The FAR form, a candidate's perspective

So, after asking questions here (after joining a conversation here), I promised to let everyone know what I, as a candidate, think about the FAR forms and Tim's questions about them. It is, of course, a question many of our readers could answer themselves, having been through the process from this side, but perhaps things have changed somewhat in recent years to change things from when many of you went through the process. As an aside, this is now my fourth draft of this post, each looking dramatically different from any other. Maybe now that the first release is "out" (how many are there, anyway?), I can finally get one that I'm comfortable with.

So, the form -- I think it covers what it needs to cover for the purposes that it has traditionally served: weeding out those who can "easily" be weeded out, and allowing school hiring committees to make the necessary though perhaps somewhat arbitrary choices beyond that. After hearing how two committees use it, I'm not sure what additional information could be included on the form that would be useful in these terms (though I do make one specific suggestion, below). More information would slow the process down, or would simply go unused by committees due to the volume of forms submitted (did I already ask how many forms were in the first distribution?).

In fact, in further reflecting on this, I think it is not the form that is the problem in law school hiring (if there is in fact a problem; I leave that question to you, dear readers). Let me explain: It seems to me there are two ways in which the form is used: first there is Tim's experience, where a school is primarily looking to match curricular needs. The form works for that, and I'd say works pretty well. It narrows the scope of people to those who have an expressed interest in subjects the school is looking to fill. What happens after that initial cut is another question, but we'll get to that.

The second kind of use is like that by those schools which, like Jacqui's, are looking to find the "best candidate" regardless of subject area (or to at least identify those people and consider whether what they offer can be made to fit the school's needs or desires). This raises the point of what happens after the "initial cut" in the curricular needs area quite well. What this says to me is that it is not the form that is the question here, but the qualifications of the candidates that law schools value. I won't get into that debate at this point, but I will try to stick with the questions about the form itself, and whether the form shows what it should show.

Before proceeding, though, I should say that I would not remove the ethnic origin information from the form: I strongly support diversifying the ethnic backgrounds of law faculty, and Jacqui's example of the form's use for that purpose seems right on the mark to me.

Nor would I try to remove identifying information (this preference is more self-serving than the last); for me to get "out of the pile" with my history, experience, and qualifications, I am likely to have to rely on personal connections and unique experiences. I think if the form was anonymous, having my references and colleagues contact people at schools with needs I can meet would be difficult, if not impossible. I can imagine the conversation when one reference calls Jacqui:

Jacqui: "Hello, reference X, what can I do for you?"

Reference X: "I'm calling about candidate XY775659A-L. He's, wait, excuse me, the candidate is a young scholar who has pursued his, oops, sorry, has pursued teaching as a chosen field relentlessly, has published good work that is stirring debate and being cited, and one time Mr. Heverly even, oh, wait, sorry, forget I said that. Let's start over."

You get the idea. I may need to pull strings to be "seen" at AALS, and to do that, I think I need to be identified. I want anyone who has an inkling that I might be "interviewable" to find something if they Google me, something that hopefully will make them say, "Hm, ok, let's look at him more closely." I want them, if they're curious, to run the cite from my Berkeley article to see how often it's been cited. I don't think I get that with an anonymous form, and though I don't expect it will happen spontaneously, I'm hoping after direct contact with me in the form of an E-mail, a letter and a CV, followed up by contact from references and supportive colleagues, it just might. I at least want the possibility to be there.

Ok, those thoughts out of the way, I had the idea initially that the form could go away, and that those "after the curricular need" decisions could be based on something other than the form. That is, instead of a one-pager that everyone prints out, there could simply be a database of information, lots of information, provided by the candidate. Hiring committees could then search through it, and using a variety of metrics, find interesting and diverse (in many respects) candidates they would like to see.

But now that I know committees still look at all the forms (as a norm if not a rule), perhaps such a database could be used to supplement the form (I like it that this may be the norm, I think it values the efforts all the candidates have made in submitting their forms). In other words, make first cuts after looking at the forms, and then get additional info from the database prior to making interview offers. I think a using a database alone would make it harder, not easier, because you can't easily look at all the candidates on equal ground.

Would more information, or different information, help? Right now a candidate's CV is "attached" to the FAR form, and can be downloaded by committees who wish to see it. In my experience, this is not necessarily done. I have yet to see one of my CVs in an interview room, and when I went through this process the last time, when I contacted schools to whom I had sent my CV directly to "push" for interviews, I needed to send it again. That's ok, but it probably reduces (to zero?) the usefulness of  the idea of a searchable database of additional information.

I would love to be able to tell my "story" to get "out of the pile" and into an interview room in Washington, but I really can't find a reasonable way, given the sheer volume of applications (okay already, how many forms ARE there in the first distribution??) to make that work. There are simply too many people who want this job (and there's good reason for that: I love my job, and that's why I continue to pursue it).

All of this said, the one thing that might be useful from this candidate's perspective is a little more, just a little more, room for unstructured comment at the end (usually comment fields are topical -- related to a field nearby, such as the list of courses you have taught -- and are limited to 255 characters); perhaps just a little additional space at the end, in the final comment, to add in more publications (I had to shorten names of my works in progress to fit them), or mention a special additional reference, or just represent yourself, so that if someone does "stop" at your form, they can quickly see a little more of "you" there.

So, Tim, I hope I've answered your question: yes, I wish I could represent myself differently on the form, but I'm not sure it would matter or that it would "help" my search given the practical realities of law school hiring (given my "non-traditional" history). Maybe the process continues to drive the substance of hiring, but with such a deep pool of candidates, that seems unlikely to change anytime in the near future, and I'm not sure that anything we could create would serve the purpose any better (unless, of course, it put my name at the top of everyone's lists!). Oh, by the way, my FAR form now has a number on it, and it's not as high as I expected. How many FAR forms are in the first distribution?

