job searches

Dana Ann Dudle ddudle at
Wed Jan 29 17:10:34 EST 1997

Bharathi Jagadeesh (bjag at wrote:
> Oddly enough, I think the fact that the department was politically
> dense enough not to "fix" their short list ratio suggests that
> they might have actually chosen their short list in an overtly
> non-discriminatory way. 

I agree; I think that the committee made up the short list using only 
the criteria for the job that they had made up prior to reading the 
applications.  I think that the committee was overtly 
non-discriminatory.  In fact, the description of the goings-on during the 
committee's meetings makes me think that they did notice the sex ratio 
throughout the search process, and did what they thought they could to 
make the list more equitable.

I should also say that I don't think the committee had the stats on the 
sex ratio of the affirmative action response cards until after the short 
list was made.  THe short list was introduced to the department 
(including students) and some accompanying information (like the criteria 
used, number of applicants, etc.) was included in that presentation.  

For the purposes of discussion, the job ad was for a general position, 
but the job is also pretty general.  I don't think there were very 
specific requirements in terms of the area of expertise in this case.

Still, the fact that the committee was trying to be non-discriminatory 
but the results seem not to reflect that... makes me worry.  Something 
just seems wrong about it, and I can't put my finger on it.


More information about the Womenbio mailing list