1. Determination of Search Procedures: The process by which procedures are established and changed is not clear. In the most recent versions and ongoing changes, the faculty have been excluded.
We recommend the following sequence:
a. The administration carefully review current procedures with an eye toward simplification, incorporating these task force recommendations.
b. The administration then present its new set of procedures for faculty consideration, first to the advisory council, then to the full faculty by April, 2006.
c. Once the Faculty Assembly has ratified the new procedures, the procedures should be put in place for the next hiring cycle (Fall 2006).
d. Should either the administration or the FA wish to make a change in the procedures, they may propose such changes. Any changes must be approved by both parties.
2. Search Committee Composition. This currently varies among units. In four of the six units, deans believe that the convening groups compose the committee; however search chairs indicate that both the dean and the convening group play primary roles in deciding committee membership.
We recommend that search committees be formed via collaboration between the convening group holding the line and the dean, in which the group makes the decision, and the dean approves it.
Including an out-of-unit member: Two of the deans reported that a person outside the unit is usually included on the search committee. Fourteen of twenty search chairs responding indicated that outside members should be recommended for each search committee but they should not be required.
We also recommend that the dean monitor the appointment of an out of unit representative, which we view as highly desirable (but not required). The outside member might usefully serve as Affirmative Action (AA) monitor.
3. Job description and advertisement: According to search chairs, the original language of the advertisements is usually written by either the search committee itself, with the help of convening group, or in cooperation with the dean. Several deans felt they had control over final ad copy. Nevertheless, at times search chairs and deans expressed concern that ads had been changed. According to the search chairs, the language was changed 37.5% of the time after it was submitted to the administration. Sometimes the change was made without the knowledge or approval of the search committee, even after the FA resolution, May 2005. In a few cases the addition of language was useful, but in a number of others ³the change substantially altered the description of the position². In addition, while the college shortens language in composite ads for multiple positions, composite ad language may not be appropriate for professional journals.
We reiterate our position, passed by the Faculty Assembly in May, 2005: All advertising copy for a faculty position should receive approval from the specific search committee before its release.
Timing and verification of advertised positions. There is a lot of variation in who makes the final decision about where ads are published. Deans are virtually unanimous that it has not been up to them, although one dean does feels s/he has been consulted. Search chairs report that in about 60% of the cases, their committee and the convening group was involved in some way in deciding where the ad was placed. About 40% of such decisions were made in collaboration with the office of AA. In about 20% of the cases, chairs said the office of AA made the final decision alone. According to one, the office Œnever communicated with the search committee when and where the ad will be placed².
Location of ad placement: A majority of the ads were published in the Chronicle, NY Times [no longer used] and the Star Ledger, reported the search chairs. Some ads were also published in professional journals and professional list serves. Publication in discipline specific journals is highly recommended by the faculty. According to the survey responses, the AA office generally supports posting in the professional list serves. However, in many cases publication in professional journals or other avenues of the search committee¹s choice were discouraged due to lack of finances. ³AA office didn¹t have financial means to advertise in professional journals.² The office would support such publications ³only if it could be posted free². In one case the committee itself procured grant funding for the publication of the ad in a professional journal. In another case the committee ³couldn¹t publish in NYT-college couldn¹t afford it (even if community colleges can)². In one instance, the ad was placed ³in the wrong category in the Chronicle². One response indicated that the ³local paper draws inappropriate applicants.² Although, conference based advertisements are expected to produce good results, some felt such activity is discouraged. Overall, there seems to be a general dissatisfaction with not being able to advertise where needed.
Roughly 46% of the surveys reported that ad publications specifically targeted minority groups, while about 40% did not advertise in such publications. A third of the deans also indicated that ads were not released in publications primarily reaching minority groups.
The Director of Affirmative Action indicates that search committees may request specific ad placements in the position description. At one point, the Director also had funding for conference attendance in support of searches.
We reiterate our recommendation passed in May, 2003: Each search committee will suggest target journals for position advertising. The appearance of such advertising will be mutually determined with the administration. We make an additional recommendation for the role of the search committee¹s Affirmative Action representative in increasing outreach (see below).
Length of time to release the advertisement: Two/thirds of the deans and half of the surveyed search chairs reported satisfaction with the length of time it took for the ad to get published. However, 37.5% reported problems related to the delays in publishing. Some of the ads were reportedly published in October or November, which is considered very late. In one case the ad was placed as late as in July-August [for positions beginning in September]. Some of the delays were attributed to the composite ad process. ³The college administration took too long, waiting for other schools to submit their ad². The process for publication of ads in professional journals seems to be a sore spot. Due to the delays in the approval of ad language, there has been a ³delay in meeting deadlines for publication in professional journals². Consequently, some ads couldn¹t be placed in the professional publications. At least one search was reportedly unsuccessful due to the delays in publication of the ads.
