The Philosophers' Cocoon

My experience as a job-candidate was that so many parts of the academic job-market that seem like "black boxes" (or mysteries). What looks good or bad in a CV, research statement, teaching portfolio, first-round interview, etc.? This series has tried to clear up some of these mysteries – and I hope readers are finding it helpful. In any case, in today's post I would like to address another black box: how candidate applications are read on the whole. Which parts of a candidate's file are read, in what order, why, and so on?

Obviously, I can only give readers a very general picture of how I read files – and I won't go into any particulars (i.e. how I read particular files), as that wouldn't be appropriate. Still, my hope is that if I describe at a very high level of generality how I read files, and other readers who have served on search committees weigh in on how they read files, current and future candidates reading this may gain some helpful insight. It seems likely, of course, that different people–and people hiring at different types of institutions–will read files very differently. But even then, my hope is that candidates will find that helpful, if only to give them insight into just how diverse search-committee members' interests and styles for evaluating files can differ.

Anyway, here goes…

The very first thing I look at in any file is the CV. My reasons for this are simple: it's the quickest way to determine whether (i) the candidate satisfies the essential parts of the job being advertised, and (ii) how promising of a candidate they are before reading the rest of their materials. Here, then, is how I go about reading CVs.

The first thing I look at is the person's AOSs/AOCs. When hiring at a small institution like mine, it's really important that the person we hire fits the job advertised. When we advertise in particular areas, it is because we have very specific needs (usually, teaching needs) – and we really want someone with demonstrable expertise and competence (not just experience) in the areas listed. While I know some candidates may fudge or "stretch" their AOSs/AOCs to make it look like they are a good fit for a job, in general I think this is a bad strategy, as it will show up very quickly in the rest of the CV whether they actually have sufficient background in the areas they are claiming as AOSs/AOCs.

Next, I look at whether the person has their PhD, and if so, when they received it. I don't hold ABD-ness against candidates, but when combined with other things (e.g. a thin teaching record), it may count against them in the big picture (again, not because of the fact that they are ABD, but rather because of the attendant thin-ness of their CV). On the flip side, I don't hold it against people if they received their PhD a while ago. On the contrary, I want to know how long someone is post-PhD in part so I can judge how productive they are. If someone has been out of grad school for years but has published up a storm and has a great teaching portfolio, that looks awesome to me: it indicates to me that the person has really accomplished a ton despite not yet having a tenure-stream job (which is why I don't think people should worry too much about "staleness"). On the flip side, if someone has been out a while but they haven't accomplished much (just a publication or two), that raises concerns – as we need to hire people likely to get tenure.

The next thing I look at is the person's publication list. Here, I primarily want to know whether the person has published in peer-reviewed journals, and how many publications they have. While I'll notice journal venue, and it may impress me momentarily if someone has published in good journals, I'll confess that don't attach much value to journal rankings per se. Why? The short answer is I think journals are very imperfect proxies for philosophical quality. It's also important to note that number of publications matter. When hiring for a tenure-stream job, we are looking to hire people likely to get tenure–and that requires the capacity to publish consistently. So, while one or two publications is better than nothing–and we have hired people with just a couple of publications–in general more than that is ideal: the more robust a person's publishing record, the "safer bet" they are that they will be in a good position to get tenure.

Next, I look at the person's teaching record. I want to see which courses they've taught, and look in particular at whether they have experience teaching the courses in our job-ad. This plays a very big role. If we are hiring in a given area, it is most likely because we need an expert teacher in that area – so someone who has a lot of experience teaching the course(s) in the job ad is going to look far better than candidates with a thin or non-existent teaching record in the area. Also, solo/independent teaching experience is important. TA-ing isn't good enough experience. The more independent teaching experience, the better.

Next, I look at service. Here, I am looking for anything that stands out – anything the candidate does that looks interesting, might contribute to our institution, and which distinguishes them from other candidates. In some cases, the mere fact that someone has pursued service opportunities is enough to make them stand out here, as few graduate programs seem to focus on getting their students service experience. 

At this point, on the basis of these parts of the CV, I try to arrive at a general judgment of (A) how well the person fits the job and our institution, and (B) how impressive they are across the above areas as a whole. Notice what I haven't talked about: Leiter ranking, presentations, or works in progress. I haven't talked about these things because I don't attach much value to them. I'd be happy to chat about why in the comments section, but the short story is that none of them seem very relevant: I don't want to fall prey to prestige bias, presentations matter comparatively little compared to publications when it comes to tenure and promotion (and most candidates have publications), and works in progress only show you can write work, whereas the important thing is whether you can publish it. 

