The Philosophers' Cocoon

In my post soliciting questions for search committee members, a search committee member 'G' asks:

Let's say that you were a TT junior faculty member of a department without a graduate program. And let's say that you cared about teaching and you were just certain that if only your department would hire some rock star teachers and assign them to intro-level courses, then the number of majors would skyrocket and those additional students would benefit from increased exposure to philosophy. But let's say, also, that several senior members of your department weren't so concerned about exposing more students to philosophy, or diversifying the field, or increasing the number of majors, or teaching fantastic courses. Those members of the department are impressive scholars, especially for members of a department without any graduate students, but they are basically of the attitude that adequate teaching is all one needs. Or perhaps, deep down, they are skeptical that there even is such a thing as great teaching that can break through to students who otherwise would not major in philosophy. Here is the question: how would you approach your role on a search committee so as to maximize the chances that your department hired a truly fantastic teacher who would just rake in the majors?

I will admit that I already have an answer in mind: decide on your own who the best teachers in the applicant pool are and then try to convince your colleagues to hire one or two of these people entirely on scholarly grounds, ignoring teaching altogether because you know that they won't be swayed by teaching-related considerations but that they might be swayed by scholarly ones. I have that answer in mind, but I have very little experience in this arena, so I imagine that others will have more insight than I do.

Amanda then added:

I'd be curious by what others say. Because as G said, the obvious answer is to find someone who is excellent at both research and teaching. With this market, that should certainly be possible. I also am surprised there is an undergrad only teaching school that has many department members who don't care about teaching!

Also, unless this school is hiring several people, I find it doubtful that one excellent teacher could really change the outlook of the program that much.

I too am curious to hear what other readers think. But here's my quick take. Obviously, every university is different. But to begin with, to address Amanda's doubts, my experience is that one excellent teacher can absolutely change the outlook of a program, drawing in a lot of new majors. I've seen it happen at least twice. I saw one department's number of majors double several years after making a new hire whose classes students were very enthusiastic about. Then, just this past year, my department made a new hire who has also had noticeable effects on student enthusiasm–and I would be shocked if the enthusiasm did not translate into new majors. And I cannot emphasize how important this is. Some readers may be unaware of how much a department's number of majors matter. At some schools, they are basically the biggest determinant of how resources are allocated. If a department sees majors numbers rise, they are likely to get more TT faculty lines. If not, then not. In the present political environment, where philosophy departments are closing left and right, this matters.

Anyway, let me now comment on G's query. Because I don't know G's colleagues personally, it is hard for me to know what the most effective way to deal with this situation would be. One possibility–the one G floats–is to keep things close to the vest, advocating for hiring the person G thinks is the best teacher on scholarly/research grounds. For my part, though, I can't help but worry whether this might not work too well. For unless the person in question is a proverbial unicorn–namely, simultaneously the best teacher and researcher in the pile of applicants–then it seems likely to me that the rest of the search committee will not be convinced that the candidate G favors is really the best candidate (since, if G lobbies for the best teacher who in reality isn't the best researcher, the rest of the committee may be unmoved).

Consequently, my sense is that another approach may be better. While again every department and search committee is different, I've served on three search committees now–and my general sense is that it may be better to openly advocate for the things one thinks matters. Honestly, if it were me, I would talk openly about the things I mentioned above–both in search committee meetings, and in individual conversations with department members. I would say things like, "Look, I want to hire a good researcher too. And there are plenty of them in our pile. But, in the current environment, we need to think about our department's long-term viability and growth. Philosophy departments are closing down left and right. Our enrollments and number of majors matter. If we get someone who is a good researcher and an excellent teacher, we will probably get far more majors out it than if we just hired someone who is a great researcher but a mediocre teacher. Further, if we get significantly more majors, it is likely we will get another hire: another person who can add to our department as a scholar and teacher. We shouldn't just think about the short-term goal of hiring the best researcher. We should have in mind the long-term goal of growing our department. Look at business and psychology departments. Why are their faculty lists so long? Answer: they get majors. So, by all means, let's hire a good researcher–but let's make sure we hire someone who kills it as a teacher."

Anyway, this is my inclination–that it may be better to openly "fight for" the importance of hiring a good teacher, while recognizing the importance of research (acceding to the other members of department that, yes, their preferences for hiring an excellent researcher matters). I would then openly fight for the particular candidate(s) that I think best fit the bill. But this is just how I would respond to G's situation. What do you all think?