Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Profession.
http://www.jstor.org
What Search Committees Want
Author(s): Walter Broughton and William Conlogue
Source: Profession, ofession (2001), pp. 39-51
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25607181
Accessed: 01-02-2016 15:25 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
What Search Committees Want
WALTER BROUGHTON and WILLIAM CONLOGUE
Preprofessionalism among graduate students inEnglish has been a
hotly
debated topic for some time. Prominent onlookers argue that it?espe
cially early publication and conference presentation?keeps students from
"developing long-term intellectual projects and thus propagates intellec
tual shallowness" (Guillory 4; see Spacks). Others point out that there is
nothing inherently wrong with such activity,
as
long
as itdoes not amount
to "inferior professionalization" (Nelson 162). Understandably, graduate
students are
caught in themiddle, wondering what to do and when to do it.
Something isobviously wrong when new PhDs believe that before they
can even enter the jobmarket theymust acquire the credentials that once
earned tenure.To investigate the phenomenon, theModern Language Asso
ciation lastyear created theAd Hoc Committee on the Professionalization
of PhDs, whose task, inpart, is to
"study the growing pressure on the pro
ductivity of graduate students and the practices of hiring departments, [and]
assess the educational and professional value of the publishing and confer
ence activities graduate students pursue" {AdHoc Committee). In itsdelibera
tions, the committee must address an important question: Is the drive
among graduate students to amass
professional accomplishments matched
by the expectations of the search committees that seek to hire them?
Though graduate students have been getting much advice about how to
prepare for the jobmarket, they have received littlehard information about
what search committees want from candidates (Showalter; Curren, "No
Walter
Broughton
isAssociate Professor ofSociology
at
Marywood University. William Con
logue
isAssociate
Professor ofEnglish
at
Marywood University.
39 Profession 2001
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 IIWHAT SEARCHCOMMITTEESWANT
Openings" 59).To shed some
light
on the demand side of the hiring process,
we offer the results of a survey that sought
answers to the following ques
tions:How do English departments conduct a
typical search?What kinds of
professional qualifications do committees expect from candidates? Is a pub
lication record really
more
important than teaching experience? How sig
nificant are
interpersonal skills?What egregious
errors kill a
candidacy?
Methods
We began putting the questionnaire together inApril 2000. During the
summer, we reviewed issues of theJob Information List (JIL) and identified
a total of 671 English departments that had conducted searches in 1998-99
and 1999-2000. We ignored departments that listed only postdoctoral and
other fellowships, and we excluded interdisciplinary programs, unless it
was clear from the ad that the program was housed in an
English depart
ment. Inmid-October, we mailed our anonymous survey to these 671 de
partments; sent out two follow-up letters and one e-mail message in the
following months; handled dozens of phone calls, letters, and e-mail mes
sages; and resolved several minicrises before receiving the last return on
27 April 2001. In all, we received back 368 completed surveys, for a re
sponse rate of 55%.
To show the
representativeness
of our
sample,
table 1 compares
our re
turns' percentages regarding rank and specialty with those of the positions
advertised in the October 1998 and 1999 JILs (given in Franklin 4-5).
Note the relatively high proportion of assistant professorships reported by
our respondents,
a bias that also shows up in an earlier and similar survey
done by theAssociation of Departments of English (Huber, Pinney, and
Laurence 40). Our data regarding the specialties sought by search commit
tees are consistent with theMLA's. Rhetoric and composition constitutes
25% of vacancies in our survey and 27% of definite positions in theOcto
ber 1998 and 1999JILs. Our results are heavy inBritish literature positions
(28%) comparedwith thoseof theJILs (21%), thoughthisdifferencemay
be because our sample overrepresents assistant professorships, which are
more likely to be advertised and filled as British literature positions
(Huber, Pinney, and Laurence 46). Our American literature percentage is
identical to theJILs' (11%), as is our creative writing percentage (8%). Af
rican American and other minority literatures are underrepresented in our
sample(6%) comparedwith theJILs (11%).
