The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 2: Job Fit

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:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. 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!

Comments

[Daniel Brunson]

Solid advice, but I wonder if you could consider the balance of "do all the things!" with the supposed (?) "stale PhD" phenomenon in a future post.

[Shen-yi Liao]

I think insofar as there's some coherent notion of "fit", this post captures it well. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the suggestions in (3) of "trying to improve one's fit".

Out of 100 job applications, I think there are 80 people who would be perfectly good for the job. And choosing from that often just comes down to highly circumstantial, if not arbitrary, factors that are really hard to predict from the outside, even from the ad. My thought with "What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?" is actually that people should just not worry about it because basically you can't. The best thing you can do is be the researcher / teacher / person / etc you want to be, and the search committee will make the highly circumstantial and potentially arbitrary judgments that you have no control over.

[Only one search]

What I take away from what Marcus is saying is that non-R1 schools are looking for professionals, people who can do various (more or less) specific things. Clearly, the more experience you have the better you can demonstrate that you can do the job in question. It is just commonsense really, and it is a sad comment on the professional training that graduate programs offer (if they do) that they seem not to be guided by this pretty obvious point. We should be training for a job not a religious calling, and for that your abilities matter more than the ineffable qualities of your soul.

BTW, I think this gives some sense to idea that R1 jobs are not exactly professional, since so much in those jobs is based on potential rather than evidence of ability to carry specific types of tasks. This non-professional (would `amateur' be an appropriate word here?) aspect of R1 type jobs is probably the main explanation for how prestige-caste bias gets its grip.

[Daniel Brunson]

I think that's right, Only one search, but then shouldn't we expect a preference for more experienced candidates (e.g., someone who has been VAP-ing for 5 years over a new graduate)? Maybe the data suggests this, but the anecdata goes the other way.

[Marcus Arvan]

Only one search: *yes*. I have heard precisely that word used ("professional") used on many occasions, with more or less those connotations.

[Marcus Arvan]

Daniel: I'd be happy to do a post on the "stale PhD" issue. But for now let me just say that I don't think it follows from Only one search's point that there should be a preference for more experienced candidates--at least not simpliciter. Let me explain.

If my post (and experience) is correct, "fit" plays a central role in deliberations. But it is not the *only* thing that plays a central role. Other things may too, such as publications, prestige--and finally, how long it took a person to get their experience.

For example, suppose you have someone who has been VAP-ing for 5 years, with a lot of teaching and administrative experience. If I am right, this person may well be preferred over a new graduate with little experience. However, suppose the 5-year VAP is competing against a person who is only *one* year out of grad school but has (A) a better publication record, (B) a slightly better teaching dossier, and (C) a similar breadth of overall experience (perhaps because their grad program did a better job of getting them experience than the first candidate). Even though the 5-year VAP has been out longer, the newer graduate may be preferred here. Make sense?

Finally, although I will save most of this for my future post on "staleness", I will say that in my experience concerns about staleness are vastly overblown. First, although I was concerned about staleness when I was a candidate, I found that the longer I was on the market, the more interviews and flyouts I got. Second, I have in no way gotten the sense from my experience on either side of the market that time on the market is held against candidates, at least at teaching schools. What matters is what one has done with that time. Has one published? Has one become an amazing teacher? Has one gotten experience that fits the job being applied for? In my experience, these really are the things that matter.

[Marcus Arvan]

Shen-yi: Thanks for your comment. Allow me to explain why I'm inclined to disagree.

First, I recently had an enlightening conversation with a friend of mine. This friend told me that their PhD program instituted a new job-placement director a little less than a decade ago, because their graduates were having trouble getting jobs. Apparently, this director decided to change their program's emphases--toward, yes, getting their graduates a much broader breadth of experiences (my friend told me this director's attitude toward high-ranking R1 jobs is "We don't target those jobs. We know we won't be competitive for them. So, we have our candidates shoot for R2 and teaching jobs"). Apparently, since these changes were made, this program's placement rate has skyrocketed--and has (or so my friend tells me) been over 50% in recent years, far higher than the profession-wide average of 37% reported by Carolyn Dicey-Jennings. As Jennings' placement report indicates, some programs have *much* better placement rates than others (including some very low-ranked and unranked programs). Surely it is something these programs are *doing* that makes their candidates more likely to get jobs. And my sense is what they are doing is realizing--as Only one search's comments note--that the traditional way of preparing candidates for the job market is anachronistic.

Second, I will say this. I went out of my way as a non-tenure-track candidate to take on as many opportunities as I could--not only to expand my teaching breadth and teaching practices, but also my service, etc. These attempts to become a better fit for jobs evidently paid off, as my number of interviews and flyouts increased substantially the longer I was on the market.

[Daniel Brunson]

Sure, a candidate with equal or greater experience in less time would probably be more attractive. However, in the aggregate it stills seems plausible that time out would correlate with experience, and thus with hiring. Again, I do not know what the data suggest, or even whether there are any/much on this.

Of course, experience/professionalization is only one factor, as you point out. Maybe fear of 'staleness' is, in part, because of how the norms of R1 hiring 'trickle down' throughout the profession, both in terms of candidate anxieties and search committee biases?

[Al]

I’ve been on 1 US search committee (R2 with MA) and involved in two U.K. searches (R1).

In the U.K., if you have grant winning experience it can go a very long way. All the sorts of things you’d expect are on the agenda (teaching, high quality pubs) but if you’ve been post doc-ing or in some other way out for a bit and have some grant experience, it will stand out. In my limited experience, it is very tough to stand out as a brand new PhD since many of the things the REF have made high priority take some time in the profession as a professional.

In both the US and the U.K. my experience has it that an interesting project made a big difference. I don’t think it’s easy to say what this comes to since people on a committee will have different preferences, but if your search is in, say, mind you start to get pretty tired seeing the same thing over and over and then someone with a decent pub or two and some nice teaching experience breaks out because they have a different take on an issue or a different application of something familiar. I know that’s pretty vague but hopefully you get the idea.

Finally, at least in the US search, people disagreed a lot about how to value publications. Many candidates had very very good records and some people thought that a hit in Nous or Mind or whatever was a very big deal. Others sort of didn’t care as long as there was some evidence of publishing in professionally respectable journals. No publications at all was a deal breaker.

After these searches I basically feel lucky to have navigated the unpredictability somehow. Good luck out there.

[Sam Duncan]

To respond a bit to Daniel Brunson's post: I think one biggest issues here is that a lot of people get stuck in jobs that make it pretty much impossible to get the sort of experience that would make them well-rounded. I had one adjunct job right out of grad school that's a good example. I taught the same two classes over and over and I wasn't invited, and almost certainly wouldn't have been welcome, to serve on any committees or do anything else that would really count as interesting service. It also sucked so much time and caused me so much stress that I couldn't really do research either. I think a lot of people get stuck in jobs like that and when one does it's all too easy to end up five years out of school with nothing to show for it but a lot of sections of "Critical Thinking" on one's CV and miles on one's car. I think that's one reason it's often a good move to take a lecturer or VAP position rather than adjuncting even if the latter might involve moving and not pay that much better. One usually does get a chance to have a little more variety in classes taught and there are generally more opportunities for service that's interesting and other professional development. Also, and I know this sucks, but all this is also a reason that if you're an adjunct and have a chance to do service you should maybe take it (as horrible as it might be to let yourself be exploited even more than usual).

[Amanda]

Can someone explain to me the difference between an R1 and R2? Does R1 just mean the program has a PhD in philosophy and R2 it has a masters in philosophy? So if a program that had a masters in philosophy opened a PhD program it would change from being an R2 to an R1?

[Amanda]

I think one thing that made a difference for a number of positions I was offered, is my research project is easy to explain to others. Here is why it mattered, I think. The search committee could easily explain both to the dean and to to other departments what their (potential) new hired worked on. Departments like to brag about their hires. And some schools have a very communal work-together vibe. In these places, if their new hire works in an area no one other than specialists will comprehend, well, that person doesn't mesh well with the communal vibe. I think this is true at both research and teaching schools (but of course not ALL research and teaching schools.)

[cw]

@Amanda:

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States

[Recent grad]

R1 vs. R2 is a rather unhelpful distinction when it comes to philosophy jobs. There are many R2 jobs with higher research requirements than a sizable minority of the R1 jobs. For instance, research requirements at Dartmouth will be higher than at Washington State.

[Amanda]

Thanks for the links but are they really relevant to philosophy? I mean if a school has doctoral programs but not in philosophy I don't think we generally consider it an R1 job. Lots of state schools, most, have some doctoral programs. Even some small liberal arts schools often have a couple doctoral programs. I guess I thought the classification, when talked about it regarding philosophy jobs, was specific to philosophy. A school's general reputation often diverges greatly from the philosophy reputation. Anyway I think it is interesting we through these terms around and yet members of the profession might not agree what they are...

[cw]

@Amanda and Recent grad:

I agree. I don't think R1, R2, R3, mean anything specific when used in the context of philosophy positions.

The designations (at least R's) are largely based on overall university research expenditures, staffing, research activity, etc. To get an R, a school has to award a certain number of doctorates per year. But the difference b/w R1, R2, and R3, has a lot to do with support for research and research activity across the board.

In general, I think people just mean that R1 jobs are those that require more research output and less teaching. I think there is some correspondence between these research/teaching expectations and Carnegie classifications, but it's loose, as you both point out.

I'm at an R3. I'm required to publish refereed work for advancement, but I also teach a 3/3 load (usually two preps, but three is not uncommon). We do not have a grad program in philosophy.

FWIW, I found the thread on teaching positions and publication record similarly confusing, because I'm never sure what people mean when they talk about "teaching" jobs. Many would consider my position a teaching gig, but I have friends who teach 4/4's and 5/5's and have no research expectation. For us, good publications are definitely a plus.