Two of these searches were Computer Science searches, one was Spanish, one was Physics, and one was Mathematics. (All five searches were successful.) At Hendrix College, most search committees consist of the following people:
- All continuing full-time faculty from the department.
- One faculty member who is in the same area as the hiring department (Natural Science, Social Science, Humanities) but from a different department.
- One faculty member who is outside the area of the hiring department.
- Two undergraduate students.
Since our department houses both Computer Science and Mathematics programs, I participated as a department member in all three of those searches. (For the Computer Science searches, I was the committee chair.) I was in-the-area-but-outside-the-department on the Physics search, and outside-the-area on the Spanish search.
As a liberal arts college, our primary criterion is demonstrated potential for excellence in teaching. Criteria can vary significantly among departments, but potential for excellence in scholarship is also important. Perhaps just as important is the concept of "fit"; that is, the ideal candidate should somehow complement the other faculty in the hiring department, and by doing so strengthen the department as a whole. Furthermore, the ideal candidate should also be a good match for Hendrix College. At a school as small as Hendrix, it is important that any candidate should demonstrate the potential for productive relationships with faculty in different disciplines in addition to the home department.
So, how do I go about evaluating a candidate?
At the application stage, I start by reading the cover letter. I need to see evidence that the candidate has researched both Hendrix College and the target department. Building upon that evidence, the cover letter should tell me a convincing story about how the candidate will succeed as a faculty member at Hendrix College. Failing this, it is possible that I will not read the rest of the application, especially if I have a lot of them to read.
Next, I'll read the candidate's CV. Here, I am looking for the following:
- Evidence of teaching experience, especially courses previously taught.
- Research record. Here, I am trying to see how well the demonstrated research agenda will work at Hendrix.
- Any other interesting tidbits.
Then, I will carefully study the teaching statement, again looking for potential of excellence. I want to see evidence that the candidate has reflected on their experience in the classroom and improved their teaching based on that experience.
I read the research statement next. I try to find evidence that the research agenda has the potential to productively involve undergraduate students. I really like research statements that explicitly describe how undergraduate students could get involved.
For both the teaching and research statements, I am also assessing the quality of the candidate's writing. If either statement is poorly written, it implies serious problems down the line. First, the candidate will be unlikely to help students improve their own writing. Second, poor writing is usually symptomatic of incoherent thinking.
For both the teaching and research statements, I am also assessing the quality of the candidate's writing. If either statement is poorly written, it implies serious problems down the line. First, the candidate will be unlikely to help students improve their own writing. Second, poor writing is usually symptomatic of incoherent thinking.
Finally, I read the letters of recommendation. I like to see specific examples demonstrating the candidate's potential for excellence in teaching. A description of a visit to a class is much more impressive than the typical "I saw the person give a research presentation, and it was so lucid and clear that I am sure this person will be an excellent teacher." In regards to research, I like to see examples that showcase the candidate's problem-solving abilities and creativity.
For candidates who we select for videoconference interviews, we typically allow 25-30 minutes. The specific questions we ask are a means to a goal, which is to use our brief time with the candidate to see if we can visualize that person as a productive colleague. I look for evidence of deep knowledge of the subject matter that we would like the person to teach. I also evaluate the candidate's ability to clearly and concisely explain concepts and ideas. I try to ask questions that bring about extemporaneous answers from the candidate.
I also want the candidate to have 3-4 questions ready for us. Those questions should provide evidence that the candidate has thought seriously about the specific position at Hendrix.
For the on-campus interview, I am looking for the same things, although in more depth. It is again an exercise in visualizing the candidate as a productive colleague. I would recommend that candidates not be too uptight about this; just be yourself! If the application your produced is consistent with what you are like in person, there is nothing to worry about.
The candidate's public presentation is extremely important (as Dr. McCulloch reminded me in his comment below). It is my opportunity to visualize the candidate in the classroom. It is also an extended introduction to the candidate's thought process and perspective. During the talk, I need to see that the candidate pitches their ideas in a manner that is both accessible to and appealing to students. I really want to see students get excited about the topic that they are presenting. Something that really helps with this is when the candidate is excited about the topic. Such excitement can be contagious.