To catch more small departments at small institutions?they hire less
frequently than do large departments?we chose to use two years ofJIL
listings rather than one. At the same time, because we consulted only the
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALTER BROUGHTON andWILLIAM CONLOGUE |||41
TABLE 1 ?
Vacancy Characteristics in the October 1998 and 1999 JILs and
As Reported by Survey Respondents (Percentage)
Positions Advertised
inOctober 1998 and
October 1999JILs
Positions Reported
by Respondents in
the Survey of
English Search
Committee Chairs
Advertised ranka
Instructor or lecturer 5.9
Assistant professor 75.0
Associate professor
6.4
Full professor 2.5
Open rank 4.4
Otherb 5.8
(N)
= 100% (l,733)c
Specialtyfield
American literature 11.1
African American, Hispanic,
and other minority literatures 10.9
British literature20.8
Rhetoric and composition 26.7
Creative
writing 7.8
Other 22.7
(N)
= 100% (l,784)c
4.3
84.0
4.1
2.2
4.3
1.1
(368)
10.9
6.0
28.1
25.4
8.3
21.4
(368)
aFrom "Positions Listed, by Rank"
Department chair and senior visiting professorships, for example
cExcludes fellowships and program director vacancies
JIL,
our results underrepresent searches in community colleges and four
year institutions, since both are less likely than doctoral programs to adver
tise vacancies with theMLA1
When reviewing the results of surveys such as ours, it is important to
remember that the population of departments recruiting at any given time
is quite different from the universe of all English departments. Depart
ments in doctoral institutions, because they
are
typically big, recruitmore
often, hire more
facultymembers, and command a
larger share of the la
bor market. For example, though departments in research universities con
stitute only 11% of all departments in the United States (Laurence,
"Data"), they constitute 26% of our
sample. Moreover, in the two years we
study, doctoral departments are
responsible for 48% of the listings in the
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 fllWHAT SEARCHCOMMITTEESWANT
October JILs (Laurence, "Request"). However, their actual market share is
substantially less. In the best estimate available to date, Kurt M?ller and
R. Douglas LeMaster project that roughly 30% of all English positions
filled in any given year are in thatCarnegie sector (52).2
A Typical Search
Assistant professor positions make up 84% of searches in our
sample (ta
ble 1). Sixty-three percent of search committees accept applications from
ABDs, and the vast majority of openings in our
sample
are tenure-track
(93%). The last percentage may be high, because departments that adver
tisedmultiple openings
were able to answer our
questionnaire only
on the
basis of one search.We surmise that respondents were more likely to re
port on successful tenure-track searches than on unsuccessful ones.
More than half of all search committees (58%) handle fewer than 100
applications. A significant minority (16%), however, receive more than
200. The mean number of applicants is 99. In theADE study, themean is
91 (Huber, Pinney, and Laurence 43). The competition for jobs is obvi
ously stiff,but these numbers should put to rest themisconception that
hundreds of applications flood every department that advertises an
opening
(Curren, "Response" 45;Musser 11).
A significant number of committees do not interview candidates at the
MLA convention (38%). Over half (54%), however, do interview eight
or
more
people there.Doctoral institutions are themost intensive convention
users; 71% of committees at these institutions interview eight
ormore can
didates. Nearly 60% of committees do not use remote interviews?that is,
telephone
or compressed video. Of those that do, the average number of
interviews is five.Nearly half of all search committees (47%) bring three
applicants to campus for interviews, a number consistent with psychology
searches (Sheehan, McDevitt, and Ross 9).
Our survey affirms thatEnglish facultymembers take active roles in the
screening and hiring of new
colleagues. Less than 1% of respondents
re
ported that their academic administration conducted searches with little or
no
faculty participation. Committees conducted 82% of the searches in our
sample; in only
one case did a department chair handle a search alone. A
significantminority of respondents?typically those in small departments?
reported that their entire department acted as the search committee (15%).
