When I was a candidate, I was a bit baffled by the interviews I got (and didn't get). Judging by the job-ads, sometimes I got interviews for jobs I seemed a good fit for; other times I got interviews for jobs that seemed like a bad fit; and still other times I didn't get interviews for jobs that I seemed like a perfect fit for…even though I got interviews at "better" schools for which I seemed like a worse fit. It made no sense to me. What in the world were search committees looking for? I expect many candidates can empathize.
So, let me try to address (and then open for discussion) the three questions I raised in the introductory post to this series:
- What is fit?
- Why does it matter to search committees?
- What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?
Readers should bear in mind that my answers to these questions are based upon my particular experience, and I encourage others with different experience to share their thoughts in the comments section!.
1. What is fit?
A few commenters on my first post noted that, in their experience, judgments of 'fit' can differ wildly from search committee member from search committee member. 'Only one search' wrote:
I've only been on one search committee so far but I was shocked by how random the process was at my school. Undoubtedly this is due to the idiosyncrasies of the other members, but what struck me was just how different were the criteria people used. Some members explicitly refused to discuss and agree upon the criteria we should apply…
Similarly, 'nameless one' wrote:
'One reason people who are ultimately viewed as a "bad fit" are interviewed is that all this has to be negotiated and discussed and ultimately voted on by the department…
And Chris wrote:
Maybe I should wait until Marcus' next post on fit, but since "namelessone" raised this issue, let me say this. Fit will mean different things to different faculty members, and it least in the cases I'm familiar with, faculty often disagree about what they're looking for…
This all coheres with my experience. As a job-candidate, there is an understandable temptation to think that search committees just sit down, look at dossiers, decide "who's the best researcher" (on the basis of publications) or "who's the best teacher" (on the basis of the teaching portfolio), and then decide on those bases who to interview. However, while these kinds of judgments do indeed (in my experience) play a central role in decisions, they are by no means the only things that play a central role. This is in large part because multiple candidates may seem roughly equal in these regards (similar publication #s, teaching dossiers, etc.). But it can also be because every search committee member is a human being with their own idiosyncratic vision of what they are looking for in a candidate, and search committees do indeed negotiate what they are looking for in candidates as a collective body. This is why it is so difficult to predict "fit."
"Okay", you say, "but that's not very helpful to me as a candidate. I want to know what I can do to make myself a better fit for jobs. It doesn't help much to tell me that every search committee member is looking for different things!" Fair enough, so let me try to be a bit more helpful then! Although every search committee member has their own values, priorities, etc., my sense is that there are indeed some general things often play a role in terms of deciding who is a good fit, and some general takeaways candidates might use to improve their chances.
1.1. – Fitting the job-ad
Job ads typically contain the following information: AOS, AOC, particular classes the person may need to teach, aspects of department and university service regarded as desirable, etc. My sense is that at some schools (mainly research schools?), the job ad is a kind of "wish list." The more you satisfy the things in the ad, the better fit you are for that job, at least all things being equal. However, for other jobs, my sense is that the job ad can be a must-list, such that a "good fit" is pretty much expected to have background in everything listed. Why are some job-ads must-lists? My sense is that sometimes these musts may be dictated by administration or HR, whereas in other cases it is a matter of the department (example: a department may need someone to teach course X, and so treat background in X something like a necessary condition for serious consideration).
My general takeaway for candidates: Aside from research jobs (where "fit" is primarily a matter of research), for other jobs the more things you have experience doing (the more types of courses you have taught, more service experience you have, etc.), the more likely you are to fit any given job ad. I think this is an important takeaway because my sense is that many grad programs have students focus primarily on research and maybe have them teach a few classes in their AOS. In terms of "fitting" jobs at anything other than an R1, this is (in my view) not the best way for programs (or individuals) to prepare for non-R1 jobs.
1.2. – Fitting the department
Departments have needs. For example, a department may need the new hire to teach course X. They may also need the person to engage in certain types of service (assessment, development of online courses, etc.). In addition to needs, departments often have wants. For a given department, it might be great for a department if, in addition to teaching X (in the job ad), the person can also teach Y (say, to take some of the teaching load off of another person who always has to teach Y)–or if, in addition to teaching X and Y, a person also has experience in assessment, has a history of student engagement outside of the classroom (viz. coaching debate teams, etc.), and so on. Third, departments can also have 'don't-wants': a department may not want a new hire to teach course Z, as they may already have more than enough people who can already teach it, or because they may want to position themselves so that their next hire can be in area Z. Finally, on that note, departments may have strategic plans. They may want this hire to do certain things (but not do other things) so that they can put themselves in a position to get another hire in a few years (example: it can be hard to lobby for a department's next hire to be in area Z if the person you just hired already does Z).