The talk can make or break the interview. I have seen a lackluster interview with a phenomenal talk that resulted in an offer. I have seen a strong interview with a problematic talk that resulted in us crossing the candidate off the list. Related to this, the candidate should ensure significant depth of knowledge of the topic of the talk. The candidate need not know everything, and being clear about the limits of our knowledge is important in this profession. But at some point a faculty candidate is expected to have acquired expertise, and we should see evidence of this in the talk.
Decision time is often very difficult. At times, I must admit that there is not enough evidence that the candidate will be a productive colleague, at which point there is no need to consider that person further. But more often than not, by the time we bring a candidate on campus there is already very good evidence that this person would be an excellent colleague, and the campus visit often confirms this. (This also applies to the videoconference interviews.) From there, we have to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates against each other in order to make a decision.
There have been multiple occasions where my impulse is "hire them both!" But as this is usually not practical, a decision must be made. Candidates should not take a negative decision personally. Under other circumstances, and in comparison with other people, we might well have hired them.
Candidates should also realize that they are not going to get any feedback from us in the event of a negative decision. There is no benefit to us for providing feedback, and there are significant risks in doing so. The biggest risk is simply that the feedback might not be properly understood or contextualized by the candidate. Candidates not receiving an offer have to grasp that there was someone else available who was a better fit, and move on to considering their other options.
Every search, while stressful and time-consuming, is an experience I consistently enjoy. It is a great opportunity to meet some very interesting and capable people. I have sometimes had productive professional relationships with people I met during a search process who did not wind up hired as a result of it. I wish all candidates the best of luck in their searches!
I also want the candidate to have 3-4 questions ready for us. Those questions should provide evidence that the candidate has thought seriously about the specific position at Hendrix.
For the on-campus interview, I am looking for the same things, although in more depth. It is again an exercise in visualizing the candidate as a productive colleague. I would recommend that candidates not be too uptight about this; just be yourself! If the application your produced is consistent with what you are like in person, there is nothing to worry about.
The candidate's public presentation is extremely important (as Dr. McCulloch reminded me in his comment below). It is my opportunity to visualize the candidate in the classroom. It is also an extended introduction to the candidate's thought process and perspective. During the talk, I need to see that the candidate pitches their ideas in a manner that is both accessible to and appealing to students. I really want to see students get excited about the topic that they are presenting. Something that really helps with this is when the candidate is excited about the topic. Such excitement can be contagious.
The talk can make or break the interview. I have seen a lackluster interview with a phenomenal talk that resulted in an offer. I have seen a strong interview with a problematic talk that resulted in us crossing the candidate off the list. Related to this, the candidate should ensure significant depth of knowledge of the topic of the talk. The candidate need not know everything, and being clear about the limits of our knowledge is important in this profession. But at some point a faculty candidate is expected to have acquired expertise, and we should see evidence of this in the talk.
Decision time is often very difficult. At times, I must admit that there is not enough evidence that the candidate will be a productive colleague, at which point there is no need to consider that person further. But more often than not, by the time we bring a candidate on campus there is already very good evidence that this person would be an excellent colleague, and the campus visit often confirms this. (This also applies to the videoconference interviews.) From there, we have to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates against each other in order to make a decision.
There have been multiple occasions where my impulse is "hire them both!" But as this is usually not practical, a decision must be made. Candidates should not take a negative decision personally. Under other circumstances, and in comparison with other people, we might well have hired them.
Candidates should also realize that they are not going to get any feedback from us in the event of a negative decision. There is no benefit to us for providing feedback, and there are significant risks in doing so. The biggest risk is simply that the feedback might not be properly understood or contextualized by the candidate. Candidates not receiving an offer have to grasp that there was someone else available who was a better fit, and move on to considering their other options.
Every search, while stressful and time-consuming, is an experience I consistently enjoy. It is a great opportunity to meet some very interesting and capable people. I have sometimes had productive professional relationships with people I met during a search process who did not wind up hired as a result of it. I wish all candidates the best of luck in their searches!
