Academic Searches II

Once again: the caveat that I am describing a general institution, not necessarily the procedures of George Mason University.

A search committee consists of a group of tenure-line faculty members, one of whom is named chair. The composition of a search is typically the choice of either a department chair or dean, although in the case of decanal searches the provost sets the parameters. Typically, the search committee first reaches some consensus regarding the type of scientist they would like to ideally recruit. This amounts to a profile, although it can be quite general (e.g.–a top neuroscientist funded on an NIH RO1 grant with publications in journals like NEURON and NATURE NEUROSCIENCE).

The search committee’s next task is create an advertisement for the position based on the profile using carefully crafted language that meets the institutional requirements for equity and diversity while at the same time drawing in the best candidates. This content is then vetted by various institutional officials to make sure it complies in general with institutional policies and then the advert is placed–in general journals like SCIENCE, but also in more specialized venues on the internet. The committee may decide to review applications as they come in, or at some designated date.

The labor-intensive component of the search committee’s task occurs during the review of applications. In many cases, this amounts to a triage process, where the goal will be to invite the “A list” folks to campus for an interview and job talk. The “B-list” candidates typically are a fall-back position for the search committee while the “C-list” applicants are “triaged” out of the process.

The above process is often quite difficult because individuals on the committee may well have divergent opinions and/or agendas. For example, an individual member of the search committee may feel strongly that a less-than-stellar candidate make the B-list, simply because they know techniques or methods which might be advantageous to that committee member’s own research agenda.

Nevertheless, consensus is typically reached and a short list of candidates invited to campus. In the next posting, we’ll describe that part of the search.

Jim