That was my point. �Fit� has nothing to do with merit. It�s a buzzword we use to rationalize discrimination on non-merit based qualifications.
So what would an i-d-i-o-t such as yourself have us to do in the inevitable situation of generating a shortlist with equally qualified candidates? What specifically do you want departments to do?
Also, how should departments cultivate their own identity without anything like "taste" or "fit"? What do you want us to do there?
That was my point. ?Fit? has nothing to do with merit. It?s a buzzword we use to rationalize discrimination on non-merit based qualifications.
So what would an i-d-i-o-t such as yourself have us to do in the inevitable situation of generating a shortlist with equally qualified candidates? What specifically do you want departments to do?
Also, how should departments cultivate their own identity without anything like "taste" or "fit"? What do you want us to do there?
My point is that “fit” is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot — or sometimes will not — articulate.
Having been on a few search committees, fit is actually almost always something really specific and articulable - they have taught this class that no one has taught in a while but students have been asking for and they have excellent course reviews, they research this topic that many of our graduate studies have been gravitating toward, they can “take over” this area for this person who is going to retire soon, they will help with this center we run, they use this method that no one else does but is becoming common, etc. This is especially true after the campus visit - this person was the only one who did well in the Q&A, this person was friendly and the others were off-putting, this person took the time to research the department and people in it, this person was already trying to make research connections to people, this person we could “get”, etc.
Having been on a few search committees, fit is actually almost always something really specific and articulable - they have taught this class that no one has taught in a while but students have been asking for and they have excellent course reviews, they research this topic that many of our graduate studies have been gravitating toward, they can �take over� this area for this person who is going to retire soon, they will help with this center we run, they use this method that no one else does but is becoming common, etc. This is especially true after the campus visit - this person was the only one who did well in the Q&A, this person was friendly and the others were off-putting, this person took the time to research the department and people in it, this person was already trying to make research connections to people, this person we could �get�, etc.
You contradict yourself by agreeing that all those subjective things are part of fit.
Having been on a few search committees, fit is actually almost always something really specific and articulable - they have taught this class that no one has taught in a while but students have been asking for and they have excellent course reviews, they research this topic that many of our graduate studies have been gravitating toward, they can �take over� this area for this person who is going to retire soon, they will help with this center we run, they use this method that no one else does but is becoming common, etc. This is especially true after the campus visit - this person was the only one who did well in the Q&A, this person was friendly and the others were off-putting, this person took the time to research the department and people in it, this person was already trying to make research connections to people, this person we could �get�, etc.
Honestly, this reads like a laundry list of ad hoc rationalizations (which is totally consistent with how I've seen "fit" used in hiring decisions).
Having been on a few search committees, fit is actually almost always something really specific and articulable - they have taught this class that no one has taught in a while but students have been asking for and they have excellent course reviews, they research this topic that many of our graduate studies have been gravitating toward, they can ?take over? this area for this person who is going to retire soon, they will help with this center we run, they use this method that no one else does but is becoming common, etc. This is especially true after the campus visit - this person was the only one who did well in the Q&A, this person was friendly and the others were off-putting, this person took the time to research the department and people in it, this person was already trying to make research connections to people, this person we could ?get?, etc.
Honestly, this reads like a laundry list of ad hoc rationalizations (which is totally consistent with how I've seen "fit" used in hiring decisions).
Thank you, my point exactly. We decide who we like first, and come up with reasons later. It’s almost entirely emotional. This is one reason why hiring decisions often seem so random.
My point is that �fit� is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot � or sometimes will not � articulate.
I didn’t ask you to clarify. I asked you what specifically would you have us to do about this?
My point is that ?fit? is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot ? or sometimes will not ? articulate.
I didn�t ask you to clarify. I asked you what specifically would you have us to do about this?
Stop pretending that academic hiring is a meritocracy.
Having been on a few search committees, fit is actually almost always something really specific and articulable - they have taught this class that no one has taught in a while but students have been asking for and they have excellent course reviews, they research this topic that many of our graduate studies have been gravitating toward, they can ?take over? this area for this person who is going to retire soon, they will help with this center we run, they use this method that no one else does but is becoming common, etc. This is especially true after the campus visit - this person was the only one who did well in the Q&A, this person was friendly and the others were off-putting, this person took the time to research the department and people in it, this person was already trying to make research connections to people, this person we could ?get?, etc.
