For a long time now, the worldview that dominates at research universities (“The R1 Paradigm”) has also dominated the rest of higher education. High research productivity, relatively low emphasis on teaching, and indifference to, if not disdain for, service activities are large parts of that worldview.

Its dominance can condition the behavior of both candidates and institutions in ways that are neither productive nor helpful. Graduate students who reach the job market are generally high achievers in highly competitive research environments, and have naturally absorbed the values of their mentors whose backgrounds fall within a select circle of research universities. Search committees are filled with people who have been trained and acculturated at those same select research universities.

The challenge for both candidates and committees comes in the collision between the R1 paradigm...

Last week I wrote a post wondering how colleges and universities that are less obviously desirable places to work can compete for strong candidates.

Many of the responses to that post, as well as numerous discussions on The Chronicle‘s forums, stress that many institutions fail to attract strong candidates because of a lack of honesty about salaries, workloads, working conditions, and so on. Job candidates are generally smart people, and can spot disingenuous behavior and find it off-putting.

Is it just fear of telling the truth about a college’s specific circumstances that drives this behavior, or has the faculty-hiring process developed traditions of dishonesty that ultimately benefit neither hiring institutions nor candidates?

What are the limits of truth for a hiring institution?

During the 2008-9 hiring season, one of the things I would like to discuss here is how colleges and universities that are not at the top of many candidates’ lists of desirable places to work can position themselves to compete for strong and interesting new faculty members.

In particular, I am thinking about colleges in locations that are not obviously attractive and institutions that have high workloads or are strongly oriented to teaching. How can they make their cases as good places to work, given the profession’s dominant focus on research and sophisticated college towns as the pinnacle of academic success?

I know from firsthand experience that a career away from the Ivy league or away from cities like Seattle, Madison, Charlottesville, or Chapel Hill can be highly rewarding. I also know that many candidates for assistant professorships do not feel the same way.

So some pretty ...

My university has been using electronic job applications for a couple of years, and I confess ambivalence. As a candidate, I have steadfastly refused to apply for positions that require them, with one exception (a job I really wanted, enough to jump through annoying hoops). As a dean, I’ve seen both their advantages and disadvantages and remain unconvinced of the virtues.

Some people certainly see electronic applications as mission creep on the part of human-resources offices, and that objection makes some sense.

At my first job, the faculty-hiring process was controlled by academics from start to finish, which I view as a good thing. Every faculty application was handled in the office of the dean of the college. My current university, while much larger, nevertheless receives fewer applications for a typical job than my previous institution, yet our HR officials insist that...

Criminal-background and credit checks are becoming a common element of faculty and administrative searches. Many states, and an increasing number of private colleges, are requiring background checks prior to or as part of job offers. My university added them this year, and thus we have been navigating in new waters as we deal with candidates during the offer process.

A certain amount of griping has ensued. One of the clearest vestiges of academe’s history as a “gentleman’s profession” is the idea that we, as academics and holders of advanced degrees, are somehow above suspicion, and thus requiring a background check is insulting and degrades us as professionals. That sentiment is certainly understandable, as the presence of a background check is prima facie evidence that candidates are not being taken at their word.

The paradox, of course, is that only those whose word is not good...