Of the committees surveyed, 12% had a serious disagreement with the
institution's administration. Of those, themost frequent disagreements
centered on the committee's choice of candidates, its evaluation of candi
dates, the job description, and the position's funding.
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALTER BROUGHTON andWILLIAM CONLOGUE |||43
In the vast majority of searches, the committee's first choice was ac
cepted by the university's administration (97%). Weak scholarship and the
perception that the candidate would make a poor institutional fitwere
cited as themost frequent
reasons for the rejection of a first choice. The
numbers here are very small, however. Only ten respondents noted that
their committee's first choice was
rejected; the twomain reasons were each
cited by only four respondents.
A significant minority of all searches ended with the position unfilled
(12%). Our study and theADE study both found that positions go unfilled
primarily due to an "inadequate candidate pool" (Huber, Pinney, and Lau
rence 43). Among all searches in our
sample, 6% were unable to fill their
vacancy because candidates refused the institution's offer; in 4% of cases,
the position went unfilled because no suitable candidate was found.
Evaluating Candidates
Candidate evaluation begins with a review of application materials sub
mitted in answer to an advertised vacancy. Table 2 records the importance
respondents accorded twenty-one elements at this initial stage.Most of
these items come from a
study of hiring in psychology (Sheehan, Mc
Devitt, and Ross 9), but we included others of interest to us. Scores ran
from 1, "extremely unimportant," to 6, "extremely important." Values
above 3.5 indicate that the item is important to recruiters; items below 3.5
are unimportant. In addition to the average (mean) ranking, table 2 also
records standard deviations, which indicate how far from themean a typi
cal respondent rated an item. The greater the standard deviation, the
greater the disagreement among respondents.
In evaluating candidates, the English faculty members in our sample
judged the candidate's "potential formaking a positive contribution to the
institution as awhole" to bemore important than any other consideration. It
and the letterof application were ranked highest, and both enjoyed substan
tial agreement?standard deviations for each are less than 1.0. Letters of
recommendation were ranked fourth.General teaching experience and ex
perience teaching the advertised specialties were both ranked highly,
more
highly than research specialties and the potential for future research. Farther
down the list the same pattern holds: evidence of teaching ability outranks
evidence of research ability. Specifically,
course evaluations and teaching
awards were cited asmore important than the number and quality of the
candidate's publications. The numbers of papers presented and authoring
a
book were both deemed unimportant, although authoring
a book has a
large
standard deviation, indicating that some
respondents rated itmuch more
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 IIWHAT SEARCHCOMMITTEESWANT
TABLE 2 =
Screening Criteria: Means and Standard Deviations
Standard
Criterion_
Mean Deviation
Potential for
making
a
positive contribution to the
institution as a whole
Candidate's letter of
application
General teaching experience
Letters of recommendation
Experience teaching
courses related to the
position description
Fit between the applicant's research interests and
the department's needs
Potential for future research
Quality of the applicant's doctoral institution
Quality
of course evaluations
Awards for teaching
Transcripts
Quality of journals inwhich the applicantpublished
Ability
to
incorporate
new
technologies
in
teaching
Number ofpublications
Academic service activities and experience
(committee work, etc.)
Number of presentations
Previous experience
as a student or
faculty member
in a
college
or
university with amission similar
to your own
Book authorship
Experience working with student clubs and groups
Community service
Candidate's religious preference
and/or commitment
Psychology means, from Sheehan, McDevitt, and Ross
highly than others. Finally, service, one of the three traditional areas of fac
ulty responsibility,
was consistently declared unimportant. Evidently, this as
pect of professionalization isnot generally
a factor in recruitment.
