tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post8858161069998864857..comments2024-03-15T01:11:32.832-07:00Comments on Bardiac: Search MeetingsBardiachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-75911615755676560442012-11-13T16:26:54.861-08:002012-11-13T16:26:54.861-08:00Since I have never served on a screening committee...Since I have never served on a screening committee, only on search committees, I am not actually in a position to know this. We always seem to get a very well-qualified and personable set of people to interview, so I don't think too much damage has been done. Perhaps we're just not quirky enough, as a group.Dame Eleanor Hullhttp://dameeleanorhull.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-24155985472120091512012-11-13T14:05:17.837-08:002012-11-13T14:05:17.837-08:00Dame Eleanor, That's really interesting! It s...Dame Eleanor, That's really interesting! It seems like it would get to candidates in interesting ways. Do you ever get times when the senior person's personal quirks are a problem?Bardiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-74795087057980171122012-11-13T07:22:37.185-08:002012-11-13T07:22:37.185-08:00Where I am, the screening committee is separate fr...Where I am, the screening committee is separate from the search committee. The search committee is the department governance committee plus the senior subject specialist (or nearest offer, in areas where we really only have one person and someone has already left). It's about 10 people. The screening committee is the senior subject specialist and a couple of other people, usually also close to the field. So in letter/initial package, you get to impress the experts, who pick out the people that the search committee will meet with at MLA and then maybe invite to campus. It's at the interviews that you have to talk to people who don't know your area, and explain why they should be interested.Dame Eleanor Hullhttp://dameeleanorhull.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-84436077719704639562012-11-12T23:49:55.682-08:002012-11-12T23:49:55.682-08:00This is a very useful post, Bardiac. The search c...This is a very useful post, Bardiac. The search committees on which I’ve served have usually reduced the field to 30-40 applications (from 80 or 100 or 120) before we sit down to discuss files in detail. Choosing eight or ten to interview out of the strongest 30-40 requires a lot of energy, and it is a good idea to get to that point, so I agree with the approach Susan’s department took.EngLitProfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-14413813345676009832012-11-12T18:12:58.363-08:002012-11-12T18:12:58.363-08:00Thanks, Susan, that's helpful, especially abou...Thanks, Susan, that's helpful, especially about the letters. At the meeting I'm thinking of here, we went through the whole list of candidates, one at a time, and talked about each a bit. <br /><br />But I really like that your group then did a review. That seems useful.Bardiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-72214570489197740142012-11-12T17:36:44.552-08:002012-11-12T17:36:44.552-08:00Oh...one thing that moves letters from a B to A le...Oh...one thing that moves letters from a B to A level: doing more than restating the CV. If someone has coordinated a basketweaving seminar for new grad students and lists that on the CV, and then simply repeats that fact in the letter, I don't learn anything new. But if the letter explains what philosophy guided the seminar, or how the materials were selected in order to achieve a particular goal for seminar participants, then I have learned something new. susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12000470374101306070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-89809592357525241542012-11-12T17:35:03.790-08:002012-11-12T17:35:03.790-08:00Every committee I've been on has used a slight...Every committee I've been on has used a slightly different process, but every one has had an important process point at the end of any big selection: stepping back to review whether the choices just made seemed in line with our evaluation criteria and was anything or anyone overlooked.<br /><br />This year, with the support of our AA/EO office, as the search committee chair, I eliminated applications from people with degrees in water management (or MAs in Underwater Basketweaving rather than PhDs). I did have another committee member review the criteria I used for those early eliminations (so we had two sets of eyes on each decision) but it kept the full committee from reading applications from people who were completely not qualified. We did keep in applications from people with degrees in Underwater Basketweaving but with only questionable experience in Deepwater or International basketweaving.<br /><br />We used a rubric to rate each candidate along each criteria (akin to you background in Underwater Basketweaving, work in Deepwater, teaching experience, undergrad commitment, multicultural basketweaving experience). I totaled up all the scores several different ways so we could see which candidates were the top 20 for each committee member and how the scores averaged across the committee--I also presented the averages several ways, weighting different columns, just to illustrate what happened with those different calculations.<br /><br />We also looked at all the people who failed to make the top 20 of anyone, just to make sure they were not overlooked. We decided to send some immediate rejections, decided to table some other applications while we decided where our top candidates were.<br /><br />So every credible applicant got at least a little discussion. susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12000470374101306070noreply@blogger.com