Despite such problems, committees found creative ways to publicize positions without spending money. They commonly utilized professional associations, networking, personal letters and calls to other schools. ³Best candidates came from networking, personal calls and posting on list serves (all free)².
Both deans and search chairs also seemed generally content with the applicant pool that the ads generated. Two thirds of the deans and about 70% of the responding search chairs expressed satisfaction. One search chair observed ³good cross section of applicants from around the country-diversity reflected². Some respondents attributed better pool size of some of the searches to personal calling and networking. However, some respondents complained that ³many applied, but only a few were qualified.² Faculty reported that the inability to advertise where needed leads to small pool size of the qualified candidates.
4. Role of Convener in searches requires clarification. Two deans report that conveners serve on search committees. Nine of the search chairs responding on the matter said conveners were included, seven said they were not. Twelve of sixteen said their inclusion would strengthen the search committees.
We recommend:
5. Affirmative Action Monitor. The role of the affirmative action monitor has been subject to various arrangements. Six years ago non-voting members came from an all-college Affirmative Action committee. Then search committees took over the task of appointing their own monitor. Current procedures now assign the task to the search chair which we do not think is functional.
We recommend that the search committee, in consultation with the dean, appoint one of its members (such as the outside member) as the affirmative action monitor. The monitor will undergo special training given by Affirmative Action. The monitor¹s role includes:
a. serving as liaison from the outset with the office of Affirmative Action on all aspects and phases of the search, and consulting with that office on a regular basis
b. making sure that the searched position is promoted in timely fashion in locations accessible to minority applicants
c. documenting the numbers of candidates that apply, the numbers of qualified candidates, and those from protected classes as defined by AA
d. forwarding the committee¹s choices for campus visits, and final candidate recommendations to the AA office.
6. Role of students. While affirming that student input is essential in the search process, units vary in how this is accomplished. About half currently include students on search committees, but a number of respondents do not want students¹ included. The Provost has recently agreed to allow students. To accomplish the overall goals of student participation,
We recommend that:
a. Search candidates teach a class after which all students in attendance submit written evaluations
b. students of a particular field meet with the candidate, discuss issues of concern, and fill out an appraisal.
c. As an option, one or two senior students be invited to participate as a full search committee member, with the following qualification: student members will not be present at the final selective deliberation [current policy approved by the Provost].
7. Internal Candidates: Information from Human Resources, our surveys of Deans and of Search Committee Chairs all indicate that since 2002, internal candidates have been included in two-thirds of all searches, and at least half of all internal candidates applying for a recent faculty position have been hired:
Deans¹ Surveys Search Comm. Chairs
Completed Full-Time
Tenure Track Hires 29 26
Since 2002
# of Internal Candidates 20 (69%) 17 (66%)
% of time Internal
Candidate hired, if applied 12 (60%) 9 (53%)
The task force recognizes that there are solid reasons both in support and in opposition to the hiring of internal candidates. Such a high number nevertheless warrants concern.
One major area of concern has been the over-use of temporary or ³emergency² hires. The Deans recall at least 20 emergency hires since Fall 2002, and Human Resources reports that the college has made 57 temporary faculty hires during that period.
Temporary faculty are not hired by the same search process, nor with the same criteria as persons applying for a full-time Tenure-Track position. In many cases, a Temporary or Half-Time faculty member is hired over the summer, often in a process involving only the Dean, or only a convener. There is normally no search committee.
Many of these faculty then have a special advantage as they routinely become internal candidates for future tenure-track searches. These persons also have the situation of being able to count their temporary service ex-post-facto toward tenure; an opportunity not granted to other faculty hired from ³outside.² Because the college tenures such a high percentage of faculty, this practice represents a serious equity issue.
Our Affirmative Action and Human Resources departments also emphasize that a college that hires so many internal candidates may be seen as not fulfilling its obligations to select from the broadest and most diverse possible pool of applicants.
We recommend:
a. Discontinuance of the practice of replacing retirees and departures with temporary (XIII-D contract) hires. This can be done by accelerating the decision to replace (or not replace) a tenured line. Potential retirees could give one years¹ notice (or take advantage of the Phased Retirement option within their contract). Thus: a retiree would announce by the end of Spring 2006 that s/he is retiring at the end of Spring 2007. The Academic Year 06-07 could therefore be spent in a search to replace this person, and the new hire would be ready in the Fall of 2007. No break in coverage of teaching would result, and no ³emergency hire² would be needed.
If the college considers use of the XIII-O contract, which allows for a single three-year non-tenure track contract rather than three single-year appointments, then we should be aware of possible problems. Although rarely used at Ramapo, this contract allows a person to serve three years without re-appointment. Such a person might then become an internal candidate whose very next application would be re-appointment with tenure (because that application is usually made during the fourth year of a faculty¹s career.)
d. In accordance with state law, adoption of a clear and restrictive policy regarding early tenure decisions. When the variety of early tenure decisions is coupled with the large percentage of internal candidates, new hires from ³outside² may be given a poor impression of Ramapo¹s criteria for promotion and retention.