Honestly, this reads like a laundry list of ad hoc rationalizations (which is totally consistent with how I've seen "fit" used in hiring decisions).
Thank you, my point exactly. We decide who we like first, and come up with reasons later. It�s almost entirely emotional. This is one reason why hiring decisions often seem so random.
Okay, even though questions like these seem perfectly reasonable to me, let’s say that we can’t them to select one from a shortlist of excellent candidates. What should we do instead? Like, does literally anyone complaining in this thread have a single idea about how to make a hiring decision without recourse to “taste” and “fit”?
My point is that ?fit? is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot ? or sometimes will not ? articulate.
I didn?t ask you to clarify. I asked you what specifically would you have us to do about this?
Stop pretending that academic hiring is a meritocracy.
Okay, let’s agree that academia is not a meritocracy. Now, how do we make the hiring decisions without “taste” or “fit”? Anyone?
Thank you, my point exactly. We decide who we like first, and come up with reasons later. It�s almost entirely emotional. This is one reason why hiring decisions often seem so random.
Great , now what would be a non-“emotional” way to select one candidate from a shortlist of great ones? Any ideas?
My point is that �fit� is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot � or sometimes will not � articulate.
Gotcha. Any ideas about what type of less “empty” And insidious considerations should stand in place of “fit”? Any ideas?
My point is that ?fit? is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot ? or sometimes will not ? articulate.
I didn?t ask you to clarify. I asked you what specifically would you have us to do about this?
Stop pretending that academic hiring is a meritocracy.
Okay, let�s agree that academia is not a meritocracy. Now, how do we make the hiring decisions without �taste� or �fit�? Anyone?
The only real alternative is something analogous to a civil service exam where the high scorers get the job. But that’s not going to happen anytime soon, is it? We’re stuck with instinct and emotion.
And it's not like civil service actually recruits better than universities.
My point is that ?fit? is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot ? or sometimes will not ? articulate.
I didn?t ask you to clarify. I asked you what specifically would you have us to do about this?
Stop pretending that academic hiring is a meritocracy.
Okay, let?s agree that academia is not a meritocracy. Now, how do we make the hiring decisions without ?taste? or ?fit?? Anyone?
The only real alternative is something analogous to a civil service exam where the high scorers get the job. But that�s not going to happen anytime soon, is it? We�re stuck with instinct and emotion.
One thing I learned only after being on the other side (i.e., being on hiring committees) is that sorting through candidates is a staggering amount of work. We had 65 or so candidates for our most recent position, which isn't even that much compared to what other institutions receive. If I spend on average 10 minutes (10!) for each candidate that's over 10 hours of work. And 10 minutes is, like, fine. It's ok. It's enough to do a cursory review and to sort on rough-grained differences. But it's obviously not enough time to read all materials, look over people's work, do some Googling, etc.
This is all to say that hiring decisions are made in a low-information environment out of necessity. And in that context, people sort based on dubious indicators of fit and competence (e.g., What do teaching evals really show? That you grade easy?). But, honestly, as some other people are expressing, I'm not sure there's a better way, especially not with everything else we all have to do.
Like, yes, I want to hire someone good, both because it benefits me and because of principle (of honoring the job ad and some semblance of meritocracy), but what am I supposed to do that I am not doing already? What is the indicator that is "fair"? How are we to make these decisions?
^^I agree but just to note that the issue raised by critics in this thread is not something that can be resolved by taking a deeper look at candidates (for example, if we were able to spend more than 10 minutes on each file).
Rather, they are suggesting that there is some way to hire people that avoids questions of “taste” and “fit,” which is not a very reasonable criticism to make.
My point is that ?fit? is an empty buzzword. It signifies nothing at all. It just means we like this one more than the other one, for reasons we cannot ? or sometimes will not ? articulate.
I didn?t ask you to clarify. I asked you what specifically would you have us to do about this?
Stop pretending that academic hiring is a meritocracy.
Okay, let�s agree that academia is not a meritocracy. Now, how do we make the hiring decisions without �taste� or �fit�? Anyone?
Random Number Generators. You're welcome.