Forms of People, People and Forms

In our exchange a couple of days ago, Tim asked (in the comments) my thoughts on the AALS "Faculty Appointments Form" used for the Faculty Recruitment Conference. His questions:

My question for Rob, in his capacity as a candidate, is whether he would revise the FAR form in any way (perhaps the topic of another post). Does it solicit info that shouldn't be requested (e.g., ethnicity) or is of little use? Does it fail to solicit info that might be helpful to committees? Query what might happen if candidates were identifiable solely by a number, and all scheduling of interviews in DC was coordinated on a "blind" basis through a central agency. Good idea? Or have I lost my marbles? (It certainly would be a challenge to go "blind," as published scholarship is traceable to an author. But there are ways around this.)

I have thought a lot about these questions over the past few days while I was attending the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School  (Cardozo put on a wonderful conference, by the way, and the presentations -- and the in-between conversations -- were interesting and thought provoking; see Rebecca Tushnet's blog for further details of the event).

Why have I thought so much about it since Tim asked? Because I'm so conflicted about it. There are a lot (and this year there promises to be a LOT) of candidates, and thus a lot of forms. Given the sheer volume, something has to give if schools are to see and be able to handle in some way (if not, perhaps, the best way) the number of candidates interested in teaching. In choosing what "fits" on the form, then, we need to consider not only what we need to know to find the best candidates (and to allow the best candidates to be found), but also what hiring committees can reasonably be expected to consider in the time available to them (while continuing to teach, research -- let's not forget the fall publishing window is open during the period prior to the Faculty Recruitment Conference -- and, oh yeah, have lives and families).

It seems to me that I need more information about how the forms are actually used before I can realistically say what I would like to have added or removed. If ethnicity is not actually used by schools as an element of hiring (ie, if it's there for statistical reasons but schools don't rely on it), then we need not even talk about it (I think ethnicity is an important element in obtaining a diverse faculty, a goal I strongly support, but for now, we'll put that discussion aside). But even more basic than what information is used is the question of how it is used. That is, I understand some schools print all the forms in an entire distribution, put them in binders, and committee members actually look through each one. At other schools the forms are divided up, and committee members see only their own and the "best" of the other batches as chosen by their colleagues.

I also understand that the forms are available electronically. If this is the case, do some schools or committees first search for certain characteristics and then print only those forms? Or do they print them all and then run searches to get lists of the forms for "relevant" candidates?

If I had a better idea of what committees "do" with the forms, I might better be able to think about ways I might "improve" the form from a current candidate's point of view, to let you know what I know about myself that might be relevant in this context (keeping in mind committee members have already been through this, and so have perhaps even better insights than I do at this point with my one-sided experiences with them). I would be very much opposed to a "blind" process, but I'll go into that with a post that responds to any comments on this one.

That brings us to some questions for committee members about the form and related activities:

1. How much time do you spend with each form on the first pass (please be realistic here)?
2. Are all the forms printed for all committee members at your school, or are they "divided up" or not printed at all?
3. How do you use the electronic versions of the forms?
4. If you "sort" (either manually or electronically), what are the primary sorters (ie, education, teaching interest, geographic interest, etc.)?
5. How do you handle "cold sent" CVs to the committee (a "cold sent" CV is one that is sent directly by a  candidate without a relationship with the chair or committee member to whom it is sent)?
6. How do you handle "referral CVs" (a "referral CV" is one forwarded by someone known to the committee, either another faculty member at the institution or a faculty member at another institution

I'm sure there are some things that I'll want to know later, but if we can get some input here from committee members and chairs (current or past), I'll do my best to rethink Tim's questions and provide some current candidate feedback on the form itself. Oh, and please feel free to answer just some of the above, even if you don't answer all of them.

Comments

[Tim Zinnecker]

Thanks, Rob, for the post. This recruiting season does promise to be extra-challenging, given that some schools may curtail hiring because of budgetary concerns (or other reasons), while at the same time the adverse economic impact on law firms may drive more super-qualified candidates to the faculty recruitment process.

I'll respond to each of your questions below. I have been a member of our hiring committee approximately six times, and this year will mark the third consecutive year that I have chaired the committee.

1) On average, I spend less than fifteen seconds per form (always glancing first at subjects of interest listed by the candidate to see if we have a curricular match).

2) All forms are reviewed by each member of our committee.

3) I use the electronic version for occasional "searches," usually to generate a list of candidates who fit certain parameters. Then I review that list to determine whether one or more candidates may have "slipped through the cracks" during my initial review of the tangible forms.

4) For me, the primary sorter is curricular fit. Rarely have we hired the "best athlete available." After I find a candidate who has expressed an interest in an area of our need, my other sorters are scholarship and law school w/ class rank. I love to see candidates who graduated in the top 10%-15% from law schools outside the traditional feeders into the academy (candidates I consider "undervalued" by the market). Judicial clerkships, advanced degrees, and law school teaching experience are nice, but a bonus rather than a necessity. I also like to see at least two years of "real world" legal experience.

5) and 6) As chair, I handle both of these candidates the same way. I make copies of all materials submitted and I distribute them to other committee members (marking them with the FAR form # if applicable) for review and (subject to a particular level of interest) discussion.

Usually our committee meetings are spent discussing candidates who have generated a certain level of interest among members. In some years, the chair has asked members to rank each "FAR form candidate" with a number of 1, 2, 3, or 4, and an average score is then calculated for that candidate. Those candidates with the best scores then become the topic of conversation at our meetings. In other years, the chair has asked each member to submit a list (anywhere from 25 to 50) of favorite "FAR form candidates." A composite list of committee favorites is then compiled, and our discussions focus first on "unanimous" favorites, then "near unanimous" favorites.

I hope others will respond to Rob's questions. No doubt we all might pick up a few pointers from this discussion thread.

And I'll add this comment for those of you who are candidates: being on the hiring committee is a very humbling experience for most of us and serves as a powerful reminder of how lucky many of us are to have landed such a wonderful and rewarding position with entry-level credentials that often pale when compared to yours. Thank you for participating in this process. Good luck to all.

[Jacqueline Lipton]

Our process is historically relatively similar to Tim's, although we don't always have every single committee member look at every C.V. Like Tim, we do sometimes use the electronic FAR forms to identify people in either particular subject matter areas and/or people who are particularly interested in clinical teaching or teaching legal writing. But many of us like actually going through the paper forms and making notes on them when evaluating candidates - rather than relying on the electronic versions.

One other comment I wanted to add is that personally I do like to look at the top right hand corner (diversity) fields. While I understand the impetus against focusing on race and gender rather than "best candidate", this information can sometimes be a proxy for what Tim describes as candidates who might be undervalued by the market. Statistically, I don't think women and minorities are as highly represented in certain parts of the "job description" as (don't want to offend anyone but, well...) white guys, including publications in top ranked journals. This has been well documented in other places. While I wouldn't want to hire an unqualified person just because they happened to be a woman or a minority, using this field to identify undervalued candidates can be useful in my experience.

I should also say that I like to look at some kind of track record of proven interest in/aptitude for scholarship. I always think the best predictor of future success in publishing is past success or at least demonstrated interest in publishing.

Re curricular fit - it depends on the year for us. Sometimes we have clear curricular needs, and other years we do a combination of curricular need and best athlete hiring. Hope this is helpful - good luck to everyone in this crazy process this year.