Comments

[Tim Zinnecker]

Rob, thanks for the thoughtful remarks.

As of 10:25 local (Houston) time this morning, the AALS had yet to post the "first distribution." So the magical number remains a mystery. But the day is early!

One comment on your remarks: just because you may not "see" your CV at the conference doesn't necessarily mean that the recruiters have not reviewed it (or don't have a copy in their notebook). As chair, I have the task of assembling what goes into our notebooks. In addition to the FAR form, I include a CV, a research agenda (if provided), any interesting info on the candidate that I can find online (e.g., law firm bio, ssrn abstracts, blog postings, etc.), ten to twenty pages of selected scholarship (one or more committee members will read at least one piece, usually selected by the candidate, in its entirety prior to the conference), etc.

[Robert Heverly]

Tim, Thanks for that clarification; it could just be the experience I've had with committees, but it was clear that, for many of the schools I was seen by, the hiring committee had no knowledge of me beyond my FAR form (asking basic questions that were answered on the first page of the CV, for example). I would love to think the CV is relevant and used by the committees, as even though it is far from perfect, it much better represents "me" as a person.

[A Critic]

One major problems w/ the FAR form is that the category most of us think to be the most important of all, publications, appears way at the bottom. That category should be at the very top, perhaps right before or right after law school. Moreover, there is an inadequate amount of space for someone to list an extensive publication record. Yet another problem is the lack of space for comments. For someone advanced in their career, much more could be gleaned from those comments than from their law review background.

[Anon]

Ahhh to be Rob Heverly, lamenting the inability to jump out past the FAR form by hinting at your qualifications on a heavily read law faculty blog. I don't know how any law faculty member is going to know that you have a cited article published by Berkeley... or now, how will they ever figure out that if they want to know more about you they can just Google you...or perhaps talk to some of your supportive references and colleagues. I mean given that unhelpful FAR form I don't know how anyone will get to know your name, qualifications and scholarship. Perhaps you should just post your C.V. here and tell your story brotha, the rest of us wish we had your platform!

[Marketeer]

As a candidate, I think the bit on race/ethnicity should not be included. To steal one from the anticlassification/antisubordination debate, it seems the anticlassification grounds would prevail as there are not real antisubordination norms to dictate leaving the category in. Put another way, it does not seem various races are subordinated by the law school teaching hiring process, such that they represent an underclass of applicants. Law schools should be forced to make their decisions on the basis of merit, not characteristics that are arguably irrelevant.

[Paul Horwitz]

Perhaps one of your co-bloggers will address this, but sometimes directed mailings, aimed at schools or regions you particularly want to live in, can help. Not always! But I don't think they offend, and in some cases that may make a difference. They certainly give you a chance to include both a cover letter that tells some of your story and a research agenda, which shows that you have long-term potential.

[Tim Zinnecker]

I agree with Paul and have said so elsewhere. Those letters can indeed make a difference. Proofread and proofread them again, though!

[Mark McKenna]

637 in Distribution 1

[Jacqueline Lipton]

Wow - really, Mark? Only 637?? I was WAY off.
And to echo Tim's earlier sentiment, as hiring chair in previous years I have always included full CVs and writing samples (and often also transcripts of telephone conversations with referees) in the binders we take to DC when interviewing folks, so it's not just the FAR form.

[anon #2]

To help put this number (637) in perspective, does anyone know (roughly) how many FAR forms have been in the 1st distribution over the past couple years?

[Ray Campbell]

In 2006 it was 579 in the first distribution. In 2007 it was 621. Both numbers are from the AALS website.

They don't have numbers up for 2008.

[Tim Zinnecker]

A colleague who served on last year's committee tells me that the first distribution in 2008 included 592 forms. When you add in the numbers from the second, third, and fourth distributions, I seem to recall that the aggregate number of FAR forms for 2008 easily exceeded 850.

[Robert Heverly]

Thanks to everyone for contributing here, it's been a really interesting conversation. I agree with Paul and Tim that directed mailings are an important part of the strategy (but only where you have something to say, such as, "You need an intellectual property person and I'm an intellectual property person"). I would note, though, in addition, that it's important to supplement that with the assistance of references and colleagues following up with schools you are particularly interested in. My experience has been that without something extra (like a phone call from a reference to the hiring chair or someone on the committee they know personally), a letter or cv alone isn't likely to get you very far.

Good luck to everyone playing the game this year around!

[AALS Candidate]

FWIW, I agree with removing the category for Race.

[Jacqueline Lipton]

This is going to be a difficult question to ask because of anonymity concerns, but I'm interested in whether those people who would prefer to remove the categories for race and gender are in fact representatives of those groups who don't like the idea they may be given courtesy or "token" interviews, or if they are rather predominantly Caucasian males. I understand the sentiments that people are expressing about those categories - I'm just interested in who feels the most strongly about this issue.

[AALS Candidate]

JL, in response to your question, I'll just note I'm a person who is generally supportive of such policies (especially before and through college), but believes a line should be drawn at some point in life. Should race also count for a tenure review?

[Jacqueline Lipton]

Oh, that's very interesting - so you're basically raising a chronological argument ie at a certain point we should turn off the switch and you would draw the line at the hiring market? I'll have to think through that one. It's an argument I don't think I've heard before, but it does add an interesting new dimension to the problem - a temporal dimension. My worry is that in some contexts, it doesn't matter how senior you are, there still seem to be many subtle forms of discrimination in play, although I'll admit that I don't know if this kind of disclosure would help with that. Food for thought indeed.

[coach outlet stores]

I like,that's a sign of a good blog post.*