Table 3 records the ranking accorded twenty items likely to be impor
tant at the on-campus interview stage. At this point, interpersonal skills
and performances
can be?and are?judged. Our sample's recruiters rank
highest the candidate's performance at the interview with the search com
mittee; the job seeker's performance at the interview with the department
5.36
5.32
5.17 (4.99)a
5.06 (5.37)
0.87
0.87
0.79
0.97
4.99 (5.10) 1.01
4.83 (5.11)
4.73 (4.09)
4.12 (4.04)
4.10 (4.55)
3.87 (4.00)
3.75
3.73 (4.45)
3.57
3.56 (4.42)
1.31
1.29
1.11
1.32
1.27
1.39
1.37
1.33
1.31
3.42
3.37
1.20
1.14
3.23
2.91
2.58
2.55
1.44
1.46
1.55
1.27
1.20
1.29
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALTER BROUGHTON andWILLIAM CONLOGUE |||45
TABLE 3 =
On-Campus Interview Criteria: Means and Standard Deviations
Standard
CriterionMean Deviation
Performance at interview with the search committee 5.51 (5.21)a
Potential for making
a
positive contribution to the
institution as a whole 5.36
Candidate's ability
to relate well to students like ours 5.35
General teachingexperience 4.93 (4.80)
Performance during colloquium 4.92 (5.12)
Candidate's abilitytoget alongwith other faculty 4.89 (4.84)
Experience teaching
courses related to the
position description 4.84 (4.91)
Fit between applicant's research interests and
departmentneeds 4.73 (5.10)
Performance while teaching
a class 4.70 (4.91)
Candidate's personality 4.65 (4.62)
Letters of recommendation 4.63 (4.68)
Performance at interview with department chair 4.45 (4.60)
Quality of course evaluations 4.10
Teaching awards 3.75
Quality of journals inwhich applicantpublished 3.73
Number ofpublications 3.58
Previous experience
as a student or
faculty member
in a
college
or
university with a mission similar
to your own 3.42
Number of presentations 3.22
Book
authorship 2.87
Candidate's religious preference and/or commitment 1.46
0.84
0.93
0.75
0.83
1.48
0.91
1.02
1.29
1.80
0.96
1.16
1.32
1.33
1.26
1.37
1.27
1.54
1.15
1.56
1.31
Psychology means, from Sheehan, McDevitt, and Ross
chair, although deemed important, is ranked much lower. Performance at a
colloquium and while teaching
a class are very important, but note that the
standard deviation of each is quite high. Indeed, the greatest disagreement
in the survey is over the significance of performance while teaching
a class.
The ability to relate to students and to facultymembers and the candidate's
personality all emerge, in that order, as
important during the on-campus
visit. Respondents agree on the significance of these considerations; each
has a standard deviation less than 1.0.
At the on-campus stage, the candidate's potential formaking
a contribu
tion to the institution as awhole is once
again rated very highly. Teaching
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 IIWHAT SEARCHCOMMITTEESWANT
and research abilities remain important, although their values are now
slightly lower than at the initial screening. Likewise, letters of reference re
main important, but their value drops slightly compared with that in the
first stage. Once again, service is thought to be unimportant.
Screening applications appears to be amore uncertain and contentious
process than is screening candidates during the on-campus visit. Our data
suggest that there is less agreement among search committees about what
is important in a candidate's dossier than there is in assessing the candidate
inperson. Note that only four items at the application stage (table 2) have a
standard deviation less than 1.0. In addition, only nine criteria have amean
greater than 4. In table 3, however, six items have a standard deviation less
than 1.0, and thirteen criteria have amean greater than 4.
Once candidates come to campus, search committees clearly direct their
attention to the interpersonal skills thatmanifest themselves in teaching and
in student and coll?gial interactions. Are candidates' interpersonal skills then
deciding factors inwho gets the job? Several respondents volunteered obser
vations that suggest that this is so. For example,
a
department chairwith over
fifteenyears of experience at a baccalaureate institution comments:
The importance of personality, etc., vs. qualifications inhiring isdifficult
to [determine].The process startsby screening out unqualified candi
dates; then in narrowingf,] qualifications
are
extremely important.
