First Person

Hits and Misses in the Hiring Process

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines First Person The Rejection Letter I Wish I Could Send If we had to make up a story for why you might be interested in our position, then interviewing you was too risky. Peer Review Hirings and Firings The new law school at the University of California at Irvine gets some high-profile hires ... and other appointment news. Ms. Mentor Does This Make Me Look Old? Advice on how best to dress, and act, when you look as young as your students. Career News Gone, and Being Forgotten Why are some of the greatest thinkers being expelled from their disciplines? Resource Salaries: Faculty | Administrative Presidential pay: Private | Public Financial resources: Salary and cost-of-living calculators Career resources: Academic | Nonacademic Library: Previous articles by topic | by date | by column Career Talk, Ms. Mentor, and more... Landing your first job On the tenure track Mid-career and on Administrative careers Nonacademic careers for Ph.D.'s Talk about your career Blogs

By Gene C. Fant Jr.

April 2002: Our new faculty recruit has finally agreed to the terms of our job offer, and a contract is on its way to her home address. It was way back in October 2000 that I filled out my first administrative form requesting the position for the English department. In September 2001, I sent my dean the formal request for permission to hire. By December, I was told that permission would be awarded in January. In January we advertised, in February we collected applications, and in March we held on-campus interviews.

What a byzantine process the search can be. I always am mindful of what it was like to be on the entry-level job market and to be left twisting in obscurity, especially after a committee had made first contact by phone or had invited me for an on-campus interview. Back then I swore that if I were ever a department chairman, I would try not to protract the process unnecessarily. Now I am the one running the search, and I finally have a bit of time (in between the end of the semester paper grading) to look back and see what changes might have improved the process.

A Few Regrets

Regret No. 1: I wish I had added more information to our department's Web site. Almost none of our applicants were specialists in our advertised field (composition and rhetoric, with supervisory duties in the campus writing center). Of those who weren't, about half specialized in fields in which we offer absolutely no classes; the other half duplicated the specialties of current faculty members. We had updated our departmental home page before we posted our position announcement, but applicants would have been helped if we had listed faculty specialty areas along with our academic credentials. This would have saved several applicants the time, expense, and emotional energy of applying. I also would have made certain that our course offerings were more accessible. While they are available on the university's home page, they are not linked in any way to our departmental Web page.

Regret No. 2: I wish I hadn't timed the search so tightly. Because of our budgeting calendar, it's almost impossible to get a position approved before the end of the fall semester (which blocks us out from interviewing at our discipline's primary search field, the annual Modern Language Association meeting in December). This meant that January was our earliest advertising window. When we returned from the holiday break, we set up a timetable with the hope of holding interviews and making a decision before spring break in March. By the time we were able to get our position announcement in all of our desired outlets, it was the middle of February. Our original application deadline, February 15, had to be extended until February 28. With spring break coming only two weeks later, that meant that the interviews had to take place after break. Then we ran into scheduling problems trying to arrange the on-campus interviews so that all of the various administrators and faculty members could attend, especially given that our decennial visit from our regional accreditor loomed only three weeks after spring break. The bottom line: If I had been able to get our timetable cranked up just two weeks earlier, we would have been able to complete the search much more easily.

Regret No. 3: I wish I had done a better job of networking in anticipation of the opening. Applicants know the importance of networking; I think department heads and deans sometimes forget that we need to do the same thing to turn up promising candidates. I knew that this position would be coming open, and I was able to make certain that my friends and former students at other institutions knew about it. Either of our two finalists would have been a good "fit" with our institution, but if they hadn't panned out (or if some other university had beaten us to the hire), we would have had difficulty filling the position in the specialty area we needed so badly. Networking becomes particularly important at an institution like mine, with its many special considerations in hiring, including our location (very deep South, in an area with no local research libraries) and our strong denominational mission (Southern Baptist). We are held to very exacting standards in our hiring recommendations, narrowing the candidate pool considerably.

Regret No. 4: I wish I had warned my dean and my chief academic officer about the fierce nature of the competition for specialists in composition and rhetoric. If I had done that, I think I could have secured the administration's approval more quickly to fill the job. I did have the forethought to warn them that we might need to hire a candidate who was A.B.D., rather than a Ph.D. and that, in fact, turned out to be the case.

Even Fewer Successes

Success No. 1: I tried to make contact with applicants as swiftly as possible. With the invaluable assistance of our departmental secretary, I mailed out my letters of receipt the day the application packets arrived. I replied to e-mail queries the same day and even saved a couple of people the trouble of applying when I recommended that they look at specific materials on our Web site. I had rejection notices sent out within 24 hours of our decision, and in a couple of cases I sent personal notes to candidates whose files I wish to retain in case we have a surprise opening or in case some of my friends at other institutions call with a last-minute opening. Even though the overall pace of the process was pretty much beyond my control, I kept remembering how awful it felt to be unaware of where I stood in the process back when I was on the entry-level market.

Success No. 2: I tried to remember the humanity of the candidates. In the case of one person who queried the position, I advised him that his specialty area wasn't a good match for our needs, and I sent him the e-mail address of another advertised position I knew of in his area. I tried to be considerate, especially of the candidates who have family ties in our local area and who had high hopes of landing the position even though their specialty areas were duplicates of current faculty members.

Success No. 3: I kept my department informed at every step of the process. I gave them weekly updates on the status of the search and the kinds of applicants we were attracting. In the case of especially promising candidates, I made certain that everyone in the department, not just members of the search committee, had the opportunity to see each candidate's entire CV. I also let the administration know what was going on regularly, and warned my dean and my chief academic officer about our convoluted calendar problems.

When our next faculty opening comes up (hopefully next year, according to a memo I sent to my dean last September), I'll try to live up to my own advice. I don't want to look back next spring and find that I once again have more regrets than I have successes.