October 27, 2009, 01:00 PM ET

What We Really Look For

In my previous post, I discussed the question of hiring for political diversity and, more specifically, the issue of hiring conservatives in the ostensibly liberal academy. I used the phrase "professionally reasonable measures" in describing how my institutions have tried to select candidates. One commenter suggested that that phrase requires a lot more unpacking, so here is at least a carry-on full.

In all three institutions where I have had actual power in the hiring process, here are the questions we have always asked (in rough priority and presupposing that the required degree is complete or near completion):

1. Is the candidate qualified by education and/or experience to do the job we are seeking to have done? In other words, we know basically what we need taught, what other duties we may require (e.g., directing a program, etc.), and what scholarly interests are under-represented in the faculty. How well does the candidate meet those needs?]

2. Does the candidate demonstrate, through documentation and interviewing, the potential to be an excellent teacher? In an interview situation it's significantly easier to identify a weak teacher than it is to separate the competent from the possible star, but everyone is watching for candidates' ability to clarify complex ideas, speak coherently about teaching and course content, and articulate at least a basic guiding classroom philosophy. Respect and affection for undergraduates also helps.

3. Is the candidate a thoughtful person? Does he or she show engagement with the world of ideas? That quality might be characterized as a demonstration of intellectual curiosity.

4. Does the candidate give evidence of knowing what kind of institution this is? Does he have small-college experience as a student or faculty member or, barring that, does he show concrete thought about this sort of place? Does she understand the basic nature of an undergraduate, teaching-oriented institution? In various formal and informal interactions, does he engage with the possibilities of being here? (If you have seen an interview where someone does not do those things, you will know what I mean.)

5. Does the candidate treat people well before and during the campus visit? (I know many search-committee members who have eliminated a candidate for not treating administrative personnel respectfully, and I think they are right to do so.)

6. Does the candidate have a scholarly agenda that is plausible under the material and geographical circumstances of our institution? Is her professional ambition, as she articulates it, compatible with what's possible here?

7. Does the candidate bring other interests to the campus that would strengthen our academic offerings, our community life, or other aspects of the institution?

8. All other things being equal, which they really never are: How strong is the institution from which the candidate has earned his or her terminal degree? Is this institution already represented on the faculty? (We would probably hire an equally qualified candidate from a "lesser" institution over one who holds a Ph.D. from an institution that's already proportionally overrepresented on our faculty. However, in practice, I seriously doubt that scenario often occurs.)

As you see, nowhere on the list is a political litmus test. I am not naïve enough to believe that such political tests don't sometimes exist, and I certainly know that candidates' political beliefs will often shape their scholarly agendas in ways that may either exclude or include them in a particular pool, either through self-selection or elimination at the committee level.

However, what everyone really wants is a good teacher, an engaged campus citizen, an interesting person to have around, and a contributor to the overall life of the university. None of those qualities is fundamentally linked to whether one is conservative or liberal, and that's why we don't spend a lot of time on that issue.

Comments

1. tjfarrel - October 28, 2009 at 06:31 am

Re #8: you should instead prefer the equally appealing candidate from the lesser institution. She obviously has a steeper growth curve or she wouldn't already look as good as the one with the better-recognized brand. In 5 years, she'll probably be way ahead. Philologists call this the principle of lectio durior.

2. hmcneece - October 28, 2009 at 10:39 am

You need to add a #9 The comparitive cost and feasibility of relocating the candidates. As is the case here, this is often overlooked and while certainly it should not be a primary factor, it needs to be addressed, particularly in these uncertain eceonomic times. What are the candidates expectations of expenses to be covered (i.e. real estate sale/purchase assistance, temporary housing costs, househunting trips, household goods moving, etc)? In todays market these can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars if you agree to pick up the tab. If you don't, the financial drain of paying out of pocket, coupled with the emotional drain of separation from ones "trailing" family can amount to a very disgruntled new hire. The selection must include a professional evaluation of this component to be considered sound.

3. david_r_evans - October 28, 2009 at 11:53 am

#1, in practice that's how it usually works. For one thing, we are more competitive for hiring that kind of candidate. For another, your comment about the learning curve, and the hunger it implies, is an excellent point.

#2, the problem with this issue is it involves questions and concerns that, for EEO/AA reasons, shouldn't enter into the hiring decision. A lot of the points you raise can only really be discussed with candidates once an offer is on the table. And I'm sympathetic to the points you raise, since we still have a house in our previous city that we can't sell, so I know first-hand how expensive the whole process can be. I suspect we're in the hole in the $40,000 range. C'est la vie.

4. drcrn - October 29, 2009 at 12:13 pm

#3 As I see it relates to a research vs teaching institution experience. I enjoy writing from time to time but those of us who have never worked in a "publish or perish" environment should not be punished because of that, a lot of us receive wonderful reviews as both faculty and peers but would be withdrawn from consideration (for faculty vacancies) at other institutions because we weren't mentioned/published in some journal. There are other means for demonstrating intellectual curiosity.

5. samueloulrey - October 29, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Thank you very much for the expansion. I still detect a couple weasel words (e.g. "qualified"), but the surrounding material does a fair job of filling in the definitions.

I must confess that "not treating administrative personnel respectfully" had not occurred to me as a possibility for which one should be alert. But on reading it, thought of a few instances instances I observed, both of people taking exception to actions which were innocent and outrageously rude behavior in academia.

6. hnsawyer - October 30, 2009 at 11:00 am

This article opens up conversation but does not tell all.

Political diversity? What about diversity (race & gender) specifically women of color and the issue of hiring them. They are very under represented at any institution.

1. Is the candidate qualified by education and/or experience to do the job we are seeking to have done?
> I think this is hit or miss. Either you have it or your don't. You can have a PhD from Harvard and little to no experience; got the job. Plenty of experience and have a PhD from University of Phoenix; looked down upon (no job)!
> I am not generalizing however this happens!

3. Is the candidate a thoughtful person? Does he or she show engagement with the world of ideas? That quality might be characterized as a demonstration of intellectual curiosity.
> I have to agree with "drcrn" in that there are other means for demonstrating intellectual curiosity and those of us who have never worked in a "publish or perish" environment should not be punished because of that.
> Not that we do not want to be published or even try, truth is, every PhD does not have published work. This alone should not make us less qualified.

8. All other things being equal, which they really never are: How strong is the institution from which the candidate has earned his or her terminal degree? Is this institution already represented on the faculty? (We would probably hire an equally qualified candidate from a "lesser" institution over one who holds a Ph.D. from an institution that's already proportionally overrepresented on our faculty. However, in practice, I seriously doubt that scenario often occurs.)
> This is sad in that, in one breath you can say, you would probably hire the equally qualified from a lesser institution however in pratice this scenario rarely occurs. This situation happens all the time and is so wrong.
> No matter the institution the person earned their degree from, they earned it. Why should some one be better because they went to an Ivy-league institution or on-campus versus some one who earned their degree on line?
> It is the way academia works, I know, it is sad and because of it; many great instructors are looked over. Not everyone can afford the cost of an Ivy-league school and/or have time to go on-campus. What happened to the days when accomplishments meant something?

7. mrmentor - November 01, 2009 at 10:32 am

I'm reminded of an "On Hiring" prompt a long time back: Wherever meritocracy is not the supreme criterion, it does matter whether you are likeable ("collegial") or not. In 25 plus years, I have NEVER seen a search committee fail to violate at least one of the standard rules. So all of your questions are great. But will they raise the institutions who apply them out of mediocrity and into -- meritocracy?!

8. david_r_evans - November 01, 2009 at 06:29 pm

MrMentor, not being a jerk no one can work with is part of the measure of merit.

9. freemanure - November 02, 2009 at 09:26 pm

Whereas your priority laundry list of cirteria applies rather well to filling a junior faculty position in an undergraduate instituion, it does not apply to much large PhD shcools nor does it apply to mid-career tenured professor from average universities to move about to another comparable institution for a tenured professor/academic leadership position. Speaking of the last item, many schools speak from both sides of their mouth: on the one hand, they wish and expect a new faculty to become stellar, rightly so, in their three prong stools of teaching-research-service, but on the hand, they have no tangible merit and career advancement basis to reward such faculty and to ensure they remain employable for a comprable senior position. professorship/leadershipin a sisiter school. Some of the reasons are:stagnant leadership, ie, many department chairs are the least accomplished and politically well connected to serve for chair or deandship for life! when there is a crisis, they mostly look beyond their nose and fill assoc dean, dean, VP, provosot positions externally...