After reading the CV, I look at the cover letter. Here, I want to know whether the person has done their research on our institution, shows an understanding of the kind of institution we are (a teaching-focused institution where research comes second), and whether they can present themselves as a professional. Common errors that can look bad here are giving no indication of having researched the institution, tinges of arrogance/self-congratulation, and lack of sensitivity to the institution being applied to (e.g. emphasizing that you have published in The Very Best Journals). Good letters are understated, showing that the candidate has thought about how well they fit the job and school, and laying out relevant experience and accomplishments in purely descriptive terms (e.g. instead of saying one has published in The Very Best Journals, listing a few of the journals one has published in without further comment).

Next, I look at research statements and teaching portfolios. Here, all I can say is it is important to "stand out." As I have explained elsewhere in this series, perhaps the single biggest problem one faces as a search committee member is that in a pile of a hundred candidates, candidates have a tendency to "blend in to each other." There you are: you have dozens of candidates with similar-looking publication lists, similar teaching backgrounds, etc. It's hard to choose…until you come across someone whose research statement or teaching portfolio comes across as an expected "breath of fresh air." What sorts of things make someone stand out? In research statements, originality is important. As I said in my post on originality, this seems to me something grad programs don't focus on enough: if 80 candidates in my pile are doing some variation on project X (i.e. some currently-popular topic in the field), it is going to be very hard for any of them to stand out. It's the candidate who's doing ~X who is going to stand out (provided, of course, their arguments are good, etc.). Similar considerations apply to teaching portfolios: creative and thoughtful pedagogies stand out, as does evidence that whatever you do (even if it is just traditional Socratic inquiry), you do it really well. Crisp and concise teaching statements also stand out. We have tons of applications to wade through. A beautiful one-page statement can have a much better impact that an overly wordy 3-page one. Next, while of course I look at student evaluations, I know the problems with them, so I take them with a real grain of salt. In fact, the things that matter more to me are things the candidate has control over. First, I look for indications that the person sincerely challenges their students. I am not looking for "easy" teachers who get great evaluations: I am looking for a teacher who has the integrity to be "difficult." I am also looking for honesty. As I mentioned in my post on teaching portfolios, only including "selected student comments" in one's portfolio can come across poorly. You can't hide anything once on the job, so don't try to hide stuff in your application. Either include complete and unedited student comments or none at all. Finally, I care whether a person's teaching portfolio is well put-together. Don't just throw together confusing student evaluation reports. Provide a nice concise summary!

Next, I look at writing samples. All I can say here is that writing samples can make a huge difference: they are a true "wildcard." Sometimes you just read a writing sample and are blown away: the project is interesting and original, the argument compelling (if not airtight), and the sample beautifully written. When you read one of these, provided they look good otherwise (e.g. as a teacher), you absolutely want to interview the person. 

Finally, I look at recommendation letters. As I mentioned here, I haven't tended to find them terribly helpful – as they almost all say great things about candidates, making it hard for any particular letter to move me in one direction or another. The letters I find the most helpful are the teaching letters, as they give me a third-person perspective on something that matters immensely at a school like mine: what a candidate is actually like in the classroom. For what it is worth, I also prefer letters that are frank – ones that detail what a person does in the classroom, what they do particularly well, and what they could improve upon. I don't want areas the person could improve in ignored. I know as well as anyone that no one is a perfect researcher or teacher. I want to know both what the person does well, and where they could improve. A frank assessment doesn't look bad to me as a reader; it makes me trust the good things the letter writer has to say much more than if they just wrote an effusive, over-the-top letter about how you are the Best Candidate in the History of the World. 

Anyway, after all this, I write up my candidate-ranking list: (A) a list of "Yes, I want to interview them", including an ordinal ranking, (B) a list of "maybe's", who I might consider interviewing if my other colleagues have them on their "yes" lists, and (C) a list of "No, I don't think we should interview them", which in full frankness is mostly populated by people who don't "fit" the job (i.e. wrong AOS/AOC, no/little relevant teaching experience, etc.). 

Anyway, this is how I go about things. I hope you all find it helpful, and look forward to hearing from other people who have served on search committees. Do you do things the same, or differently? How? Why?