Timothy Larsen, a professor at Wheaton College, answers four common questions young academics have about the mysterious process of getting a tenure-track professorship:
Given how eminently well qualified I am for this position, how can you possibly justify eliminating me so early in the process?
We announced one entry-level position this year and garnered 176 candidates. That number is a little high, but not far off from what has been a typical yield for the last five years or more. There are a handful of cranks and dreamers in the pack with a diploma-mill Ph.D. or the like, but tossing them out makes no real dent in the pile. In other words, there were at least 150 scholars who were all completely qualified and suitable. In our system, these are technically people who have expressed interest in the position. We then invite some of them to submit the full application.
This ticks people off. We probably need to find some new nomenclature. “I was not even allowed to fill out the application!” is a grievance against us that job-seekers shout to one another across hotel lobbies at annual meetings. The truth is that the full app is a pain. We demand that candidates write a whole series of thoughtful essays on topics such as their personal research trajectory and their understanding of the meaning of a liberal arts education. It seems cruel to make people who have no statistically significant chance of being offered the position spend days of their lives doing this. (Not to mention making their referees send in letters.) Of the 176 who expressed interest we sent the full application to 37. This was almost certainly too many. From our perspective, it means that the bottom 7 needed 30 apparently better candidates to somehow self-destruct or melt away before they would really be in the running. A few of these 37 undoubtedly made it through this stage simply because we did not want to give them the right to go run into friends at the book tables and blurt out,
“And they did not even allow me to apply!”
February 17th, 2011 | 2:20 pm
If only it were that reasonable. Just as often it can be because someone didn’t go to the preferred graduate program (my school has a thing for Yale grads), because people are threatened by someone’s research or competence, or because of departmental politics. Some of the choices I’ve seen made for finalists compared to the pool are so appalling that one can only ascribe maliciousness to the process. Not in all cases, because there are lots of people of good will and good intent, but there are plenty of searches that violate most of this article’s reasonableness.
February 17th, 2011 | 2:53 pm
At some state and federal government institutions of higher ed, the law mandates a “search” even when the in-house candidate has already been selected. That is the lowest form this process can take — when the applicant is simply window dressing and everyone knows this except the job candidate. Doing a little digging ahead of time may help you avoid wasting your time….
February 17th, 2011 | 7:34 pm
Um…because you were a male *and* white?
In my humanistic discipline, a male applicant is simply doomed if there is a female applicant.
End of story, thanks for playing.
February 18th, 2011 | 4:34 pm
baconboy: My experience, too.
publius: Ditto. But even if you do find out that there’s an in-house favorite, you’re still going to waste your time. Who knows? The favorite might self-destruct (or die).
Ralph: Yeah, it’s interesting that such considerations weren’t mentioned—or even hinted at—in the article, given the central role they play in the selection process.
What I don’t get is this. Wheaton College is a Christian college. That means it is looking for faculty members with a strong academic dossier and a strong Christian commitment. But which matters more? If it came down to a choice, one would hope, I think, that the position would go to the candidate with the strongest Christian commitment but only the second strongest academic potential, rather than the candidate with the strongest academic potential but only the second strongest Christian commitment. But the whole tone of the article makes it sound as though the selection committee within that particular department at Wheaton would favor academic credentials over Christian commitment. Why else, e.g., would they have eliminated three-quarters of the applicants before those applicants even had a chance to respond to the in-depth essay questions on the full application?
February 18th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
By the way, I don’t think Wheaton is unique among Christian colleges in this respect.
February 20th, 2011 | 10:06 am
“Um…because you were a male *and* white?”
White and male are not necessarily disqualifying, if one is also gay.
Please note that in many institutions, being a woman and/or a “person of color” can be more than offset by being overtly conservative or Christian. Observant Jews also have a hard time, but for some reason, observant–even militant–Muslims are actively recruited.
Which begs the question of an Hispanic Lesbian who is also a Republican and devout Roman Catholic.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact