I'm spending today doing course outlines, meeting with students, and reading letters of reference.* Carleton is hiring this year. I'm on the labour/behavioural economics committee, which so far has received over 100 applications.
A candidate's letters of reference are a key part of the package. Generally I skip to the end and read the last couple of paragraphs. If a person is a graduate from a good school [i.e. top 3 in Canada, top 20 in US], and their letter says "our best applied micro candidate on the market this year," then that person is almost certain to make the interview list, especially if there is something on the file indicating some kind of connection to Ottawa or to Canada, or a liking for long, cold winters.
Any information about the candidate's rank is usually a good signal, because people writing letters of reference tend to follow the rule "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." However a letter writer will almost always provide a ranking if she is writing letters for two candidates applying for the same job. Not ranking would hurt both candidates, ranking hurts only one, so ranking the candidates is the better strategy.
The letters also try to convey what the candidate is like as a person. An eye for an interesting research problem (or, less frequently, a nose) is complementary; "enthusiastic" is the kiss of death. "Hard working" or "energetic" are only positive if the letter writer can convey that the candidate would win the intellectual equivalent of an iron man race, as in "____ has a ferocious appetite for work." Only women are "young"; only men are "affable." "Would make a good colleague" is to be expected – if there is not a line to that effect, I worry.
It might surprise – even worry – people to know that a candidate who "would be a good hire for a teaching-oriented university" might not make our short list. But they don't, and the reason is straight out of ECON 1000.
In terms of teaching, we are interested in the candidate's absolute teaching ability. Are they good teachers or not? The information in letters of reference, however, is about a candidate's comparative advantage in teaching. "Would be a good hire for a teaching-oriented university" only means that the person is better at teaching than at research – but might not be particularly good at either. (Although they're likely better at teaching than the candidate who would be a "good hire for a government department or policy research institute.")
Moreover, being a competent teacher is only partly about being a good communicator and a dynamic speaker. The person who can get their research done on time is probably also going to be able to get their exams and course outlines done on time; the person who is smart enough to use advanced research techniques is probably also going to be smart enough to keep up with our best students; the person who can think of new research ideas is probably going to be able to think of interesting exam questions.
Academic research is, in a way, like peacock feathers. It's beautiful to look at, and of dubious practical value. Yet because it's the best available signal of an individual's fitness, that's what we go for.
*and blogging.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
Kim,
You missed Frances’ caveat “taking into account hours of work and consulting opportunities”. Sure, they could work at stats can, the BOC, do transfer pricing for the accounting firms or forecasting for the banks and they might even make more money doing it. But they’d have to work damned hard to do it, and they’d lack the freedom and flexibility in terms of how and when they work, or what they work on. There’s a reason academics are so keen on getting tenure.
Frances,
To what extent would you say that your hiring practices are similar to those at other Canadian universities? I ask because I was wondering about Rebel’s point of unbundling research and teaching. While I agree that doing that at the department level probably isn’t practical, you could certainly do it at the university level (i.e., have universities that truly are “research” universities vs. universities focused on teaching, in much the same way, in theory, you have that division between the University of California system and the California State system).
While there are certainly universities in Canada that identify as “teaching” universities (or are identified as such by default because they don’t do any worthwhile research), my suspicion is that many of those universities follow the same type of hiring practices (to say nothing of promotion or tenure decision) that you identify, if only because no one wants to admit to being a “teaching” university, with the end result that they get staffed by second rate “researchers” (since the top candidates get snaffled up by the true “research” universities) instead of getting staffed by top “teachers”. I could be wrong about that, of course, which is why I ask the question.
If that’s right, the solution is to have universities established as true teaching institutions (for example, with increased expecations vis-a-vis course load, but lower expectations vis-a-vis publication). While students at such universities might not benefit from the cutting edge research of their peers at “research” univerisities, let’s face it, there’s a good chunk of the student population who simply don’t care (you know, the kids who put up their hand and ask “is this going to be on the exam” or who come to your office telling you that they need an A on their wretched paper on the causes of the Great Depression because they want to get into law school). And hey, let’s face it, that’s already happening with the proliferation of “contract” instructors. Moreover, a university which focussed on teaching (again, with increased course loads for professors) could probably offer a university education at a lower cost than the traditional research focussed university (which, presumably, would be attractive to those students who just think that a university degree is a box to be checked on their career path, rather than an intellectually stimulating experience).
Bob – a question that replies a 1000 word answer or none at all. This is the central issue that the Ontario university sector is struggling with right now, I’ll be blogging more about it later. I can’t do justice to the points you raise at present (marking, course outlines, elderly cars, etc).
Kim: “Take the faculty of top 5-6 economics department in Canada and I think most of them could find an as good paying job, in the us by example.”
The market for used faculty members is a bit like the market for used cars – people are very scared of buying a lemon. Anyone who wants to leave their current place of employment for no obvious reason might be a person who tends to get into fights or feuds with colleagues. Just one toxic personality can poison an entire department. This it a harm to be avoided at all costs.
Plus faculty members, like cars, depreciate over time. Once you’re over a certain age, unless you’re a super-star academic with a reputation for being a really good guy, it’s very difficult to move. Why would a university hire someone whose best years are likely behind them when they could hire a potential rising star?
Plus when the Cdn dollar was at 60-odd cents US a number of people left and/or negotiated salary increases with outside offers – those who could get better offers elsewhere, did. Now the Cdn dollar is at parity, people who negotiated “competitive offers” based on a 65 cent dollar are sitting pretty.
At U of T perhaps – what- 20%? 40% – of the faculty might be able to negotiate a comparable offer elsewhere. Sure, we’d love to hire that well-known economist who grew up in Ottawa and whose mom taught at Carleton, but the administration would never give us the dollars to make him a competitive offer. (If you’re reading, though, and if you’re interested…)
The current research/instruction model has to deal with two personality types: extroverts and introverts. It excels with extroverts, people who will dish out knowledge to any passers by. In Canada before 1945 most universities were founded by churches, the main choices for BA students were law, grad study or theology leading to ordination. Carleton was the among the very first to be founded without religious backing in fact.
You could describe the model as the Preacher Model, its thrives on enthusiastic evangelists and tries to produce people who can learn very advanced concepts (theology) and then teach them to broad audiences (rural churches).
But the system also produces introverts, researchers who are extremely talented in one particular area and are able to produce incredible analysis but who cannot communicate. I have had professors who lack basic public speaking skills. Then teaching really, really suffers. These people really suffer too because the system is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Further, it seems clear to me that Carleton, for all claims about teaching, really wants to be a research university. Frances descriptions about their emphasis on research and publication and her coolness to a trial seminar leads me to this conclusion. I feel a trial seminar is in the best interests of both parties, Carleton would get someone who is at least a passable instructor and the candidate is given a real chance to demonstrate their skills in a significant piece of their day-to-day workload. If the candidate can’t do it, they should realize what they are in for.
Determinant: “Frances… coolness to a trial seminar”
I wrote in response to Greg: “I’m a big fan of this particular approach.” I’m not sure how that indicates coolness.
Kim: “the solution is to have universities established as true teaching institutions (for example, with increased expecations vis-a-vis course load, but lower expectations vis-a-vis publication)”
This actually describes the current system. I would expect that UofT, UBC, Queens, UWO probably have the toughest tenure requirements research-wise, and this decreases as you move down a ranking of Cdn econ depts. The small universities in the maritimes require very good proof of teaching ability and teaching innovation for tenure, but still require a few research publications as well (just not very many given the institution’s main focus and the heavy course load). And as Greg mentioned earlier, these schools require potential hires to not only present their research but to teach an undergrad lecture as well when on a campus visit.
The big universities also have adapted by having teaching track positions where tenure is, e.g., 80% teaching 20% service (I think UBC calls these positions “Instructors” but I know Guelph has no differentiation in title). I assume that for these positions they specifically look for teaching ability.
“a question that replies a 1000 word answer or none at all. This is the central issue that the Ontario university sector is struggling with right now, I’ll be blogging more about it later. I can’t do justice to the points you raise at present (marking, course outlines, elderly cars, etc).”
No worries, I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, it’s just I’ve heard other make proposals along those lines, and was curious about your thoughts.
Determinant – it’s just occurred to me that you may not be aware that it is standard practice at all North American universities for job candidates to give a 90 minute seminar during which they present their research, reply to questions, and so on. The debate is about whether or not candidates should be required to make an additional presentation of undergraduate-level material.
On Stephen’s: “…..and then there was an awkward pause in the conversation.”
Your blog needs a “like” button.
The University of Victoria now has several…many?..”senior instructor” positions: essentially the 80-20 teaching-admin positions Frances referenced. These positions are renewable 5(?) year contracts, and there is the possibility of conversion to a tenured “teaching professor” position under certain conditions. One issue in econ depts is what to assign to people in these positions. An obvious option is intro and intermediate theory courses…but then what do we have our PhD students teach?
One thing I miss about not hiring this year is the exposure to current PhD topics.
Well, the hot topic in macro seems to be models of financial contagion…
Thanks Frances.
Judging from the quality or lack thereof of professors I have seen, and I know of one Civil Engineering prof who plaintively complained to his dept. administrator that he didn’t know how to teach, undergrad lecturing needs to be looked at and examined separately.
I repeat that any university is going to put a prof on the undergrad teaching schedule and teaching people who are not (yet) your intellectual equals is a more complicated task than presenting your research to academic peers. Teaching, as a part of the job, needs to be looked at in fairness to everyone, the faculty, students and the individual seeking appointment.
“Pulpit presence” and public speaking in a lecture hall to students with lots of concise simplification required on the fly is different then a seminar to fellow profs. You need gravitas, control and extroversion of a kind that you don’t need in a seminar. Introverts, which that Civil Engineering prof I mentioned most definitely was, do far less well leading undergrad lectures.
My university had a regulation that all professors had to take undergrad courses and of course newly-appointed professors rated first-year courses….
Determinant: ” “Pulpit presence” ”
Yep. Good concept. Applicable, in large classes. It resonates well.
Frances,
some department strategy is clearly to hire big star (near retirement) to give them 5-10 good years and attract better profs.
by exemple, Mcgill and calgary recently.
It seems to be working to some degree, especially in calgary. Last year, they placed their phd student suprisingly well. At Mcgill, the big name made some good profs in other field leave though…
Kim, yup, Calgary was precisely the university I had in mind when I wrote “with a reputation for being a really good guy”.
One reason that strategy worked for these institutions in the past is that Ontario had a standard retirement age, but Quebec didn’t. So quite a number of people would take early retirement from their position in Ontario, and then take a job in Quebec and build up a second pension.
With the end of standard retirement at 65 we’re starting to see a few such moves within Ontario. A colleague in another unit just did one – taking advantage of Carleton’s early retirement provisions. (I’m speculating here. People have been known to “do a Harry Johnson” and maintain full-time positions at two different universities).
But these aren’t cases of giving up your salary from university A and collecting a salary from university B instead, university B’s salary supplements university A’s.
In some of cases – too – there are other issues, e.g. second families, or just a desire for change.
Nick:
Determinant: ” “Pulpit presence” ”
Yep. Good concept. Applicable, in large classes. It resonates well.
If you like the concept, then please see my earlier comment that the United Church puts great emphasis on preaching ability when Ministers seek new churches. It is standard practice for a prospective minister to preach at least one and preferably three Sundays so the congregation and the Minister can get a feel for what they are getting. Presbytery, the local administrative district/council, puts great emphasis on these efforts because if a church/minister relationship goes wrong, they have to deal with it. What we call JNAC reports, which detail what the congregation wants can be rosy and so can a minister’s CV. A visit lets the warts come through.
It is expected that the congregation will pay for the prospective Minister to come and do this, even for ministers relocating from across the country.
Universities’ market for profs is very similar to the United Church’s market for Ministers.
It is a real market too. Though most churches are constrained by their own means and the salary grid, churches are free to pay more than the grid requires. They can also through in additional things like sabbaticals. The United Church recently passed a provision that allows for a minister to take a three month sabbatical after five years of ministry in a church. My own church’s minister is now taking this option and the church of course has to make arrangements for the costs, which we are happy to do.
I recently suggested that next year that the church put a line-item in the budget to save for sabbatical costs over the next seven years. This was widely accepted and will likely be implemented. I also mentioned that it would be a real sales feature for our church when we need a new minister as we are a small-town church is rural Ontario. It is attractive in and of itself and it also speaks volumes about the organizational ability of a church; it says to the prospective minister that the church will be ably run and will likely be problem-free.
See, the United Church has a market for ministers with advertising, signalling and everything.
There’s also the substitution effect to consider. If you’re an economist, a great communicator, and not working on something completely esoteric, why not work at a B-school instead and make 40-60% more money plus have more consulting opportunities?
Business schools put far, far more weight on being able to communicate. It’s all a matter of incentives: Ivey’s MBA tuition is $73,500 for Canadian students, $88,500 for foreign students – for a 12 month program.
Hmmmm. Biz Skool, or preacher? Which should I have tried for instead?
Auto mechanic?
When winter comes, I often think about the alternate universe where I became an ophthalmologist and moved to Arizona.
Mike “Auto mechanic?” 😉
A wee test…
If you hear the word “tranny” and think:
transmission – you should have been an auto mechanic
trans-gendered individual – you should have been a sociology professor
Transylvanian – you should have been a vampire
Follow-up test: A “postie” is
a) a person who delivers the mail or
b) a person who believes reality is all socially constructed
If you answer (a) to that one as well you’ve really missed your calling, Nick!
Leader of a mega church? That would cover biz skool skills, preaching, and trannies (not the automotive kind though).
See Metropolitan United Church, Toronto. Located on Queen Street, one of the ten biggest congregations in the whole United Church of Canada and right next to Toronto’s Gay Neighbourhood.
They do have a minister who is gay as the United Church had the Great Debate 20 years ago.
Unfortunately you don’t get to churches like Met until the end of your career. You generally start out in Upper Left Boot, Saskatchewan, as it is colloquially known in the trade.
Perhaps as many as 5% of academic economists in Canada could quit their job tomorrow and find another job that paid equally well (taking into account hours of work and consulting opportunities). Perhaps 10%.
The rest of us are terrified of market forces or – if not – have grossly overinflated egos and/or a total detachment from reality.
The only thing that gets me about this truth is that the economics profession then wonders why the rest of us are scared stiff of a free market. And then you start saying we need more free markets to solve the problems with the the free market we created the first time.
I detect some cognitive dissonance here.
Or put another way, it makes me want to break into song:
“The Old Free Market, she ain’t what she used to be, ain’t what she used to be, ain’t what she used to be….”
Determinant – “The only thing that gets me about this truth is that the economics profession then wonders why the rest of us are scared stiff of a free market.”
It’s partly the detachment from reality and/or inflated ego issue that I mentioned already. It’s also the issue that we talked about on Nick’s God and Man post – the tendency of people who believe in markets work more-or-less in a simple and straightforward way to self-select into teaching intro courses and talking on the media, and the people who believe that the real world is incredibly complex and predictions are difficult to self-select into teaching upper level courses and staying in the ivory tower.
THe truth is that without tenure, a lot of profs would loose their jobs and be unemployed.
things were a lot easier a few years ago. Small and medium canadian university are now hiring people that are a lot better than many of their senior prof, even at their best. You can compare the publication of the two groups…
Determinant: that was me making an oblique reference to some current events in the US.
Patrick: I’ll google it then. I don’t pay much attention to US megachurches, admittedly. But I do have a hobby-horse of showing people what churches are actually like and tearing up stereotypes. The United Church of Canada has ordained ministers from all four letters of GLBT (though only one T, there was an article about her, formerly him, in the Observer, our house magazine, a few months ago).
Frances:
OK, no argument at all, but the next time we have a thread where somebody says “Ewww, Free Markets, the suffering, the suffering….” and receives a cool response from the economists (not just the posters) around WCI, I’m linking to this thread.