From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:07:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.210952.22790@netnews.noc.drexel.edu>, David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert) writes...
>This summer, I was one of four finalists to interview for a tenure-track,
>faculty position at a land-grant university in New England.  There was
>enough
>feedback that I felt 99% certain of an offer.  I didn't get an offer. 
>Oh, well.
> 
>I asked a colleague to find out what had happened (he had a friend on the
>search committee at the university in New England).  The reason I was not
>given
>the offer (so the story goes) is that the Dean and/or Department Head
>insisted
>that an applicant who was a member of an under represented gender be
>given the
>offer even though this applicant did not fit the slot (area of expertise)
>they
>sought to fill.
> 
>I know, I know... who ever told me life was always fair.  I always
>*thought* that
>it was reasonable that members of underprivileged groups be given
>advantages
>so that past and present discrimination could be balanced.  I find that
>since
>I was the victim of an instance of this balancing act I *feel* less prone
>to be
>to be the humanitarian.
> 
>In speaking with two colleagues who are search committee members at a
>university
>that is very local to me and shall rename nameless ;-) I was told that
>they made
>two lists of final candidates for a recent opening:  list A for women and
>minorities, and list B for the rest.  The position was filled by a well
>qualified
>female.
> 
>As I read what I have just written I realize it may look like whining
>from a
>chauvinist, but I'll risk it to ask for a reasonable discussion of the
>subject.
>Even though I *feel* I was somehow cheated, I am forced to reason by the
>compelling argument that past and present discrimination should to be
>compensated for by institutional policies of preference for under
>represented
>groups.  However, I would like to come up with a list of reasonable
>arguments
>against this practice also.

I recently struggled over a very similar, personal feeling of 
victimization.  I did eventually get an academic position, however,
and have come to realize what is problematic about feeling 
victimized.

First of all, candidates are chosen on a large number of complex
criteria, which are weighted differently by different faculty,
and by different departments and committees.
Some of these criteria are made public and explicit; for example,
when search committees claim to be looking for bright applicants
with a track record of several publications in prestigious journals,
they are serious.  There are other criteria which are not public,
but are still explicit.  The most prominent one that immediately
springs to mind is: What are the candidate's chances of bringing
in a steady stream of large research grants?  Occasionally on this
group I see references to "publish or perish", which is really
quite old and obsolete.  It has been changed to something like
"cash or crash" or "PYI or die".  The latter will have to be
replaced with NYI, or PFF (pronounced pffffff!).

Then there are other criteria which are neither public nor explicit.
An example of this sort may be something like: "Could I possibly
work with this person for the next 20 years without the sudden 
desire to strangle him/her?"

Some faculty look for candidates simply to fulfill their own 
perverse needs with regards to power and money.  I will refrain
from examples here.  Most faculty are incapable of judging any
given candidate that walks through the door as to technical
competence, so they usually rely on friends' recommendations
and these other criteria.  The term "friends' recommendations"
is sometimes pronounced "old boys network".

The first conclusion here is that "the best candidate" does not
exist, until you define "best".  No two individuals can agree
on what is "best", even though they may agree on certain
cases.

When we put the selection process into this perspective, it is
not surprising that qualified people get passed over repeatedly,
or that less-than-qualified people get hired.

One last observation before I reach my final conclusion: Hiring 
under-represented candidates does more than just "right 
wrongs".  It provides mentors and role models for hundreds
or thousands of students, who would otherwise be completely
alienated on campus, and might not do as well in life 
without such new faculty.

Finally, given the dubious criteria that are often used to 
hire candidates, and the very large number of complicated
criteria that are valid (filling "holes" in research area
or "teaching", exciting new collaborations, etc), using the
two above-mentioned criteria in addition to the others seems
perfectly valid to me.  In fact, I would say if you wish to
minimize criteria which you feel are "poor", I would 
suggest looking at all of them first.  I suspect that by
the time you do away with those which are worse, this last
one will pretty much take care of itself.

Note that I have not even referred to the help such a criterion
has in reducing the power of the "old boys network".



> 
> 
> 
> 
>dave koert, research assist. prof.        | (disgruntler)
>combustion & fuels group, hess labs       |  "Nuke the unborn, gay whale"
>Mechanical Eng. Dept. (MEM), Drexel Univ. |          bumper sticker
>David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU                |          seen in RI, 1983