So
when the final decision ismade among the top
two or three candidates,
in almost every circumstance, all of them are
highly
and relatively equally
qualified.So in thefinal decision, personality usually plays a big part. But
itwouldn't if
qualifications
weren't so
important
at all the earlier stages
of the process.
Several attitude items thatwe asked lend support to these assertions.
Over one-quarter of respondents (27%) think that personality and ap
pearance often have more influence than credentials in the selection of
candidates; nonetheless, in answer to another question, 56% agree that ac
ademic qualifications
are the most important consideration. Although
most believe that credentials are of paramount importance in hiring
a new
colleague, respondents acknowledge that amix of factors informs a com
mittee's decision making.
Much more than English search committees, those in psychology
ex
pect job candidates to have a track record in research presentation and
publication. Tables 2 and 3 record in parentheses how psychologists rank
each hiring criterion. Though the two disciplines generally agree in their
ratings, psychologists tend to screen applications according
to teaching and
research specialization and publication. Placing less emphasis
on a candi
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALTER BROUGHTON andWILLIAM CONLOGUE |||47
date's potential for research, they instead focus on the candidate's number of
publications and the quality of the journals inwhich those publications ap
pear. During the on-campus visit, psychologists put more
weight than En
glish facultymembers do on the interview with the chair and less on the
interview with the committee. Psychologists look closely at a candidate's
performance during
a
colloquium and during the teaching of a class; they
also continue to value specialization in teaching and research more
highly
than do their colleagues inEnglish. Psychologists
more often want "pre
professionalized" candidates.
English departments in doctoral institutions, however, resemble psy
chology departments in the emphasis they place on
specialization and
scholarly accomplishment. Twenty-three percent of search committees in
doctoral institutions believe that a candidate's number of publications is
"extremely important" when screening applications. In contrast, only 1%
of committees in baccalaureate institutions rank publication
as
extremely
important at this stage. Interestingly, departments in doctoral institutions
also attribute greater importance than other departments to the number of
presentations, but only in screening. Presentations are considered unimpor
tant at the interview stage, no matter what the institution's Carnegie classi
fication. Even among doctoral institutions, presentations are less important
during screening than the number of publications and the prestige of the
journals inwhich they appear.
An institution's Carnegie classification also predicts how much itsEn
glish department emphasizes teaching in its evaluation of candidates. Ta
ble 3 shows that respondents disagree about the importance of a candidate's
on-campus teaching performance. Specifically, teaching
a class is extremely
important for 60% of respondents in baccalaureate institutions; likewise,
52% of respondents in comprehensive institutions rate it as
extremely im
portant.When one turns to doctoral institutions, however, the percentage
drops precipitously: only 28% rate
teaching
a class as
extremely important;
32% rate this criterion as extremelyunimportant. Finally departments in doc
toral institutions rank the candidate's ability to contribute to the institution
as awhole less highly than do those in any other Carnegie classification.
New PhDs inEnglish
are
entering
a
segmented labormarket.
Selecting the First Choice
We asked respondents to list the top three factors used to determine the
committee's first choice. We divided the responses into four categories:
teaching, research, service, and interpersonal skills. Nearly two-thirds
(63%) cited teaching ability, performance, or experience as a
deciding factor.
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 IIWHAT SEARCHCOMMITTEESWANT
Forty-four percent cited research accomplishments
or
potential. Twenty
eight percent volunteered that the candidate's interpersonal skillswere deci
sive. Service was
hardly mentioned (6%). These results underscore what the
survey as awhole reveals: themodel candidate isfirst a
good teacher.
We also asked respondents to cite errors that "negatively affected [can
didates'] chances of being hired." Half of those surveyed noted at least one
error. The error most frequently cited was poor or indifferent teaching.
