A Peek Behind the Door
by Shari Dinkins
FOR MOST APPLICANTS, the Hiring Committee is a mysterious entity. What happens behind the closed doors of a conference room on our own campus can affect hundreds of lives. Yet, the details of what is discussed cannot be revealed to candidates. After attending a Hiring Committee orientation at a very large urban community college where I have taught and talking to a number of tenured instructors who have served on hiring committees, I would like to try to unravel some of this mystery for applicants—particularly adjuncts. Although your campus may have different processes, depending on size and function, this exploration may help some understand the complex process of hiring.
POSITION POSTING
After the department head requests a position, the Human Resources department gives information about faculty hiring, the search and other forms to the department head. The Position Allocation and Budget Planning committees must concur before the search committee is formed. An Affirmative Action monitor is identified, and the Human Resources department checks that the search committee includes underrepresented groups (this percentage varies from campus to campus).
At that time, Human Resource staff review the materials and drafts the job announcement. With approval from the department chair, affirmative action, deans, the academic senate and vice chancellor, the job announcement is posted. At this point, job descriptions may be mailed to all those working in the department or related departments on campus, including adjuncts. The position may be advertised online or in print. The job announcement is posted on campus and current employees are notified of a vacancy. During this process, Hiring Committee members must attend an orientation.
One important note—the Hiring Committee is not allowed to add criteria to the job announcement after it is approved. This ensures a fair process for all candidates who respond to the job posting. At this point, the Hiring Committee must submit “paper screening” and “interviewing” criteria and rating sheets to human resources. The points available in each area indicate how each is weighted in the hiring process. For example, at one campus I interviewed, the paper screening is worth approximately 30 percent, the interview 60 percent and the teaching demonstration 10 percent in the point tabulation process. This also means that a committee chair and its members must establish a “benchmark” for paper screening before looking at application materials. If, for example, paper screening is worth 30 points, a committee may establish 24 out of 30 as the lowest they will accept.
This may be adjusted after the first (and possibly the only) round of application materials is evaluated—but the “benchmark” is established before that process begins. To ensure a fair process, Hiring Committee members are told to rate a candidate on these areas rather than any personal knowledge they have of a candidate. They also cannot solicit advice from the department chair or head during the process—only while determining criteria for a position. With human resource’s approval, final criteria and rating sheets are passed on to the department chair or head for approval.
APPLICATIONS
The human resources department is the first stop for application materials. Staff members check to see if the application is complete and that the applicant fulfills the minimum qualifications. Human resource staff attempt to contact candidates who are missing pieces requested in the job announcement. They also get advice on equivalencies if candidates have declared that they do not have the minimum education required—but believe they have work experience of equal value. Depending on HR policy, staff members may remove any materials that are not specifically asked for in the job description. Application materials are then placed in order requested by the department and placed in file folders. The affirmative action officer checks the pool, and if the applicant pool doesn’t reflect their target population, the position may be reopened for applications.
PAPER SCREENING
After establishing the benchmark (for example, 30 points or a 30 percent value) for paper screening, the Hiring Committee receives candidates’ files. Most committees are looking at seven or eight criteria in judging applicants. Criteria are listed on job announcements. Since Hiring Committees are not allowed to add or take away criteria after applications are received, the job announcement is king—and the best way to judge your own materials. Although information on the point system or weight of categories is never revealed to candidates, you may be able to sit in on a Hiring Committee orientation at your own campus to see how specific criteria are valued.
On many campuses where I taught, committee work and other criteria were measured; points were given in each area. For the purposes of providing an example, I have included six of the most popular criteria. Please note that the campuses to which you are applying may have different criteria and point values. Again, check the official job announcement to see what criteria is being weighed by the Hiring Committee.
On a worksheet for each candidate, the committee member tallies points possible for each of the screening criteria. These worksheets are returned to the Hiring Committee chair for tabulation. This chair may contact a committee member to clarify a score, but in no way does he or she influence the committee member’s original score. After adding up the points possible and points gained, the Hiring Committee chair then lists “Total Score” and gives a rating code of “recommended for interview” or “not recommended.” Individual committee member’s worksheets are coupled with the Hiring Committee chair’s tabulation/recommendation sheet. Along with these sheets, the committee chair also must indicate a specific reason for denying each applicant not selected for interview. These are forwarded directly to human resources. In all cases, not passing the paper screening “benchmark” ensures a candidate will not be interviewed.
