|
Post by disgusting on Nov 7, 2011 11:24:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by really on Nov 7, 2011 11:28:12 GMT -5
Wow, golly jeez there Wubster, what could be wrong in having an all white police force or an all white jury or an all white teaching staff...especially if various unbiased social institutions have deemed them more competent.
If you don't see how race/ethnicity could possibly be important for hiring...then you just don't see. And my soc PhD just declined in value.
|
|
rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Nov 7, 2011 11:35:18 GMT -5
You mean, we can't just count up publications to find out who the best candidate would be? </sarcasm>
|
|
|
Post by second eh on Nov 7, 2011 19:43:13 GMT -5
To ToEh2: There are a couple of threads already about phone interviews (see questions and advice section of forum) so I won't repeat stuff here (I posted on there too). However, I will say that you should try to come off as competent AND "likeable" in a phone interview. Nonwhite candidates seem to not do as well in either the competent side or the "likeable" side. I'm sure it's not that a particular candidate is not competent but they are not very convincing over the phone sometimes. Yet, there is also a thin line between confidence and cocky. I think the reason why white candidates tend to come across better over the phone is simply due to "culture" but I'm going to avoid that conversation ;D As for discussions about "underqualified" vs "qualified." In a pool of candidates, if you have a PhD (or are ABD) and fit the job description, you are "qualified." It's all about "fit" and other related issues. For example, a SC might think about the likelihood of whether a candidate will be able to become tenured (NOTE: Sometimes a candidate with an excellent research program with a minimal publication record and strong recommendation is better than a candidate with a strong publication record, so-so current research program, and so-so recomendation). Like others have already said, you cannot objectively tally up points on things. If this was the case, as I've said before, some nonwhite candidates would be doing far better (again, based on my experience at the institutions I've been at). Personally, I've been blown away with some of the CVs of nonwhite candidates, and I think it's a shame that they don't make it to become finalists. I distinctively recall this one conversation in a SC about a nonwhite candidate; people said things like, "Oh, I'm sure he'll land a job somewhere. He's definitely a strong candidate." I just remember thinking, "Why not here? If you want to consider candidate x for gender, why not candidate y for race? The diversity is much needed on our campus, and he's clearly a strong candidate. WTF!!!" People are probably going to hate me when (if?) I get my tenure. Stuff like this just makes me so angry
|
|
|
Post by curious on Jan 17, 2012 17:59:27 GMT -5
Hmm, does anyone have a good sense of how we did in terms of diversity hires (URMs and women) this year compared to previous ones? I took some time to look up the impressive hires this year. Was pleased by some top departments. I'm a newbie to the market, so a market veteran's perspective would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
|
|