Poor presentation of research was a close second, followed by poor inter
personal skills, ignorance of the institution, and a lack of breadth of knowl
edge. Here are
examples of the responses that this question elicited:
Poor Teaching
"One never talked about
teaching."
"Focus on release time/money?questions about ways
to avoid classroom
teaching."
"One
taught
one of the most
boring
classes I've ever seen. Another talked about
how
lazy, uninformed, and so forth our students are?of course, they're
not."
"One candidate appeared
to consider himself superior
to the
teaching required
at
our
college. (He seemed to think that nurturing basic writers would be be
neath him.)"
Poor Presentation ofResearch
"Reluctance to
engage in discussion of research area."
"Presentations which are too technical or too insubstantial."
"Did a
lousy presentation.
Was churlish
during
dinner."
"Presented a
paper in an area that she was
working
on but [that] did not reveal
range of research experience
in the field."
Poor InterpersonalSkills
"Behavior perceived
as
insulting,
dismissive."
"During
one of the interview
questions, she threw up her arms and said, Jesus.'"
"One candidate was
overly argumentative,
even
belligerent, during
the interview
with the search committee."
"One campus visitor ignoredmany important people and failed to thank those
who helped him."
IgnoranceoftheHiring Institution
"Not
knowing enough
about the institution."
"Emphasizing
research over
teaching.
We are a
teaching
institution."
"Failure to demonstrate interest in our
college
or a
general knowledge
of who
we are."
Narrow Focus
"Some were unable to demonstrate an
ability
to move
beyond
a rather narrowly
focused research agenda?this lackof range and flexibilityhurt a fewotherwise
very strong candidates."
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALTER BROUGHTON andWILLIAM CONLOGUE |||49
"She came with her hair in an outlandish coif and seemed incapable of assessing
theworld outside her dissertation topic."
"Some could not talkbeyond/outside of theirown dissertations.They exhibited a
deathly
nervousness."
These criticisms are not unique to
English; the psychology survey cites
similar criticisms of candidates in that field (Sheehan, McDevitt, and Ross
10).When strangers with divergent interests negotiate forhigh stakes,mis
understanding and injured pride
can skew people's judgment. What was
happening in the interview inwhich the candidate threw up her arms and
said, "Jesus"? Did she overreact, or was the question outrageous? Why the
attention to a candidate's hair?When does the defense of one's position
cross the line into belligerency? Do nervous candidates sometimes over
state their positions? Or do some committee members perceive it to be ar
rogant when heavily credentialed applicants cite their accomplishments?
Certainly, both sides run the risk?and know the costs?of making
amis
take. Is thiswhy many committee members turn to instinct?When asked if
gut-level reactions are important in the hiring process, 73% of respondents
agreed that they
are.Without empathy and tolerance, however, misinter
pretation, selective observation, and rationalization can rule themoment.
According to our
findings, the typical English department search com
mittee seeks a tenure-track assistant professor with a PhD in literature,
most commonly British. These committees are entrusted with the task and
experience little conflict with the academic administration. After sifting
through nearly
a hundred applications, a committee interviews eight
or
more candidates at theMLA convention and then invites its top three
choices to campus. Afterward, the committee forwards itsfirst choice to the
administration, and the search ends successfully and?for the committee?
happily. Over half of all respondents (57%) to our questionnaire agreed
that participating in a
faculty search is a
highly satisfying experience.
When screening applications and on-campus candidates, English de
partments generally look for evidence of good teaching first and research
potential second. Only in doctoral institutions does research rival teaching.
Across the board, the candidate with the best interpersonal skills?all else
being equal?is offered the job.