My general takeaway for candidates: Although sometimes something you can do as a candidate (e.g. teach course X) can count against you, once gain by and large the more things you have experience doing, the more likely you are to "fit" a department. The importance of this takeaway? See above.
1.3. – Fitting the university
Universities also have wants and needs. Some universities want their hires to primarily be researchers. Other universities care a great deal about faculty engagement in the local community. Other universities have strategic plans to branch out into online teaching. And so on. Universities also have cultures, with some valuing "teaching innovation", others faculty-student engagement, and so on. Finally, search committee members often care about their university, its culture, and priorities–and want a new hire to be someone whose dossier demonstrates similar values and priorities.
My general takeaway: once again, the more you can do (viz. student engagement, innovative teaching practices), the more likely you are to "fit" a given university–and the more you can make it clear in your cover letter that you know what the university is about and would be good there (viz. its needs, etc.), the better off you are likely to be. Why is this important? I have heard some people say they have a "stock" cover letter and only change a few sentences when applying to different schools. This seems to be inadequate if one wants to stand out for non-R1 jobs.
1.4. – Fitting faculty-members idiosyncracies
Finally, there is the fact that every individual member of a search committee has their own particular views and values (about research, teaching pedagogy, etc.). For reasons Chris gives, this might seem to make it impossible to do anything to "fit" what particular people are looking for (it's just indeterminate!):
Fit will mean different things to different faculty members, and it least in the cases I'm familiar with, faculty often disagree about what they're looking for…
During the hiring discussion, some may argue that we need someone to teach business ethics, others may argue that it is better to add to our strength in early modern, etc….
Sometimes one faculty member will argue that X is better than Y because X has more or (seemingly better) teaching experience. But another faculty will argue Y is better than X because Y could teach a course in philosophy of art, which we don't currently have, but would like to.
Sometimes "fit" is a matter of how well a candidates research intersects with other members of the department. All the finalists are outstanding in some general area (say, ethics), but some of the candidates draw more on psychology and that's related to work my colleagues do in phil mind. Others draw on Aristotle and that connects better with the folks who do ancient etc. etc. (All these are hypothetical examples).
SO: one reason people who are ultimately viewed as a "bad fit" are interviewed is that all this has to be negotiated and discussed and ultimately voted on by the department.
Okay then, search committee members are idiosyncratic. Is there nothing one can do, then, to improve one's chances with individual members? On the contrary, my experience suggests a few general things may help. First, for reasons I've already given, (A) the "more things you can do" (i.e. have background experience in), the better the chances there may be someone on a committee who wants that, (B) given that people typically care about where they work, the better you can show that you fit the institution, the more likely one or more people on the committee are going to want that. Finally, my sense is (C) search committee members tend to be looking for people who "stand out" in some way–by doing something that (most) other candidates don't. Let me explain.
I think you really need to be on a search committee to get this, but try to imagine yourself having 200 job applications to read. Many of those people will have a handful of publications–so it can be hard to decide which of them you might want to interview. Many people may have similar teaching statements, similar syllabi, teaching evaluations, and so on, so it can be hard to decide which of them to interview. After a while, all of the files begin to blur together. They all look so similar…until one stands out. How? By the person in some way offering something that others don't. It could be anything: experience creating online courses, experience in assessment, blogging or running a philosophy podcast, or (as I will explain in a future post) a totally unique research program that stands out from a crowd of similar research programs.
My takeaway: Judging from online chatter, my sense is that many candidates think they will stand out if they get one more publication in Mind or wherever. Sure, that may be true for research jobs…but other jobs (teaching jobs, CC jobs, etc.)? Not so much. My suggestion instead is that because individual search committee members may "fight for" a candidate they find particularly compelling, (A)-(C) above may be the most likely ways "grab" at least one search committee member enough to have them fight for you to be interviewed. That is, (A) the more you can do, (B) the more you can show that you fit the particular institution, and (C) the more unique you are in general (viz. doing things that other candidates don't do), the more likely you are to stick out in a way that will get you noticed.
2. Why does fit matter to search committees?
See above. Departments, universities, and search committee members have needs, values, and priorities. They have particular things they are looking for in a new hire. Moreover, science tells us person-job fit is important: whether someone fits a job has real measurable consequences, both for employers and employees
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?
For research jobs, I assume it's obvious enough: be a great researcher (and perhaps have a good grad school pedigree and/or professional network?). For other jobs, my sense what I said above: (A) the more you can do (the more classes you have taught, the more service you have done, etc.), the better; (B) the more you do things that other candidates don't do, the better; (C) the more time and energy you put into your cover letter and dossier addressing the actual job and institution you're applying for, the better.
That's all I got. Hope you all find it helpful. Am I right? Wrong? I'll be curious to hear other people's thoughts, particularly those who have served on search committees!
Leave a Reply to AlCancel reply