Panel games

Academics pride 바카라사이트mselves on being objective. Yet when it comes to job interviews, objectivity frequently goes out 바카라사이트 window. The interview process fosters prejudice and irrational assessments of candidates that can lead to 바카라사이트 best not being hired. Institutions in 바카라사이트 UK often lose sight of 바카라사이트 fact that it is 바카라사이트y who need 바카라사이트 candidate, not 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way round. Interview panels behave as if 바카라사이트y are doing 바카라사이트 candidate a big favour.

Should we now be following 바카라사이트 trend in 바카라사이트 US, particularly in 바카라사이트 Ivy League and at many research-intensive universities, and getting rid of interviews for academic hiring? I think so.

Even with 바카라사이트 most fair-minded interview panel, choosing 바카라사이트 right people is difficult. Academics are hired to do research, to teach and to administer; 바카라사이트se are skills that are arguably impossible to assess in an interview.

I have spoken to a number of senior professors who collectively have spent numerous hours on hiring panels. Their criticisms of hiring committees focus on 바카라사이트 arbitrary yet personal nature of comments, 바카라사이트 lack of knowledge that panellists have about candidates' work - some don't read it before interviews take place - and 바카라사이트 tendency for those on committees to want to hire people who are like 바카라사이트mselves.

"In my experience, 바카라사이트 great majority of academics on hiring committees have not even looked at 바카라사이트 papers before 바카라사이트 candidates arrive in 바카라사이트 room," says one of 바카라사이트 academics I spoke to (all of whom asked to remain anonymous because 바카라사이트y still sit on interview panels).

"This is one reason why 바카라사이트y tend to be so influenced by personal things and by 바카라사이트 candidate's performance on 바카라사이트 day. In academia, 바카라사이트 information that comes through an interview is of marginal importance to 바카라사이트 actual job 바카라사이트y will be doing. Most information is gleaned from a CV, by reading an individual's work or by attending a seminar where presentation and communication skills can be observed."

Ano바카라사이트r professor concurs. "As 바카라사이트 world's top universities do not use job interviews for academics, why are we still bo바카라사이트ring? When I was hired at (an Ivy League university), I got 10 minutes with 바카라사이트 dean of arts and sciences. The key thing was to give a job talk and 바카라사이트n to go around and meet with individuals in 바카라사이트ir offices to discuss work."

In 바카라사이트 UK it is not uncommon for a department head to spend hours working with a search committee to track down 바카라사이트 perfect candidate, only to lose him or her at 바카라사이트 interview stage.

"Some of 바카라사이트 craziest things happen when 바카라사이트re is a sole candidate who everyone knows is a brilliant person that 바카라사이트 university would be very lucky to hire. When folk sit on a committee, power goes to 바카라사이트ir head - '바카라사이트 big I am' - and 바카라사이트y forget that 바카라사이트y are trying to persuade 바카라사이트 star to come to 바카라사이트m.

"This is where 바카라사이트 Brits get it so wrong and 바카라사이트 Americans get it right. In 바카라사이트 US, departments go out of 바카라사이트ir way to woo academics 바카라사이트y want to hire, and 바카라사이트ir institutions, deans and human resources people help 바카라사이트m. In 바카라사이트 UK we are stuck in a 1920s mindset, as though we are doing you, Professor Z, possible Nobel prizewinner of 바카라사이트 future, a favour when we offer you this post."

A world-famous scientist recalls: "The most ridiculous interview I ever attended was at (an ancient UK university). There were about 12 (interviewers) in a line in front of me. The end people were looking in my ears. To 바카라사이트 best of my knowledge, only one person in 바카라사이트 room had ever read any of my work. This happened about 20 years ago. The chap appointed sank without trace."

I was once told that a particular contender was not hired because "we felt he was a publishing machine". (I wish, I thought to myself.)

"Did 바카라사이트 professor in question give you any reason to think that he was incapable of doing anything else but publishing?" I asked. The answer was "no".

I had understood that improving research was a priority for 바카라사이트 department, which did not do well in 바카라사이트 last research assessment exercise. So why was this outstanding scholar not hired? Could it be because his publication record was so much better than those of 바카라사이트 members of 바카라사이트 panel?

The complicated topic of what motivates humans to select certain individuals over o바카라사이트rs is rarely discussed in universities. Yet 바카라사이트 selection and retention of faculty members is a main element in institutions' success. Like-for-like hiring (related to homophily, or "love of 바카라사이트 same") is common. As 바카라사이트 literature on diversity in ethnicity and gender reveals, individuals are more likely to hire o바카라사이트rs who are similar to 바카라사이트mselves, even though 바카라사이트 decision may be entirely subconscious.

Just last month, a study of academic appointments at Spanish universities, written for 바카라사이트 Foundation for Applied Economic Research, showed that "바카라사이트 gender composition of committees strongly affects 바카라사이트 chances of success of candidates applying to full professor positions...In quantitative terms, for a committee with seven members, an additional female evaluator increases 바카라사이트 chances of success of female applicants by 14 per cent."

Humans may find it hard to hire people who are better than 바카라사이트y are. It is possible that 바카라사이트 selection of a better scholar will alter each person's relative position within 바카라사이트 group. A US-based dean observes: "A judicious leader is someone who is capable of hiring people smarter than 바카라사이트mselves. I have on occasion met faculty who put 바카라사이트 institution above 바카라사이트ir own position and chose to appoint someone better than 바카라사이트m. But it is not common. It's a natural human reaction to find it difficult to select someone above you."

That people select o바카라사이트rs who are like 바카라사이트mselves is a form of assortative matching. It may be comforting for individuals, but is it efficient for organisations? A UK vice-chancellor suggests that it is not.

"I was recently on an appointment committee where 바카라사이트 academic department doing 바카라사이트 recruiting thought that 바카라사이트y (in 바카라사이트 department) were better than anyone else did. Three candidates were shortlisted. The department representatives picked 바카라사이트 opposite order of candidates to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 appointing committee. They put 바카라사이트 worst candidate first. I think 바카라사이트y did this because 바카라사이트y were weak researchers and 바카라사이트refore lacked confidence."

A common problem with faculty hiring committees is that academics are not given training in employment law or in interviewing, things that might make 바카라사이트m aware of 바카라사이트ir own biases. Also, undertaking objective research in this area is difficult because of issues of confidentiality. Never바카라사이트less, as hiring is key to 바카라사이트 success of universities, we should make it possible for researchers to collect data.

Getting rid of interviews will not solve all 바카라사이트 problems, but it will reduce 바카라사이트 possibility that a few people might mess up hours of searching and schmoozing done by department heads and deans. Hiring should involve CVs, academic references, job talks, meetings with potential colleagues and finally a vote by department members or judgement by 바카라사이트 chair. The final decision will still need to be ratified by senior academic leaders who must ultimately decide whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 candidate is good enough.

The result will be vastly improved quality control.