Screening

Requesting Materials from Candidates: Suggestions by Stages

Decisions around what screening materials to collect are largely determined by individual departments. The suggestions made below are designed to create a large and diverse pool at the beginning, and to underscore values that will support recruitment and engagement of excellent candidates.

First screen (initial application to determine large pool)

• Application letter & CV. At this initial stage limit materials collected for the benefit of both candidate and committee. For application letter, specify expectations of areas to address.

Second screen (to determine semi-finalists for short interviews)

• Evidence of teaching excellence (limit to number of pages, or a statement and one syllabus, for example, so as to not overwhelm candidates or committees)
• Research sample
• Description of contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion (see Sample Requests for Statements on Diversity Contributions

Third screen (to determine finalists for on-campus interviews)

• Reference letters. Why wait so long?
  • Much evidence indicates bias in writing and reading reference letters, particularly as these letters are seldom evaluated and rated systematically by committees and decision makers. For example, it has been found that letter writers discuss male and female candidates quite differently, emphasizing service for female, and research for males; further, reviewers, regardless of their identity, have been found to penalize female candidates who are not described as being service-oriented and having collegial, positive personal qualities (see Madera and Martin; Morgan, Elder & King).
  • Sending reference letters typically requires that applicants pay a fee for each bundle sent; limiting the request to those candidates who have made a later stage reduces economic burden on applicants and thus is a more welcoming, inclusive practice.

Screening Strategies and Tools

Rubrics and strategies for evaluation

• Develop rubrics with care and discussion from the committee, ensuring that it reflects job ad, avoids bias, and ensures diverse candidates are given a level playing field. Research suggests that when we stray from rubrics we run the risk of using different standards and introducing biases into the process.
  • View a Sample Blank Rubric (Google sheet). You can copy the rubric and revise and use.
• Review and rate applicants individually (see google sheet above for strategy), and tabulate averages (to ensure equality among participants) but discuss together as an entire committee, ideally in person.  Be prepared to have different perspectives, and to need to spend more time understanding these different perspectives.
• Be sure to include the “commensurate with experience” strategy in evaluating accomplishments.  If you are hiring an assistant professor, a candidate straight out of graduate school with have fewer CV items than one who is several years out, but this candidate may be very promising.  In addition, frequently graduate students of color enter the job market while still completing dissertations, and it would be counter-productive to simply count publications without considering years of experience.
• When reviewing candidates, consider whether the person would be a strong tenure candidate, add to the academic rigor of the department, and is a person you could see as contributing to the university.

Develop strategies that mitigate bias; consider:

• Blind candidate review — stripping identifying information –, which has been shown to reduce bias
• Review candidates’ dossiers in full, rather than piecemeal (e.g., just the CV)
• Follow structured interview process
• Review and discuss common bias pitfalls in advance of candidate review: consider such biases as those based on institutional prestige, personal connection or similarity, and biases embedded in the discipline itself.

Interview questions

• Develop interview questions in advance, and tie each interview question to one or more of the criteria.
• Include questions about commitment to diversity in all searches. For example: Tell us about your experiences supporting diversity initiatives in higher education or elsewhere.
• Avoid questions about things other than the job as these will tend to introduce biases into the discussion.
• View Sample Search Committee Interview Questions (DOC)

Hazards

• Assumptions about colleges and universities you are not closely familiar with or are non-elite. Many people — particularly individuals with heavy financial and family responsibilities — are unable to make choices about graduate school enrollment solely based on prestige, and include location as part of their consideration. Similarly, people of color may favor minority serving institutions for the supportive culture provided. Consider the possibilities of an excellent candidate coming from a school that isn’t already on your personal list of top schools.
• Be wary of “fit.” Fit — that intangible sense that a candidate will work well with students, colleagues, and yourself — can be a proxy for familiarity and comfort, enabling unintended biases. Stick to the rubric and facts.

3.18.21