Editorial - February 2007 - Volume 107 (2)

The Hiring Season: Searching for Potential

Gerald Kulm, Texas A&M University

It's that time of year for universities hiring new faculty members. In mathematics and science education, especially in recent years, it's another “seller's market” in which there seems to be an oversupply of positions and an undersupply of candidates. Hiring decisions for tenured positions at the university have always been a serious matter. Most of the time, a new hire can only be made once every few years, making the choice of the right person extremely important. In departments or programs with only a few faculty members, the addition of another person can have the potential to advance the program significantly.

The search for potential is especially important for positions in which the candidates are just finishing their PhD degrees. The bar has been raised in recent years to expect evidence such as refereed presentations at national conferences or even a publication or two in refereed journals. But even these products can be a “flash in the pan,” supported by a helpful mentor or research team. Interviews have become more demanding as well, often including a requirement to teach a demonstration lesson, in addition to the usual research presentation. But those in education are well aware of the one-shot “dog-and-pony-show” lesson that can be prepared to impress.

In judging new PhD applicants, how important is “pedigree?” Should candidates whose degrees are from big name universities or under the mentorship of nationally recognized science or mathematics educators have an edge? It makes sense that a major university might be selective, the training received with a well-known person would be current, and the personal networks established in this type of program would be important in the candidate's future work. Universities and programs work hard to establish national reputations and attract top-level graduate students. It seems reasonable that the payoff for students would be better chances in the job market but I am not aware of evidence that the institution is a great predictor of future success in the tenure process.

The bottom line seems to be our ability to judge a candidate's intangible assets: ambition, perseverance, leadership, and interpersonal skills. The external evidence in vitae, often limited to a few brief experiences in graduate school, can only hint at these characteristics. Letters of reference can be useful but may be nuanced and difficult to interpret. The personal interview offers the chance to make this all-important judgment about a person's character within a few short hours. Academia seems to be one of the few places in which we are asked to make hiring decisions with such lasting effects. The movement among positions in other organizations is much more fluid and flexible. Our judgments about hiring, tenure, and promotion usually have long-term and possibly life altering consequences. I wish this year's search committees the best as they complete this awesome task and hope that the candidates are able to show their very best potential during the job seeking process.