Guide to faculty searches, 2024 edition

As you can tell from my posting frequency lately, I have been unusually busy.  I hope to be writing about more condensed matter and nano science soon.   In the meantime, I realized that I have not re-posted or updated my primer on how tenure-track faculty searches work in physics since 2015.  Academia hasn't changed much since then, but even though the previous posts can be found via search engines, it's probably a good idea to put this out there again.  Interestingly, here is a link to a Physics Today article from 2001 about this topic, and here is a link to the same author's 2020 updated version.

Here are the steps in the typical tenure-track faculty search process.  Non-tenure-track hiring can be very similar depending on the institution.  (Just to define the terminology:  "Teaching professor" usually = non-tenure-track, expected to teach several courses per semester, usually no expectations of research except perhaps education research, no lab space.  "Research professor" usually = non-tenure-track, research responsibilities and usually not expected to teach; often entirely paid on research grant funds, either their own or those of a tenure-track PI.)

• The search gets authorized. This is a big step - it determines what the position is, exactly: junior vs. junior or senior; a new faculty line vs. a replacement vs. a bridging position (i.e. we'll hire now, and when X retires in three years, we won't look for a replacement then). The main challenges are two-fold: (1) Ideally the department has some strategic plan in place to determine the area that they'd like to fill. Note that not all departments do this - occasionally you'll see a very general ad out there that basically says, "ABC University Dept. of Physics is authorized to search for a tenure-track position in, umm, physics. We want to hire the smartest person that we can, regardless of subject area." The challenge with this is that there may actually be divisions within the department about where the position should go, and these divisions can play out in a process where different factions within the department veto each other. This is pretty rare, but not unheard of. (2) The university needs to have the resources in place to make a hire.  In tight financial times, this can become more challenging. I know of public universities having to cancel searches in 2008/2009 even after the authorization if the budget cuts get too severe. A well-run university will be able to make these judgments with some lead time and not have to back-track.
• Note that some universities and colleges/schools within universities have other processes outside the traditional "department argues for and gets a faculty line to fill" method.  "Cluster hiring", for example, is when, say, the university decides to hire several faculty members whose research is all thematically related to "energy and sustainability", a broad topic that could clearly involve chemistry, physics, materials science, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, etc.  The logistics of cluster hiring can vary quite a bit from place to place.  I have opinions about the best ways to do this; one aspect that my own institution does well is to recognize that anyone hired has to have an actual primary departmental home - that way the tenure process and the teaching responsibilities are unambiguous.

• The search committee gets put together. In my dept., the chair asks people to serve. If the search is in condensed matter, for example, there will be several condensed matter people on the committee, as well as representation from the other major groups in the department, and one knowledgeable person from outside the department (in chemistry or ECE, for example). The chairperson or chairpeople of the committee meet with the committee or at least those in the focus area, and come up with draft text for the ad.  In cross-departmental searches (as in the cluster hiring described above), a dean or equivalent would likely put together the committee.

• The ad gets placed, and canvassing begins of lots of people who might know promising candidates. A committed effort is made to make sure that all qualified women and underrepresented minority candidates know about the position and are asked to apply (reaching out through relevant professional societies, social media, society mailing lists - this is in the search plan). Generally, the ad really does list what the department is interested in. It's a huge waste of everyone's time to have an ad that draws a large number of inappropriate (i.e. don't fit the dept.'s needs) applicants. The exception to this is the generic ad like the type I mentioned above. Back when I was applying for jobs, MIT and Berkeley had run the same ad every year, grazing for talent. They seem to do just fine. The other exception is when a university already knows who they want to get for a senior position, and writes an ad so narrow that only one person is really qualified. I've never seen this personally, but I've heard anecdotes.

• In the meantime, a search plan is formulated and approved by the dean. The plan details how the search will work, what the timeline is, etc. This plan is largely a checklist to make sure that we follow all the right procedures and don't screw anything up. It also brings to the fore the importance of "beating the bushes" - see above. A couple of people on the search committee will be particularly in charge of oversight on affirmative action/equal opportunity issues.

• The dean usually meets with the committee and we go over the plan, including a refresher for everyone on what is or is not appropriate for discussion in an interview (for an obvious example, you can't ask about someone's religion, or their marital status).

• Applications come in.  This is all done electronically, thank goodness.  The fact that I feel this way tells you about how old I am.  Some online systems can be clunky, since occasionally universities try to use the same software to hire faculty as they do to hire groundskeepers, but generally things go smoothly.  The two most common software systems out there in the US are Interfolio and Academic Jobs Online.  Each have their own idiosyncracies.  Every year when I post this, someone argues that it's ridiculous to make references write letters, and that the committee should do a sort first and ask for letters later.  I understand this perspective, but I tend to disagree. Letters can contain an enormous amount of information, and sometimes it is possible to identify outstanding candidates due to input from the letters that might otherwise be missed. (For example, suppose someone's got an incredible piece of postdoctoral work about to come out that hasn't been published yet. It carries more weight for letters to highlight this, since the candidate isn't exactly unbiased about their own forthcoming publications.)  

• The committee begins to review the applications. Generally the members of the committee who are from the target discipline do a first pass, to at least weed out the inevitable applications from people who are not qualified according to the ad (i.e. no PhD; senior people wanting a senior position even though the ad is explicitly for a junior slot; people with research interests or expertise in the wrong area). Applications are roughly rated by everyone into a top, middle, and bottom category. Each committee member comes up with their own ratings, so there is naturally some variability from person to person. Some people are "harsh graders". Some value high impact publications more than numbers of papers. Others place more of an emphasis on the research plan, the teaching statement, or the rec letters. Yes, people do value the teaching statement - we wouldn't waste everyone's time with it if we didn't care. Interestingly, often (not always) the people who are the strongest researchers also have very good ideas and actually care about teaching. This shouldn't be that surprising. Creative people can want to express their creativity in the classroom as well as the lab.  "Type A" organized people often bring that intensity to teaching as well.

• Once all the folders have been reviewed and rated, a relatively short list (say 20-25 or so out of 120 applications) is formed, and the committee meets to hash that down to, in the end, four or five to invite for interviews. In my experience, this happens by consensus, with the target discipline members having a bit more sway in practice since they know the area and can appreciate subtleties - the feasibility and originality of the proposed research, the calibration of the letter writers (are they first-rate folks? Do they always claim every candidate is the best postdoc they've ever seen?). I'm not kidding about consensus; I can't recall a case where there really was a big, hard argument within a committee on which I've served. I know I've been lucky in this respect, and that other institutions can be much more fiesty. The best, meaning most useful, letters, by the way, are the ones who say things like "This candidate is very much like CCC and DDD were at this stage in their careers." Real comparisons like that are much more helpful than "The candidate is bright, creative, and a good communicator." Regarding research plans, the best ones (for me, anyway) give a good sense of near-term plans, medium-term ideas, and the long-term big picture, all while being relatively brief and written so that a general committee member can understand much of it (why the work is important, what is new) without being an expert in the target field. It's also good to know that, at least at my university, if we come across an applicant that doesn't really fit our needs, but meshes well with an open search in another department, we send over the file. This, like the consensus stuff above, is a benefit of good, nonpathological communication within the department and between departments.

That's pretty much it up to the interview stage. No big secrets. No automated ranking schemes based exclusively on h numbers or citation counts.  

Update:  As pointed out by a commenter, a relatively recent wrinkle is the use of zoom interviews.  Rather than inviting 5-ish candidates to campus for interviews, many places are now doing some zoom interviews with a larger pool (more like 10 candidates) and then down-selecting to a smaller number to invite to campus.   Making sure that the interview formats are identical across all the candidates (e.g., having scripts to make sure that the same questions are always asked in the same order) is one way to mitigate unintentional biases that can otherwise be present.

Tips for candidates:

• Don't wrap your self-worth up in this any more than is unavoidable. It's a game of small numbers, and who gets interviewed where can easily be dominated by factors extrinsic to the candidates - what a department's pressing needs are, what the demographics of a subdiscipline are like, etc. Every candidate takes job searches personally to some degree because of our culture and human nature, but don't feel like this is some evaluation of you as a human being.

• Don't automatically limit your job search because of geography unless you have some overwhelming personal reasons.  I almost didn't apply to Rice because neither my wife nor I were particularly thrilled about Texas, despite the fact that neither of us had ever actually visited the place. Limiting my search that way would've been a really poor decision - I've now been here 24+ years, and we've enjoyed ourselves (my occasional Texas politics blog posts aside).

• Really read the ads carefully and make sure that you don't leave anything out. If a place asks for a teaching statement or a statement about mentoring or inclusion, put some real thought into what you say - they want to see that you have actually given this some thought, or they wouldn't have asked for it.
• Proof-read cover letters and other documents.  Saying that you're very excited about the possibilities at University A when you sent that application to University B is a bit awkward.

• Research statements are challenging because you need to appeal to both the specialists on the committee and the people who are way outside your area. My own research statement back in the day was around three pages. If you want to write a lot more, I recommend having a brief (2-3 page) summary at the beginning followed by more details for the specialists. It's good to identify near-term, mid-range, and long-term goals - you need to think about those timescales anyway. Don't get bogged down in specific technique details unless they're essential. You need committee members to come away from the proposal knowing "These are the Scientific Questions I'm trying to answer", not just "These are the kinds of techniques I know". I know that some people may think that research statements are more of an issue for experimentalists, since the statements indicate a lot about lab and equipment needs. Believe me - research statements are important for all candidates. Committee members need to know where you're coming from and what you want to do - what kinds of problems interest you and why. The committee also wants to see that you actually plan ahead. These days it's extremely hard to be successful in academia by "winging it" in terms of your research program.  I would steer clear of any use of AI help in writing any of the materials, unless it's purely at the "please check this for grammatical mistakes and typographical errors" level. 

• Be realistic about what undergrads, grad students, and postdocs are each capable of doing. If you're applying for a job at a four-year college, don't propose to do work that would require $1.5M in startup and an experienced grad student putting in 60 hours a week.

• Even if they don't ask for it explicitly, you need to think about what resources you'll need to accomplish your research goals. This includes equipment for your lab as well as space and shared facilities. Talk to colleagues and get a sense of what the going rate is for start-up in your area. Remember that four-year colleges do not have the resources of major research universities. Start-up packages at a four-year college are likely to be 1/4 of what they would be at a big research school (though there are occasional exceptions). Don't shave pennies - this is the one prime chance you get to ask for stuff! On the other hand, don't make unreasonable requests. No one is going to give a junior person a start-up package comparable to that of a mid-career scientist.

• Pick letter-writers intelligently. Actually check with them that they're willing to write you a nice letter - it's polite and it's common sense. (I should point out that truly negative letters are very rare.) Beyond the obvious two (thesis advisor, postdoctoral mentor), it can sometimes be tough finding an additional person who can really say something about your research or teaching abilities. Sometimes you can ask those two for advice about this. Make sure your letter-writers know the deadlines and the addresses. The more you can do to make life easier for your letter writers, the better.

As always, more feedback in the comments is appreciated.