INTERVIEWING
Typically, the Hiring Committee returns application materials to human resources; the HR director assures that the paper screening process has been accurate. At that point, human resources generates rejection letters for applicants who did not pass the paper screening. The affirmative action officer checks candidates and on rare occasion, may ask for the position to be reopened for more underrepresented candidates. The head of the Hiring Committee now sets up appointments for the candidates who passed the paper screening. The Hiring Committee conducts interviews. This is separate from the paper screening. In fact, committee members may not have an applicant’s file in front of them while interviewing. A simple worksheet with typed up interview questions and a point system may be all they have access to during the actual interview.
For instructors, these interviews typically consist of a 15-minute teaching demonstration and a 45-minute interview with eight or ten Hiring Committee members. Interviews at our campus consisted of seven or eight questions plus one on diversity; committee members were not allowed to restate or clarify questions. One sample question on diversity was, “Please tell us about an experience you may have had that sensitized you to diversity (this may include academic, socioeconomic, cultural, sexual orientation, disability and ethnic background). Please give three specific actions you initiated which demonstrated your sensitivity to diversity.” Hiring Committee members usually make notes on the candidate’s answers and later translate them into points gained for each interview question.
On a worksheet for each candidate, the committee member tallies points possible for “Total Interview Score,” and then adds in “Teaching Demonstration Score” and “Paper Screening Score.” These worksheets are returned to the Hiring Committee chair for tabulation. The chair may contact a committee member to clarify a score, but in no way does he or she influence the committee member’s original score. After adding up the points possible and points gained, the Hiring Committee chair then lists “total points” and gives a rating code of “recommended for final interview” or “not recommended.” Individual committee member’s worksheets are coupled with the Hiring Committee chair’s tabulation/recommendation sheet. Along with these sheets, the committee chair must also indicate a specific reason for denying each applicant not selected for final interview. In some cases, these are forwarded to the department chair for rubber stamp approval; in others, they are forwarded directly to human resources.
THE TEACHING DEMONSTRATION
In evaluating the candidate’s lecture demonstration given during the interview process, many Hiring Committees have an evaluation form which makes the process more definitive. A point system may allow a committee member to mark a candidate as a one out of five points possible for a poor job, three out of five points possible indicating an acceptable demonstration, or five out of five points which would indicate an outstanding job. Areas for consideration may include: organization of material, communication skills, lecture content, interaction with students, use of teaching aids and time frame. For utilization of time, a buffer of two-minutes short or long may be considered acceptable.
FINALISTS
After interviews, the Hiring Committee tabulates points earned and selects their final candidates. The chair or designated tenure-track professor checks the candidate’s references. Although a person used as a reference may offer more information, the chair or designated professor is often told only to ask about the dates worked and whether the candidate is eligible for rehire. A candidate may use letters of recommendation or references from colleagues on their own campus as long as those individuals are not on the hiring committee. A recommendation from a department chair or dean would not be allowed. The committee reconvenes and submits one to three unranked final candidates. The HR director rubber stamps the choice(s). Human resources staff sends out rejection notices to those who were not finalists. The department chair sends names to the chancellor for approval. The chancellor, affirmative action officer and department chair conduct the final interview. The chancellor or designee makes a final recommendation to the board.
A letter of offer is sent to the candidate. Upon acceptance of the offer, the finalist is sent a contract outlining the terms of his or her employment. After making a copy for one’s file, this contract is then signed and returned to the hiring campus.
As a realist, I know that these guidelines will not always be followed. On some campuses, I know that there is an internal candidate waiting for a position already promised to them. I also believe that on many campuses, the hiring process is as outlined: a plodding, predictable process that brings candidates’ qualifications to light. Finding out what really happened during the hiring processed alleviated a lot of anxiety for me. Now, reassured that I would most likely be given a fair shake, I started to believe it when experienced instructors told me that there were simply too many qualified candidates.
In one instance, 362 applications were received for a single position, 84 passed the paper screening, and maybe a few dozen were interviewed. When a campus where I worked posted four open positions in my department, they received over a thousand application packets—many from overqualified candidates. It was no wonder that it took five years before I was asked to interview there! I stopped taking the rejection letters personally and started planning a national campaign to get a full-time position at a campus where my particular education and experience would be valued. The result was over twenty requests to interview over two semesters and competing offers from two campuses in the Midwest.
I feel more confident. In a sense, I feel as if I’ve moved from being the hapless victim to being an educated applicant in a process designed to find the most qualified candidate for a teaching position.