What do search committees want? Our data indicate that the vast ma
jority seek a candidate who can
effectively teach specific courses to the stu
dents the English department serves. The committees want a
colleague
who will work collaboratively with their department's facultymembers and
who will fit inwell with their institution. Only
a
minority of committees
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 IIIWHAT SEARCHCOMMITTEESWANT
seek a candidate with a book or
publications. Committees that do, of
course, work in the same departments that are
preparing candidates to
work in the entire spectrum of English departments. It is perhaps mainly
because thisminority trains everyone that somany believe that "preprofes
sionalism" is required to get a
job.
NOTES =
The authors are indebted to Linda Hutcheon for her moral support and to the
Marywood Office ofAcademic Affairsfor itsfinancial support.We are gratefulalso to
David Laurence, who provided supplementary data from the records of theMLA, and
to Lois Santarsiero andMeghan McCrea for their
indispensable clerical work.
lln their 1982-83 surveyofEnglish departments,M?ller andLeMaster found that
14% of communitycolleges and 67% of those institutionsgrantingBA or BA andMA
degrees (comparedwith 85% of thedoctoral programs) advertisedvacancies in theJIL
(54 [reconstructedfromtable4]).
2
The 48% o? JIL listings cited above is close to the proportion of the market com
manded by doctoral institutions as
reported in the surveys ofM?ller and LeMaster,
40% {52) and ofHuber, Pinney, and Laurence, 46% (45). These surveys, however, over
estimate this market share, because the response rate of doctoral programs was
higher
than those of all other Carnegie classifications. Moreover, doctoral programs
are most
likelyto advertise in theJIL.When M?ller andLeMaster project thenumber ofhires
per year, however, they apply the hiring
rate of each Carnegie type in their survey to the
total number of all departments of that type, thereby reducing the overestimation.
WORKS CITED
Ad Hoc Committeeon theProfessionalizationofPhDs.MLA 11May 2001. 15May 2001
<http://www.mla.org/>, click on "Committees and Commissions."
Curren, Erik D. "No Openings
atThis Time: Job Market Collapse and Graduate Edu
cation." Profession
94. New York: MLA, 1994. 57-61.
-. "Response toJohnT. Day." ADE Bulletin 111(1995):45-46.
Franklin,Phyllis."October 2000EmploymentTrends."MLA Newsletter33.1 (2001):4-7.
Guillory, John. "Preprofessionalism: What Graduate Students Want." ADE Bulletin 113
(1996): 4-8.
Huber, Bettina J., Denise Pinney, and David Laurence. "Patterns of Faculty Hiring
in
Four-YearEnglish Programs:Findings froma 1987-88 SurveyofJobInformationList
Advertisers."ADE Bulletin99 (1991): 39-48.
Laurence, David. "Re: Fwd: Data Request for David Laurence." E-mail message to
Walter Broughton.
19May 2001.
-. "Re:
Request for David Laurence." E-mail message toWalter
Broughton.
22May 2001.
M?ller, Kurt, and R.
Douglas
LeMaster. "Criteria Used in
Selecting English Faculty
in
American Colleges andUniversities."ADE Bulletin11 (1984): 51-57.
Musser, Joseph. "The On-Campus Interview." ADE Bulletin 111 (1995): 11-13.
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALTER BROUGHTON andWILLIAM CONLOGUE |||51
Nelson, Cary. "No Wine before Its Time: The Panic over
Early Professionalization."
Profession2000.New York:MLA, 2000. 157-63.
"PositionsListed, byRank."Table obtainedfromMLA 26Apr. 2001.
Sheehan, Eugene P., Teresa M. McDevitt, and Heather C. Ross.
"Looking
for a Job as a
Psychology Professor? Factors AffectingApplicant Success." Teaching ofPsychology
25.1 (1998): 8-11.
Showalter,English. "The Academic Job Search." TheMLA Guide totheJobSearch.Ed.
Showalter et al. New York: MLA, 1996. 16-56.
Spacks, PatriciaMeyer. "The Academic Marketplace: Who Pays ItsCosts?" MLA
Newsletter26.2(l994y.5.
This content downloaded from 193.0.65.67 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:25:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions