Ever wonder how hiring committees separate the wheat from the chaff? The Prodigal Academic, an assistant professor in the sciences, slides back the tenure-track-search curtain to reveal how the various committees she was on this year winnowed their applicant pools of over 200 down to five.
Naturally, the first applications to go (about one-third) were generally from unqualified applicants—i.e., those sans a Ph.D. or a postdoc—or applicants who didn’t follow directions—i.e., those who submitted incomplete applications or applied despite being in the wrong field or subfield, PA writes. Exceptions were made for “SUPER AMAZING” applications, but that was “not most of them,” she adds.
Notably, the committee didn’t generally give a hoot about where the applicants had done their Ph.D.’s or postdocs “as long as the productivity [was] good,” nor was teaching experience a consideration; what counted most was “research experience and research fit with the department,” PA notes. Having a well-known recommender was a plus; having an “unrealistic” research plan was a minus, she adds. Another minus: failing to address “any weirdnesses (no letter from adviser, unusually long postdoc, gap in CV, etc.)” in the cover or reference letters.
Tell us how searches work in your department.
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
13 Responses to Behind the (Search) Curtain
wintermute - May 27, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It seems pretty clear (to me) that Prodigal Academic works in an R1 institution. Anyone willing to please volunteer this information for a “teaching” school (i.e. somewhere with a 3/3 or 4/4 load and teaching “matters” for tenure…).
philosophy - May 27, 2010 at 8:05 pm
We’ve got a 4/4 load, P&T is supposed to be 50% teaching, 25% service, 25% scholarly/creative. Most (not quite all) depts stick pretty close to that. My humanities (not literature/English!) dept has had about 5 hires in 10 years (due to retirements). We look very closely at student teaching evaluation data & comments, including peer visits to classes if available. If no (or little) such info’ is provided, the applicant is scratched. We don’t take such info’ as gospel truth but try to evaluate it critically. We don’t attend much to the service angle since the applicants are almost always relatively recent PhDs. We don’t seriously consider AbDs. Ceteris paribus, a strong publication record (article copies required of course) is a definite plus. If no publications, then a dissertation synopsis. We’re required to have three on-campus interviews. The high points are a department-wide 1-hr. Q & A (not a candidate presentation) about publications or dissertation (and maybe a bit about teaching), and then actually teaching an intro-level class for 45 min or so(not just talking about how to teach!), with most dept faculty in attendance. This is a big deal because our department’s future depends on total enrollment (more than on # of majors, although increasing majors in very desirable); any faculty who can’t relate well to students in intro courses is a detriment. BTW, we don’t have big lecture courses – our classrooms just won’t accommodate more than 35 conveniently. Straight lectures without techniques for encouraging active student participation would not be highly regarded.Over the years we haven’t gotten very many applicants from R1 PhD programs (the few we have gotten we’ve rated quite highly). My guess is that fresh PhDs who value research highly are not interested in applying to a Podunk State with no PhD program or (horrors!) a community college; but those few who really want to teach and inspire students are likely to be very good at it.
jegraves - May 27, 2010 at 8:41 pm
This description is spot on for my College located in a R1. We require faculty candidates to deliver a “teaching presentation” as well as a research talk and would be reluctant to hire someone who was completely uncomfortable in a classroom. But teaching skill and experience is not evaluated prior to the on-campus interview.
wintermute - May 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
Thanks for your comments, philosophy!
emack - May 28, 2010 at 12:27 pm
question for philosophy: I am in the process of applying for a CC position where I am an adjunct, and was told by others that committees don’t look at student teaching evaluation data/comments, as it is unfair to look at their college’s own adjuncts’ data and not not outside candidates’. Is this not your experience?
wendyche - May 28, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I’m at a 4 year liberal arts institution, and we tend towards the middle, unsurprisingly. We are concerned about research, both in terms of area (fit) and productivity (some record of publication, but it need not be extensive). We want to see some evidence that this research can actually be accomplished at our institution and with a budget the candidate is likely to have to work with (not R1), and that undergraduates will be able to be integrated into this work. We also regard teaching experience as important – having at least a couple of classes which the candidate has taught as the primary instructor (with some record of having done a reasonably good job), meaning that TA’ing and giving a couple of lectures or sharing a seminar does not count.
philosophy - May 28, 2010 at 1:52 pm
emack: we always require student teaching evaluation data/comments to be included in the application materials, regardless of whether candidates are insiders (we’ve had only a few) or outsiders. It baffles me that a search committee wouldn’t want to see, and ask to see, any such data that can be supplied.
eudaimon - May 28, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I thought the comment about weirdness was revealing of Academic hiring practices in relation to tenure stream positions. They basically fall into a pattern. You receive your Ph.D. Shortly thereafter, you are hired into a tenure stream position or not. If you are not hired, you end up in the contingent mills or you work outside of the academy. At that point, you are spoiled goods, so hiring committees will look to the next batch out of the oven. There are exceptions of course. But, someone who might have developed as a teacher through non-tenure track work or who might have learned something outside of academia is hardly ever considered. Now, as to the issue of meritocracy and its place in the search, I think the blog confirms that who gets a job and why is fairly arbitrary. So, when people talk about doing a national search, and everyone gets excited because it sounds like they will be finding the very best person in the nation, it is really an illusion.
11161452 - May 29, 2010 at 12:52 am
I agree with #8. Particularly if the hiring pool is large, I think any application that in any way raises a red flag for weirdness, gets tossed summarily. They just don’t need you. Ms. Montell seems to indicate that they might consider someone who explains the weirdness in the letter…but my own experience has made me skeptical.
rodentski - May 29, 2010 at 7:40 am
I have been struggling with the issue of ‘weirdness’ in my search for a creative writing job (around a year and a half at this point) and would appreciate any advice on how best to overcome it:1. English PhD, 1999, heavy on teaching experience (19 courses, only one as TA)2. Returned to UK in the teeth of a dreadful job market3. Ten years (ongoing) service in central government education policy, during which I realised I wanted to return to teaching but in the creative writing field, rather than English4. Since 1999, published two poetry collections, edited two anthologies, continue to co-edit a national poetry journal5. Teaching as much as possible around the day job (community education, schools etc)6. Completed Oxford Masters in Creative Writing in 2008 with an eye to the job search (though also enjoyed it hugely, confirming the rightness of the urge to move)7. Have applied for 36 positions to date, getting to final stages in two, with one search chair letting me know that my lack of recent classroom experience was a key factor.Is this ten year ‘weirdness,’ despite my efforts, fatal?
eudaimon - May 29, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Quick clarification. I used the word “weirdness” just to connect my point with the commentary. However, the better way to describe the situations I have in mind would be to say that they fail to conform with the rigid perceptions of faculty members in hiring roles. And this is not suprising, because faculty members tend to be conformists in many areas of their professional lives. They also tend not to have any experience outside of the cloister of academia, so they can’t appreciate or see as relevant any knowledge or experience gained from the “outside”. (This also explains why they are such little help in guiding their students, who will work outside of the academy.) Of course, there are exceptons, just not enough.
gloriawalker - June 3, 2010 at 11:17 am
In the article the secretary viewed and made selections prior to anyone. I feel that is wrong.I once had a secretary to decide I was not qualified because my transcript had BS in front of each course. My field is accounting and not all schools placed ACG on the transcript. Secretaries can be helpful but to have that much input can be dangerous.
shenyx - June 4, 2010 at 12:37 am
gloriawalker, I do not see where in the article by Prodigal academic that “the secretary viewed and made selections prior to anyone,” nor in the summary above. It is the search committee that viewed the applications at all stages.