In our new "ask a search committee member" thread, Tom writes:
What do *you* read first in a file? What don’t you read at all? Do you even *have* a systematic way of going through files, or is it haphazard/varying/based on how much you’ve been drinking?
(My expectation is that the answers to these questions will be wildly different from SC-member to SC-member, so I’m more interested in the diversity of answers than any particular answer.)
Great questions. I expect it might benefit job-marketeers tremendously to hear answers. In the comments section of the above thread, 'One person' replied:
I read material in roughly, the following order: the application letter (some people already show they were not appropriate for the job in the letter), the c.v. (here one gets an overview of the candidate and their accomplishments and qualifications – it is the most useful piece of information), then the rest. The teaching material gives a sense of their teaching, supported by a teaching letter; letters are looked at, but with some degree of skepticism, as there is lots of inflation; the writing sample may be looked at then. Then if they have some sort of research statement outlining future plans – this is useful for when you choose who to bring to campus as point of discussion.
My own practices are fairly similar. I always read CV's first, as to me they are the most informative on the whole, especially when it comes to deciding whether the person meets the minimum requirements for the job. The very first things I look at are the person's listed AOS and AOC.
I then look at their publication record and teaching/graduate coursework background to see whether they actually have those AOS/AOC (as in my experience a lot of candidates appear to exaggerate or make up AOS/AOC's they don't really appear to have). When we hire for a job in particular areas, it matters a tremendous amount whether the candidate actually has a background in the areas listed in the job ad. After verifying that the person fits the job (or not), I look at their publication record and teaching experience. To me, publication record is the best indicator of someone's actual accomplishments as a researcher, as I think it is important to hire people on the basis of tangible accomplishments rather than vague and highly fallible judgments about a person's "promise." Then, when it comes to teaching, solo teaching experience (as opposed to TA-ing) is key, and it is a big bonus if the person has teaching experience in the particular areas listed in the job ad–as we will normally expect a new hire to be prepared to step right in and teach courses in those areas. Finally, I will look through the rest of the CV for anything that looks interesting or unique–for things like awards, service to the university or broader community, etc. – anything that might make a candidate stand out in ways that might be an asset to our department and university. Oh, I also look at the person's "job stage", i.e. whether they are still in grad school (ABD) or, if not, how long they are post-PhD–as this helps contextualize a person's accomplishments and experience. Notice one thing that I did not mention here is a person's PhD program. Although I know other people who pay attention to this, I consciously avoid looking at where a person received their PhD (at least until later on), as I don't want something like program-rankings to prejudice my judgments one way or another.
After looking at a person's CV, I may or may not continue to look at the rest of their materials. If a candidate is in no way a good fit for the job ad, then looking at the rest of their file is a waste of time: they don't fit the position. However, if the candidate fits the position at least reasonably well, the second thing I look at is their cover letter. In my experience, cover letters can tell you a lot, indicating a candidate's priorities (do they conceive themselves primarily as a researcher?) and whether they put any energy into crafting a good letter (in my experience, the worst letters are 'form letters' that provide little insight into who the candidate actually is or why they would actually be a good fit at the institution). After cover letters, what I look at next depends on the kind of position we are hiring for. If we are hiring for a tenure-track job, I'll typically read the research statement next and then (if the research statement interests me) their writing sample. After that, I will read the teaching portfolio, paying close attention to how thoughtful the teaching statement is, any teaching materials provided (syllabi, etc.), and finally, student evaluations. Here, I will say that all too many teaching statements tend to read as though people have given very little thought to teaching – which I guess isn't really a surprise given how much PhD programs focus on research. For this reason, particularly thoughtful teaching statements really do stand out. Finally, an important note on student evaluations: like most people (or so I hope), I take these with a real grain of salt. Although it's not necessary to provide student comments, if student comments are provided at all I'm strongly inclined to think they should include complete and unedited student comments for at least one course. It bothers me when people provide "selected student comments", as it may make the candidate "look like they are trying to hide something." Candidates might find this surprising, but my sense is that it looks far better to include negative students than to try to excise them – as this at least shows you recognize that you can't hide from these things once you're hired.
At this point, I will have basically decided on what I think of a candidate, and probably have them listed in spreadsheet somewhere on whether I want to interview them, etc. Notice that I haven't mentioned letters of recommendation. This is because, like "One person", I tend to find them the least helpful part of the file. There is so much inflation in letters, with most of them saying wonderful things about every candidate, that it can be hard to know what to make of them. Nevertheless, once I have a candidate down in my spreadsheet somewhere, I will look at their letters, if only to see whether there is anything particularly informative (something I might have 'missed' in the rest of their file) or anything that diverges dramatically from my own take on the candidate given everything I have read. And, to that extent, letters can be useful. One final note: given that I work at a teaching institution, it's nearly always the candidate's teaching letter(s) that matter the most to me – as these can give me a clearer picture of what the person will actually be like in the classroom with our students.
Anyway, this is what I do. What about the rest of the search committee members out there? How do you read files, and in what order?
Leave a Reply