9. Ranking of candidates: At its final selective deliberation, the search committee develops the rationale for why it chooses to recommend certain candidates. Five of six deans report that search committees rank candidates. About 62% of the search committees ranked (40% quantitatively, 22% qualitatively). There is a consensus on being given the opportunity to rank. More than 90% of the respondents would like to rank their top candidates. Repeated reasons included:
3. The search committee is more qualified than anyone else to determine ranking
4. It is helpful to the administration who may not have in-depth knowledge of the discipline.
5. without it, the administration may not make an offer to the top candidate
We recommend that: when feasible, a search committee recommend at least three candidates. When this is not feasible, the search chair and affirmative action officer should provide a written explanation. Committees are allowed to rank those recommended, but they must also provide qualitative judgments.
5. Affirmative Action review (See summary resolution)/
6. The On-Line system.
The Problem: In requiring that applications for faculty positions be submitted on-line, Ramapo is in the minority among colleges and universities. While more institutions are now shifting to an on-line process, this requirement nevertheless causes consternation among applicants, search committee members and some deans. An approach that rigidly insists that all applications must be submitted on-line may cause Ramapo to lose qualified candidates.
Experience of Applicants:
Of those hired over the past two years, 30% of those reporting found the process unsatisfactory and 35% experienced difficulties with it. 13% thought the system should be eliminated (a possibility we did not raise)! Only one person thought the on-line process was highly satisfactory.
Of current applicants, while only 21% experienced difficulties, 33% found the experience unsatisfactory. On average, both current and former applicants said it took about an hour and fifteen minutes to fill out the on-line application with some deviation: half took an hour or less, while others took several hours. Two consumed an entire day attempting to add attachments to the application.
Indeed, among Ramapo¹s recently hired, the most often mentioned problem concerned adding and sending attachments (30%). The limitation to three was regarded as substantially insufficient. Other typical comments were the following: ³if I hit the key to double check what I had entered, my resume would then be erased.²
Some indicated the difficulty presented for specialized fields, for example referring to CDs VHSs, DVDs, concert programs etc.: ³While some of these items that are considered standard to a music portfolio can be scanned, quality is lost in the translation.) In addition to attachment problems, others found that their computer would time out without recourse, and that directions were ³so unclear that incorrect responses are practically certain.² Several new applicants found the process impersonal. Others asked for clearer procedures up front. One discovered by trial and error that s/he could save data, but there were no clear indications to that effect.
Reports from Search Chairs and Deans:
More than 50% of the search chairs who responded also reported problems with the online application process. Their comments verify that the online application process is not seamless. Specifically, some candidates and search committee members had difficulties accessing, and using the online system. The most common complaint was that the system times out. More specific comments are noted in the Appendix below.
2 out of 6 deans agreed that their unit search committees had frequent difficulties with the on-line system. 3 more reported occasional difficulties.
Despite this rather negative portrait of the on-line application experience, the task force believes that if improved, it can function to serve the Ramapo search process.
Respondents urged CCIS and faculty to review the site and suggested a number of very helpful improvements which the task force endorses:
We recommend:
a. For the next two years (i.e. 2006-2008 or until the system is upgraded), candidates may submit their application on line, in paper, or both. If they only submit in paper, the search chair will have the responsibility of entering essential information into the on-line system.
b. The opening page of the Ramapo jobs website list what will be required in terms of applying, so that applicants can prepare themselves ahead of time in regard to:
-the list of various recommended attachments, the time it may take (usually
an hour),
-the difficulties one is likely to encounter such as being timed out.
-a contact person and number to call for personal assistance (currently the case?), -a computer location where difficulties are less likely.
Finally, the site should indicate that while an on-line application is preferred, the applicant is also able to submit a written application and additional materials.
This on-line application preference should also be noted in position advertisements.
c. CCIS review procedures for adding attachments. The number of potential attachments should be increased to ten in number (including letters from colleagues, student evaluations, papers, artistic presentations etc. Some searches require several more than the current 3). Procedures for how to translate items from one¹s CV into on-line categories, etc. should be specified or made seamless. Clear rules for backspacing and returning should be included here as well as in a.
d. Candidates be able to review and edit all the on-line materials they have prepared before making their final submission
e. Candidates receive acknowledgement of submission by separate e-mail
f. Foreign applicants be given clear instructions on visas. The question: ³Are you prevented from lawful employment in the U.S.² should be changed to ³Are you prevented from lawful employment in the U.S. starting in (date)? If no, you may be able to correct that situation² (add appropriate instructions).
All statistical appendices and detailed comments upon which these recommendations are based are available for review in the Ramapo Library reference section under ³2005 Search Task Force Results².