the inevitable stigmatization.
In its present state, perversely, AA is a program which significantly worsens the very problem which it purports to remediate.
6. atana09 - May 17, 2010 at 12:36 pm
"Shouldn't an ethical person politely remove himself or herself from a rigged process?"
Yes but would that person be willing to marginalize him or herself by doing so, or find themselves out on the search as a result.
Cronyism is reliant on complaince and so brings quite heavy pressures on those who'd refuse to kowtow.
7. ehyslopm - May 17, 2010 at 01:37 pm
If you're good enough you will get a job eventually in spite of the academic snakepit of faculty hiring. Agendas, internal politics, salary considerations, drinking scotch instead of bourbon all converge to create a roulette wheel search outcome. Don't take any of it too seriously and never act as if you really need the job. Desperation never sells - even though you may really need the job. Happy hunting!
8. deliajones - May 17, 2010 at 02:07 pm
I've chaired eight searches for the English department at my cc, with four job offers to insiders and four to outsiders, and no "preplanned hirings." There are two things that have damaged inside candiates--first a sense that everyone knows them and knows they're good so they don't have to really prove anything at the interview/demo. Second, and more pervasive, is a lack of currency, long-term adjuncts who haven't taken a class or attended a conference in five or more years. Yes, many FTF fall into that category but as we move to more and more use of technology, and more distance classes, we hire people who have some experience and at least interest in developing skills needed. Plus my college offers on a year-round basis hundreds of training sessions, for free, so someone who hasn't taken any is clearly not a good fit for us.
On the other had, with an insider you clearly know what you're getting. Despite reference checking, direct questions, etc., when you hire from outside you never know what kind of work ethic you're getting. Everyone knows how to answer the questions, but not everyone comes expecting to contribute to the department and college in ways outside the classroom.
9. pseudotriton - May 17, 2010 at 03:53 pm
The last section of this essay is where the truth lies. The real reason for the difficulty in fainding an academic job is the ridiculously glutted market and the fierce competition each candidate has to face nowadays. I have read in a job wiki's discussion forum where one member equated getting TT faculty jobs as becoming NBA players or rock stars, which does not seem too far from the reality these days. Sadly, just like the problem of global warming, many people talk about it, yet few are willing to do anything substantive about it. Lastly, while the reason for not being able to secure a job in academia might not be personal, its effect and toll on me as a candidate is nothing but.
10. rochcom - May 17, 2010 at 04:06 pm
Insiders may not have an advantage. When someone is well known, it is easy to concentrate on that person's perceived flaws rather than strengths. Suppose there are 2 equally qualified candidates who make the final cut, one an insider, one not. It is known that the insider rubs some department members the wrong way and that is taken into account. The outsider seems quite pleasant at the interview and thus is perceived to have an advantage. The decision is made to hire the outsider. Once hired, however, it may become clear that the outsider's personality is a much worse fit for the department, or worse, that the this person has some serious issues that were not evident during the interview.
11. hunchbob - May 17, 2010 at 06:08 pm
I have to disagree about getting a TT job as being like becoming a rock star or NBA Player. The big difference, especially at the CC level, is ability and performance. An NBA franchise would never pass over several outstanding players to hire a mediocre player based on demographics and then offer them a lifetime contract if they didn't screw up too badly their first two or three years.
12. rkevinhill - May 17, 2010 at 09:40 pm
On 'rigged' searches:
My experience has been that you can never be absolutely *sure* that the inside candidate will stay, simply because they can't be sure they will be hired, and since they *have* to look for a backup and might find one they prefer, and it is folly to not have a backup oneself. Which means that the ethical dimension of this is actually quite different; the outsiders really do have a chance.
I can attest to insiders not always having an advantage. I was an insider and a finalist for a permanent position while I was in a parallel temp position, and was ranked third. The permanent position went to the lead candidate, and my temp position went to the second candidate. In most cases, I don't think that the insider is necessarily at a *disadvantage*, but that in certain kinds of searches perceived qualifications (for junior hires, in essence where you went to school) trump everything.
13. marka - May 17, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Bravo on a brave article & commentary. Finally, folks can be honest & straightforward about hiring, and deal with the truth about same. Our institutions of composed of individuals who are humans, not unblemished saints.
I'm especially struck with the comment by honto -- it matches the basic approach my light-skinned 'black' housemate espoused: he felt AA was an insult to him -- he had earned his entrance into & graduation from Ivy schools (Princeton & Yale Law), and was tired of what to him felt like condescension. And he felt that it was a basic violation of the premise & promise of 'equal protection' -- his right to earn entrance & graduation, not his 'right' to a token entrance & grant of a piece of paper. A basic difference between the right to equal opportunity -- the ostensible goal of our 'equal protection' - versus equal results, regardless of merit.
Which brings me to my last point - we all wish to believe in meritocracy: "If you're good enough you will get a job eventually in spite of the academic snakepit of faculty hiring." If only that were true. We are enough of a meritocracy that if "you're good enough" your chances of obtaining a job increase substantially; the problem is that many people think 'fit' is part of being "good enough" -- and, of course, 'fit' can be code for someone I like/want for reasons other than objective merit.
14. marcintosh - May 18, 2010 at 09:59 am
The article and commentaries are wonderful exercises in emotional restraint in a subject so charged with emotion.
I have found it difficult, bewildering and, infuriating to be entirely ignored in my search for a position.
In 12+ months of the process I have exactly 3 replies, 1 postcard, 1 letter and 1 email.
Reflecting on this, I suppose I'm fortunate not be associated with institutions that can't find the time to send out a "form email".
Too busy to display good manners or business etiquette? Fine, live with each other.
15. emack - May 18, 2010 at 01:45 pm
I am in the process of applying for a CC position at an institution I have been an adjunct at for a while. I have been passed over once for a FT position, and I have heard from some people who ask for a meeting to discuss why they were not hired, so they can present themselves better the next time. What do you think of this, and would you give honest feedback if there was a problem with the app. or teaching demo?? I have never heard anyone getting any constructive criticism.
16. higgsbosons - May 18, 2010 at 02:44 pm
From my personal observations, the article missed mentioning two more factors (for obvious reasons): (1) The age of the applicant: I have seen it many times, where committee members look at one's CV and try to determine the age of the applicant. You would hear a statement like: "he is in his early fifties, a little too old." (2) The ethnic or national background of the applicant. If you are applying to teach a foreign language, your ethnic background, especially, if it matches the foreign language that you will be teaching, is probably a plus. However, if you were applying for, say, a physics teaching position, some committee members would prefer "domestic" or "local race" individual. I other words, if the CC is located in a region where it is predominantly black neighborhood, they prefer to hire someone who is also black. If the CC is located in South East Idaho, well, a white mormon ( and a member of the temple) would be more fitting and so on.
17. nofinance - May 18, 2010 at 02:44 pm
<Comment removed by moderator>
18. mamd9550 - May 18, 2010 at 02:57 pm
Some advice for getting a community college position. Write a cover letter that applies to the job you want, not a generic letter. Show that you understand the mission of community colleges. If you have experience teaching at a community college, say so. Refer to activities/assignments that you have created to engage students. Mention some successes you have had in improving student work.
19. deliajones - May 18, 2010 at 03:05 pm
To emack,absolutely DO ask for a meeting with the chair of the search committee (usually the department chair) if you interview, teach, and do not get a job offer. Ask in a spirit of willingness to change, to do things differently, not in a manner that questions the search committee. Yes, I would and have offered constructive criticism. I recommended that one person begin teaching online (as well as face-to-face) and learn the technology; one year later he was hired at a nearby cc (based on his distance ed ability!) I told another candiate that she talked about her uses of technology in teaching and then for her demo lectured us--she beefed up her presentation with technology and got hired that same semester for a job she interviewed for about a month after her interview with us. I told another candidate that he should stop emphasizing how much he LOVED teaching literature since the position he was interviewing for was a comp position! We hired him several years later. As chair, I feel an obligation to inform adjunct interviewees of ways to improve their interview/teaching. any good chair would give you this feedback IF, again, you do not approach him/her in an antagonistic manner.
20. pwherry - May 18, 2010 at 04:07 pm
Though I taught at a community college early in my career (and loved it), most of my search and hiring experience has been for professional positions in "support" units. One thing I have observed: all finalists meet the minimum qualifications, so usually the final choice is not simply the "best" apple, but ends up being a choice among apple, orange, peach and pear, each excellent of their kind. Most finalists have pluses--characteristics or experiences that lift them above the rest. I once had a group of finalists that included someone with a PhD (not required), another with instructional design experience (not required but valuable), and a third who was fluent in Spanish and had a great local rolodex. So I had a choice among pluses--"above and beyond" qualifications that weren't required but that would enrich our staff in various ways. There was nothing "wrong" or even correctable about any of those finalists--we just had the luxury of choosing which extra qualification did the most for us. And I'll never tell which one that was.
Moral of the story for applicants: identify what extras or pluses you would bring to a position. For community college teaching, this might include experience in/willingness to sponsor student activities, interdisciplinary work, committe service experience, ability to develop a new course to add to the offerings, etc. Too often applicants focus only on meeting the requirements and forget to look for the bonuses they can bring. Doing this may require a bit of research or familiarity with the hiring department, and it may be more gracefully introduced during the interview instead of the cover letter, though it should be evident in the c.v. Note, however, that bringing a little something extra to the position will not necessarily result in higher salary. But it may make you stand out.
21. desiree_al_wl_lvg_np - May 19, 2010 at 06:24 pm
Like #9 pseudotriton wrote: The real reason for the difficulty in finding an academic job is the ridiculously glutted market and the fierce competition each candidate has to face nowadays.
I second that! And one of the main causes of this is "adjunctification". It doesn't take much skill in math to figure out that your institution will save a tidy sum if they can pay someone the pitiful wages that are paid an adjunct instead of hiring a fulltime tenure track faculty member. So only one good job is even offered when the school really needs many more positions. Even if the institution is already low paying their TTs at a pretty low rate a year, say 40G, they still save half of that by getting an adjunct to do THE SAME job (yes, 2,400 to teach a class is considered good adjunct pay. This is without those pesky, expensive, benefits attached.). So in these "hard economic times," the playing field is ripe for getting away with just that, especially because that decision was acceptable even in "regular economic times."
And the phrase #3 atana09 used, "academic sharecroppers" is right!
Why does even faculty tolerate this adjunctification? Does TT faculty not see the writing on the wall for them? Because the way I see it, they may see themselves in the job search pool as well soon, considering how fast the layoffs in higher-ed. are occurring. Tenure does not protect the job, only the person in the job. And again, these “hard times” make it easy for institutions to justify scrapping those positions and hiring folks back as sharecroppers to do the SAME job.
The house of education is totally on fire. "FIRE!!!!!!!!"
22. mojo_bison - May 21, 2010 at 09:42 am
I spent a good amount of time a-cropping before I landed my position. I will testify to the truths this article contains. But there is one serious omission: dealing with the students. Community colleges are incredibly student-oriented, for better or for worse. Internal applicants should be VERY conscientious about being on-time for class, showing a genuine interest with students (as opposed to "faking it"), being consistent (you can be a hard-ass and still get good reviews if the students see you as even-handed), and being willing to work with students' needs. Word will spread, and students LOVE to complain about their other professors when given a chance. (External applicants should sweat this as well, because at some point you're going to be listing a current or former chair as a reference, and they'll be asked about your rep with the students.)
An applicant can give a good presentation and be buddies with the chair all day long, but if a dean sees a new applicant as someone whom students won't want to take, on to the next applicant. CCs want someone who will enhance or retain enrollment; if you aren't that person, fuhgeddaboutit.
Beyond that --and it's a shame that this even needs to be brought up --is professional reliability. CCs have more than their fair share of irresponsible full-timers, and the last person a committee wants to hire is someone who isn't going to carry their fair load. Even as an adjunct, I went to discipline meetings for full-timers, training days, all-college colloquia --you name the place, I showed my face. Yes, a lot of it is pure bovine-based fertilizer, but CCs want people willing to get dirt under their nails. And for the love of Pete, be the adjunct who always shows up for lecture and office hours, who always calls the chair and the departmental secretary early when class isn't going to be happening that day, and who turns in evaluations, grades and end-of-term statistics ON-TIME!
One last thing: be flexible. Don't ever lie (!) about what you can do, but be very willing to teach outside your comfort zone in terms of subject matter. CCs are always looking for ways to expand enrollment, and if you can teach a course that otherwise could only be found at another place, you might just make a job for yourself.
23. gbrown - May 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Great article! I was a freeway flier for 6 years before landing a f/t contract position. After 2 years there, I moved into a f/t t/t position. Last year I received tenure. Although I've been successful I have experienced something like 30 in-person interviews. In one interview with a cc in the Pacific Northwest, I asked about the word "pluralism" which appeared in several of their college statements. I was thinking of how I create assignments where students are allowed to use their own cultural and religious identity in an assignment--in essence, I move students toward acculuration rather than assimilation. A SC member answered that the *best* way they could ensure pluralism was to hire someone who "looks like" their non-white students. I'm white. All I could do is murmer "Oh, of course." What was I supposed to say? I see that you have 75% white students and you have 77% white faculty so you can't hired me? I support affirmative action. If they need that 2%, then that's it. Hire someone else. But please don't tell me this up front in an interview. It's demoralizing and can lead you to being sued.
24. zhasta - May 25, 2010 at 01:35 pm
I am glad I have found this article through a google search. Last week I was at an interview for an adjunct position. I am Asian-American. The CC that I was interviewed at, from what I saw was predominantly white staffed. When I arrived everyone gave me a stare and their faces dropped. I am currently teaching at another "more diverse" CC district and have taught for the past 4 years (still teaching btw) while completing my M.A. degree. The interview went fine and I believed that with my experience and familiarity with the CC culture everyting asked was answered comprehensively and well thought out. The questions asked were actually questions that I have been confronted with, with my experience as an adjunct instructor. But then at the whole time during the interview I already knew it wasn't going to work out. The body language from the comittee was rejecting. What I said made sense but I think it's because of my physical character that have already made an impression on them. I believe I've given my all-but there are just things that you can't fix to full-fill an established social circle of the faculties. I recieved a call from the HR saying -" oh sorry, you weren't chosen for the position" ...yea I kind of figured that out myself already.
25. chicoleo - May 28, 2010 at 11:04 am
I have to say that despite the dismal job market, many candidates do not present a convincing case for why they want to work at a community college. Cover letters that have a great deal of emphasis on research with little focus on teaching are red flags that we see all too commonly. I don't think it's unfair that first and foremost community colleges want faculty members who want to teach our students.
26. maryramirez - June 09, 2010 at 01:25 pm
Thanks for the article--it is a timely one for me as I have been trying to get a leadership position with the CC's for years! In fact, I to be interviewed for a deanship position in a couple of weeks. To my knowledge, three candidates were selected for a second interview. I have been down this road before and the road has, so far, end with the CC administrators choosing an internal candidate. I have sent several thousand of dollars traveling to interviews and hundreds of hours preparing for them. While I am always honored and pleased to be chosen for a second interview, my expereince has been that I am "grilled" just to satisfy the process. To this end, I am an African-American female with a hispanic surname; I hold a doctorate degree in Education; I have leadership and teaching experience at the adult education level; teaching experience as a CC adjunct; teaching experience as an assistant professor at the univeristy level; and teaching experience at the K-12 level.
I am getting "burned out" from the journey in my pursuit to obtain a position that I know I am ideally suited for. I have been the victim of receiving the "we're sorry but another candidate was letter". Most of the time, these letters were in my e-mail before I returned from the interview. While I realise that the field in "flooded with prepared candidates" for levels of CC jobs, I contend that CC's lack a moral and ethical soul. These institutions have become accustomed to the lack of hiring and selection protocols that are grounded in "hiring the best candidate". Instead, the institutions are married to hiring and selecting their own.
That said, I would like some honest and open opinions of whether I should subject myself to one more interview for a leadership position with a CC. Please respond.
27. robjenkins - June 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm
maryramirez,
I understand your frustration--although I think it's a bit of a harsh generalization to say "that CC's lack a moral and ethical soul." If you're talking about the individuals you've dealt with in your job search--search committee members, various administrators, etc.--then the truth (of course) is that some of them are highly moral and ethical people and some of them aren't. In that sense, people who work at CC's are no different from anyone else.
If you're talking about the institutions themselves, then I think you may have a point. However, I'd argue that what you perceive as a lack of morality is actually a lack of integrity--and I mean that not in the ethical sense but in the sense of having a clear identity, a clear notion of one's self and one's place in the universe. In our educational system, community colleges are basically asked to be all things to all people: technical school, adult education program, remedial training facility, liberal arts institution. On some campuses, that translates to an institution that doesn't really know what it is--or at least to disagreement on that point among the various departments and divisions of the college. That dynamic may explain, in part, what you feel when dealing with those institutions.
On a practical level, based on what you've said in your comment, I'd say your problem (from a CC perspective) is that you don't have experience teaching as a full-time, tenure-track faculty member at a CC. Your CV sounds impressive, but it has that one hole--and for someone trying to get a job in academic administration at a CC (again, I'm speaking from the CC perspective), that's a pretty big hole. To put it bluntly, faculty members at community colleges don't like to work for people who haven't done what they do on a daily basis.
That doesn't mean you won't eventually get your deanship. With your qualifications, you probably will. But something you might consider is applying for teaching jobs first, then working your way up through the ranks. There's no reason that, over time, you couldn't become an academic VP or even a president. And I for one think you'd be a better CC dean, VP, or president for having taught full time at a CC for a few years.
Anyway, that's my "honest and open opinion." Best of luck in your search.
Rob Jenkins
28. stevencook810 - June 16, 2010 at 11:45 am
I was an adjunct for 10 years at a CC and conducted a job search for 5 years before I finally was hired as a FT TT instructor last year. The key for me was perseverance and alot of hard work to improve myself. I faced a lot of the problems listed above. I was an external candidate against preferred internal candidates. I faced committee members who obviously had personal agendas. I have also been an internal candidate and number one choice by the committee, but the VP picked the number 2 candidate, whose husband also worked for the school. It is a real tough job to get, but I am glad I stuck it out.