I'll respond to several of Joe Heafner's responses to me...
* * * Concerning whether MS candidates were really considered, etc...
Okay, the applications of the MS candidates were read by one person, me,
because I was chair at time. I read the cover letters and the letters
of recommendations. I noted the schools where the applicants did their
BS and MS, but I did not scrutinize the transcripts (like I did for the
PhD applicants). None of the MS applicants jumped out at me in a way
that would merit considering them further, given the large pool of PhD
applicants. Therefore I separated them into a different pile. I told
the other members of the search committee I had done this. I told the
other search members that they were welcome to look at the MS
applications. None did, but all said they would look at them if we
didn't find any of the PhD candidates suitable.
I believe I could pair every MS applicant having glowing letters of
recommendation with one or more PhD applicants having equally glowing
letters. I don't recall any letters of recommendation (MS or PhD)
saying "This person can't teach," or "this person doesn't know his
physics." It's a mind boggling and very humbling experience to have 200
applications in front of you, each person stating he or she is a good
match for your position, and all letters of recommendation very
positive. There was not one of the applicants that any of us knew
personally, nor did we personally know any of the people writing the
recommendations. How do you sort that out? I'll tell you one thing...
it took hours and hours.
The question was asked, "Doesn't it bother you that you may have
discarded the application of the best undergraduate physics instructor
your institution ever had? Personally, that would keep me up nights."
If that were the case I would never sleep. When we singled out one
person from 200 applicants the likelihood that we picked the absolute
best person is pretty slim. What are we to do, hire each for a semester
and see how they do? I've been involved in a dozen search committees so
I have been involved in hiring 12 people chosen from perhaps 1500
applicants. Certainly there must be some of those (perhaps all of them)
for which one of the other candidates would have ended up being a better
match for us than the one we chose. You just can't go there. Do you
stay up nights wondering if you should have chosen a different spouse?
I don't think we engaged in false advertising. If you apply for a job
for which the vacancy announcement clearly specifies what credentials
are preferred, but says other credentials will be considered, I think it
means exactly what we did. The non-preferred applicants will be placed
behind the preferred ones and will be considered if none of the
preferred ones work out. The likelihood of a non-preferred applicant
being strongly considered diminishes greatly as the number of preferred
applicants increases.
Indeed, in a different search (not physics) there were about 20 PhD
applicants and about 30 MS applicants. We wanted a working list of
about 12 to 18. In this case some of the MS candidates were ranked
ahead of some PhD applicants such that our working list contained
several MS applicants. One of them rose high enough to be interviewed,
and that person was eventually hired. According to our faculty handbook
and contract staging, these people cannot be tenured, but can teach
indefinitely on continuing two-year contracts as long as everyone is
"happy." However, unless the non-tenured MS faculty member eventually
obtains the PhD and gets tenure, there is always the possibility that
some Dean of Academic Affairs (I have been through 7 of them in 25
years) will decide that we ought to have a PhD in that position.
* * * Concerning applicants who know someone who know someone...
This was taken wrong. Hopefully we would not hire a person simply
because they had a "connection." What I meant was that someone I know
might have direct working experience with a candidate. If that person
contacts me and says, "You really need to look closely at John Doe
because he is outstanding." this is certainly going to elevate the
candidate over those who are recommended by someone I don't know. If a
friend or colleague goes out of his way to strongly recommend a
candidate, they are putting our relationship on the line. I am trusting
them to be completely honest, and they know that. If the candidate is
hired and turns out bad, the colleague who gave the strong
recommendation certainly gets a tarnished reputation.
* * * Concerning teaching
Teaching is the number one criterion for a person to be successful at my
institution. Period. But good teaching also implies good scholarship.
It does not require publishing or bringing in grant money, although
those are ways of demonstrating scholarship. Being a good faculty
member also demands collegiality and a willingness to do campus and
community service. Therefore, several criteria help us decide whether
someone "gets to stay." But make no mistake, teaching is the number one
criterion.
Having said that, I recognize that good teaching is difficult to
measure. It cannot be a popularity contest. We have some unpopular
teachers that are clearly outstanding teachers. Some students only
realize this many years later. Measuring scholarship and service is
quite a bit easier than measuring teaching. But we definitely attempt
to measure teaching.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton College
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu