Senate Search Guide: Creating the Search Plan

Name

Use the following format for the title: “Job title – approved search area – unit.”

For example:

• Assistant Professor – Modern Hebrew Literature – Department of Comparative Literature

• Associate/Full Professor – Metabolic Biology – Department of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology

This format provides consistency with our centrally funded automatic online advertising.

If you wish to use a job title and/or approved search area wording that differs at all from what was authorized in the FTE allocation, it is essential for you to get approval from the Budget Committee and Vice Provost before submitting the search plan for approval. OFEW does not have the authority to review such changes.

For crosslisted searches, list all units in the title if there are three or fewer units. If there are more than three units, do not include the units in the title. 

Search firms

List any search firms involved in this recruitment.

When using a search firm for an academic recruitment, all applicants that apply through the search firm must also have an application in APRecruit (either through the candidate applying directly or through the creation of a manual application in APRecruit by the AP analyst). All applications received directly in AP Recruit can also be routed to the search firm. Individuals cannot be considered applicants until there is a complete, submitted application in AP Recruit, and files received only by the search firm cannot be shared with the committee until a complete application is submitted in AP Recruit.

Dates

Although senate and non-senate searches both use review dates, senate searches should not be run as “open until filled.” The initial review date and the final date should always be the same for senate searches, and they must be at least 30 days after the open date. We recommend that the search remain open for 45 - 60 days to allow sufficient time for outreach.

If the search committee feels that the applicant pool is not sufficient, they can extend the search by adding an additional review date (and thus extending the final date). 

Additional review dates cannot be added to accommodate individual applicant requests for deadline extensions.

Title and level information

Select all applicable title codes for the position, but do not include acting title codes. OFEW will add acting title codes later if needed.

If you wish to describe the position in such a way that differs at all from what was authorized in the FTE allocation, it is essential for you to get approval from the Budget Committee and Vice Provost before submitting the search plan for approval

LSOE searches should be referred to as Teaching Professors (e.g., Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, etc.) in the title and the position description, with clear information stating that the position is eligible for the equivalent of tenure, or holds the equivalent of tenure (depending on the rank of the allocated FTE).

For open-rank (multilevel) recruitments, the following can be used for applicant instructions: 

Level 1 name: Assistant Professor (or Assistant Teaching Professor)

"Individuals should submit their application at this level if they meet one of the following conditions: Current or recent PhD candidate or graduate; current or recent postdoc; current assistant professor (including those who are “senior” assistant professors near tenure); position equivalent to assistant professor (ie., at an international university). Please note that this level determination is only for application review purposes, not the ultimate appointment level of the finalist."

Level 2 name:  Associate Professor (or Associate Teaching Professor)

"Individuals should submit their application at this level if they meet one of the following conditions: Current tenured professor; position equivalent to tenured professor (ie., at an international university). Please note that this level determination is only for application review purposes, not the ultimate appointment level of the finalist."

For multilevel faculty searches that do not align with the above example (e.g., searches where the normal degree expectation is not the doctorate), please contact the Dean’s Office for recommended language, or sign up for OFEW office hours.

Salary range

To remain in compliance with California Senate Bill 1162, all senate job ads will need to include the following paragraph. Please note that the upper bound should be $22K higher than the corresponding salary range in the 2024-25 salary scales:

The current salary range for this position is $[Insert]–$[Insert] (9-month academic year salary), however, off-scale salary and other components of pay, which would yield compensation that is higher than this range, are offered to meet competitive conditions.

For example, if the 2024-25 salary range for a position is $80,000 - $100,000, the salary language would read:

“The current salary range for this position is $80,000 - $122,000 (9-month academic year salary), however, off-scale salary and other components of pay, which would yield compensation that is higher than this range, are offered to meet competitive conditions.”

More information about this requirement can be found on BMAP

Position description

The position description serves as a significant signal to applicants about the department and University, including whether Berkeley is a place potential candidates would want to work. Advertisements that are written with the intention to be welcoming and inclusive, as opposed to implying that candidates should “walk on water” or the department is "the best," are more likely to result in strong, diverse applicant pools. Additionally, job descriptions that state a broad range of academic areas typically yield a richer, more diverse pool of candidates. 

Advancing equity and inclusion is fundamental to our UC Berkeley Principles of Community, which states that “every member of the UC Berkeley community has a role in sustaining a safe, caring and humane environment in which these values can thrive,” and the University of California policy on diversity, which states that, “The University particularly acknowledges the acute need to remove barriers to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of talented students, faculty, and staff from historically excluded populations who are currently underrepresented.” Consistent with the University’s goals, recruitments make clear our campus values with respect to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging by integrating the following language into all advertisements as standard text:

“Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging are core values at UC Berkeley. Our excellence can only be fully realized by faculty, students, and academic and non-academic staff who share our commitment to these values. Successful candidates for our academic positions will demonstrate evidence of a commitment to advancing equity, inclusion, and belonging.”

More information on this topic is available on the Faculty Contributions to Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging OFEW webpage.

Additionally, all advertisements should include additional language near the beginning of the advertisement description that highlights the department/unit’s unique focus in this area. 

Documents overview

The choice of application requirements should be considered carefully - too many documents can result in small or otherwise poor applicant pools, particularly at the senior/tenured level. Incomplete applications cannot be considered.

All applications require a Curriculum Vitae. Other documents are optional, and can also be added at a later point in the search process (e.g., only for the short list candidates). Required documents cannot be changed after the search opens.

For open-rank searches (“multilevel”) different documents can be requested for candidates at each level.

Contributions to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging

Although the current default in AP Recruit, with auto-populated instructions, is a standalone statement on contributions to DEIB as part of the initial candidate application, we recommend considering requesting that applicants integrate their discussion of contributions to DEIB as part of research, teaching, and service statements. This connects explicitly to the three interrelated facets of the job. It is also possible to review contributions to DEIB in a later stage in the search process, for example, of candidates on the “long list.” At a minimum, search committees should evaluate this aspect of excellence in research, teaching, and service prior to recommending candidates for the short list for campus visits. 

Suggested language for application instructions when requesting contributions to DEIB within research, teaching, and service statements:

Statement of Research

• “Discuss research accomplishments and proposed plans, including inclusive research practices that promote the excellence of your research. For more information, refer to the Berkeley Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare, Faculty Contributions to Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging at Berkeley webpage.”

Statement of Teaching and Mentoring

• “Discuss prior teaching experience, teaching approach, and future teaching interests, including specific efforts and future plans  to support the success of all students through curriculum, classroom environment, and pedagogy. Include discussion of mentoring experiences and approach, including past efforts and future plans to foster equitable and inclusive research environments. For more information, refer to the Berkeley Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare, Faculty Contributions to Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging at Berkeley webpage."

Statement of Service

• “Discuss specific prior and proposed academic, professional and/or public service, including activities that would further the University’s diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging goals. For more information, refer to the UC Berkeley Principles of Community and  UC Regents policy 4400.”

Suggested language for application instructions when requesting a standalone statement on contributions to DEIB: 

"Statement on your contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in research, teaching, and service, including information about your record of activities to date, and plans for contributing if hired at UC Berkeley. More information and guidelines."

Application requirements for senior searches

To increase the number of viable candidates for senior searches, we recommend requesting the minimum number of documents needed for the intial round of review, for example, a CV, research statement, and a statement on contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. Additional materials can be requested of candidates under serious consideration.

References/Letters of recommendation

We recommend that recruitments that use letters of recommendation set the reference type in AP Recruit to “contact information only.” Use the ‘reference process explanation’ section to provide any additional explanation of the planned reference process (e.g., references will only be contacted for those candidates under serious consideration and we will seek your permission before doing so).

Setting up references as “contact information only” allows the search committee to request letters of reference from select applicants at a later stage in the search (e.g., requesting letters for only longlisted or shortlisted candidates).

Requiring letters of recommendation for all applicants at the time of application, rather than a later stage, can be problematic for the following reasons:

• Some candidates, particularly those who are more vulnerable such as current assistant professors, women, or individuals from minoritized groups, may choose not to apply to the position if they must reveal the fact that they are seeking employment. This is typically less of a concern if a candidate knows they are being seriously considered for the position. 

• Search committee reviewers can be prematurely influenced by the assessment of an outside individual before making their own independent evaluation of the candidates’ qualifications. Some candidates can also be advantaged or disadvantaged by signaling of prestige or “pedigree.” 

• Letters of references can suffer from biased language, particularly for women and candidates of color. Even a single “doubt raiser” phrase among many positive accolades (e.g., “the candidate has a somewhat challenging personality,” “she may be a good leader in the future”) can be sufficient to skew search committees’ overall assessment of a candidate.  

• In most searches a significant proportion of the applicant pool is not competitive for a position at Berkeley. For those candidates, letters of reference are not useful, and instead become a large source of unnecessary labor for many faculty letter writers. In searches with hundreds of applicants this can equate to thousands of letter writers submitting letters that will not be carefully read or support the hire of their advisee or collaborator.  

We also recommend that search committees consider creating clear guidelines on how information in letters of reference will be used; for example, what can be learned, what evidence the letters will provide to augment the assessment of candidates, etc. 

Applicants should not be deselected for lacking letters of reference unless a deadline for a specified required number of letters is provided to the applicants, and they have been notified of the missing letters and given an opportunity to rectify the situation. Analysts can send email reminders to applicants and referees regarding missing letters of reference and re-request letters in the system. Applicants can also re-request letters of reference from their referees, even after the final application deadline. Applicant requests to swap out unresponsive referees should be granted (including after the deadline).

Please note that for searches set up with the “contact information only” reference requirement, the search committee is not obligated to contact the referees. However, if letters are requested of one candidate at a given stage, they should be requested of all candidates at that stage.

All potential referees must be given notice of the University of California policy on disclosure and confidentiality of academic personnel review files, including when the letters are provided via a third party such as a dossier service or career center. The link to the policy is: apo.berkeley.edu/ucb-confidentiality-policy. Referees who upload their letter into AP Recruit will receive notice of the policy.

Pilot program to require attestation, disclosure, and reference checking regarding prior misconduct for senate faculty hiring 

UC Berkeley is piloting a program (AYs 2023/24 - 2024/25) to require attestation, disclosure, and reference checking regarding prior misconduct for senate faculty hiring. This program is based on a program that UC Davis has used for the last several years. It has three components: 

• an Authorization of Information Release for all applicants; 

• an Attestation/Disclosure (in which candidates disclose the fact of any open investigation, ongoing disciplinary proceeding, or substantiated allegations of misconduct at their current or a previous place of employment within the preceding ten years) for all applicants selected as the "finalist" (the candidate to whom the hiring unit would like to extend a formal offer); 

• a reference check for any finalist who affirmatively discloses relevant substantiated allegations of misconduct.

For all senate searches, a standard description of this program, available in the Senate Search Plan checklist, must be included in the position description. Because all applicants will be required to sign and upload an Authorization of Information Release form at the time of application, all senate searches  must add this form to their list of required application documents. If an applicant does not upload the form, the application will be considered incomplete, and as with any incomplete application, cannot not receive further consideration. We strongly encourage you to review the full program description available in BMAP (short version here).

The OFCCP, U.S, Department of Labor, requires that basic requirements be established and listed for all academic positions. These requirements must be met at the time of application and are necessary for consideration as an applicant for the position. Individuals who do not meet the basic qualifications listed for the job cannot be hired.

Each individual who applies for an academic position will be considered “unknown” until assessed by the analyst or chair for meeting the requirements. The assessment will move the individual to the “qualified” or “unqualified” group. Only those individuals who meet the basic qualifications will be considered applicants according to the federal government. Individuals with incomplete applications should remain in the “unknown”category and should not be assessed for the basic qualifications.

It is best practice to review applicants for the basic qualifications as soon as they apply because they cannot be considered further if they do not.

Basic and additional qualifications are those that are:

• Non-Comparative (e.g., three years’ experience in a particular position, rather than a comparative requirement such as “must have the most years’ experience, among all candidates”)

• Objective (e.g., "an advanced degree or enrolled in an advanced degree program at the time of application" but not “a technical degree from a good school”)

• Relevant to the performance of the particular position

• Verifiable by evidence or statements in the applicant’s submitted materials (or through an interview for additional qualifications)

A PhD cannot be required at the time of application for assistant professor positions unless postdoctoral experience is a standard prerequisite. For those positions we strongly recommend using the following language for the basic qualifications: "PhD (or equivalent international degree), or enrolled in PhD or equivalent international degree-granting program at the time of application." Similarly, assistant professor positions without postdoctoral experience as a standard prerequisite may not state a date by which the PhD must be held (e.g., advertisements may not state: "PhD or equivalent international degree must be held by start date" or "PhD or equivalent international degree must be obtained within one year of start date."

For senior faculty positions (or junior positions that typically require postdoctoral experience) we recommend: "PhD or equivalent international degree at the time of application." For multilevel searches the basic qualifications must be the same for all levels; select the lowest common requirement.

Additional qualifications are the minimum requirements necessary to perform the job. They must be met by the start date of the position. Failure to meet one of the additional qualifications disqualifies the person for hire. For senate faculty positions there are often no additional qualifications listed.

Preferred qualifications are those that are preferred but not required. The majority of all qualifications should be preferred. Use this section to signal what level of experience is desired, particular preferred degree, the field/discipline possibilities, etc.

There are two data representations that provide demographic benchmarks and goals for academic recruitments: (1) “Availability Demographics” provide information about the national availability pool for a particular position by gender and race/ethnicity; and (2) “Affirmative Action Goals” provide information about demographic groups in broad job areas that are currently “underutilized” at Berkeley according to their national availability. Neither of these data sources are “perfect,” but they do provide a helpful benchmark from which to guide outreach plans, and to then measure general effectiveness of those outreach efforts.

Departments may also wish to view their own departmental data demographics, both currently and over time. These tables are updated yearly and available through OFEW upon request. They provide a specific benchmark pipeline for the department, by gender and race/ethnicity, over the last approximately 20 years. Please note that we do not currently have sufficient numbers, nor national availability information for other demographic categories such as gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability, among others. However, the university values and seeks a more diverse faculty across all categories and intersectionalities.

Availability Demographics

The availability demographics serve as the benchmark by which the applicant pool should be compared, by gender and race/ethnicity. For most positions at Berkeley the data come from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, and provide information about the national availability of PhD recipients over a relevant recent time period (typically five years for non-senate academic positions).

The search committee should review the availability data, and compare the applicant pool to this information in order to evaluate the general effectiveness of the search and recruitment outreach efforts.

AP Recruit invites all individuals to voluntarily self-identify their gender, gender identy, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, disability status, and status as a protected veteran. While we are required to ask individuals this information, they may decline to state with no negative repercussions. The gender and race/ethnicity information provided is presented in aggregate as a comparison with the benchmark data.

Affirmative action goals

As a federal contractor, UC Berkeley establishes and maintains an Affirmative Action Program and a yearly written Affirmative Action Plan (“AAP”), and fulfills requirements established by the Federal Department of Labor, Office for Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) to provide equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination in hiring and personnel processes. The UC Berkeley AAP provides yearly data on groups that are “underutilized” on the Berkeley campus by broad job type and by schools and colleges. Underutilization is defined as having fewer minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, or protected veterans in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected given their availability in the job market.

The Affirmative Action goals for searches reflect this underutilization (shaded cells in the Affirmative Action goals table denote current underutilization of a group). Annual goals are equal to availability for underutilized job groups; the University must make good faith efforts to address the underutilization through recruiting a broad and inclusive pool of applicants. Outreach to individuals from particular groups is often necessary to meet the goals.

It is important to know the distinction between federal affirmative action law that requires efforts to address underutilization in our workforce, and California law, which prohibits the selection of individuals based on their demographic characteristics. California Proposition 209 prohibits discrimination against or preferential treatment to “any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, education or contracting.” It does not, however, prohibit actions necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in loss of federal funds to the University. Therefore, UC Berkeley is obligated to take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity in employment, but we may not set aside positions for individuals from specific groups.

The prohibition against discrimination described in Proposition 209 is consistent with University policy prohibiting discrimination in employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer‐related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran. The prohibition against discrimination supports the University’s commitment to address the barriers that face underrepresented groups in academic careers and to serve the needs of our diverse state.

Planned Search and Recruitment Efforts

Cultivating a highly qualified, diverse applicant pool is one of the most important aspects of a successful search. Doing so is a significant investment of time and resources; it is not the case that “the best will hear about our position and apply.” Findings from the Berkeley search committee chair survey (click here for the full report) indicate that intensive outreach is effective at identifying strong candidates who may not otherwise apply, particularly women and underrepresented minorities. Sending a standard letter to dozens (or more) department chairs at peer institutions is not typically successful on its own. Identifying candidates with stellar records who would also make valuable contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging and contacting them personally via email or phone to encourage them to apply (without promising an interview or position) is effective. Candidates identified in this way have a higher likelihood of reaching the short list of finalists. Templated outreach emails are available here. Suggestions to identify strong potential applicants include:

• *New* for 2023 - 2024: Identify current faculty (at the appropriate rank for your search) who are conducting exciting research in the area of the search, and are currently at institutions in states where diversity, equity, and inclusion activities are being banned, or the existence of tenure is being challenged. Consider sending personal invitations, knowing that many of these faculty may not currently be on the market.

• Utilizing directories of prestigious fellowship programs at both the dissertation and postdoctoral levels that support individuals from diverse backgrounds, among others. The UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (PPFP) should be given particular attention because of its national prestige and the fact that all PPFPs have been identified as excellent in their commitment and contributions to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. A searchable database is available online at the above link;

• For senior searches in particular, reviewing lists of award/prize recipients in the discipline over the last 5 - 10 years;
• Tapping into networks of field associations with DEIB initiatives;
• Reviewing the literature in top journals for the subject area of the search to identify new and exciting research (graduate students can often be included in this process);

• Asking graduate student affinity groups (e.g., "Women in Economics") to suggest potential candidates;

• For faculty searches in STEM fields, using the downloadable and searchable NSF and NIH databases to identify individuals with active research awards in the area of the search;
• Expanding the usual list of contact departments and schools to a broader range of institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic serving institutions;
• Using social media outlets to reach different networks;

• Expanding personal contacts and networks to identify candidates who are currently under‐placed and excelling at less well‐ranked institutions;

• Attending conferences that provide opportunities to recruit a diverse pool of applicants and include contacts with organizations serving underrepresented groups in the field;

• Approaching and/or interviewing underrepresented candidates at professional meetings or conferences and encouraging them to submit an application;

• Searching for individuals with non‐traditional career paths who may have taken time off for family reasons (e.g., to provide care to children, a disabled family member, or elderly parents) or who have achieved excellence in careers outside academe (e.g., in professional or industry service);

Many departments also create long-term strategies for tracking potential candidates by creating a visiting scholars program, distinguished seminar series, or other programs featuring scholars with a commitment to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.

For senior searches, consider conducting pre-search activities by developing "reading groups" or ad hoc committees to review the scholarship of faculty working in the disciplinary areas of the upcoming search. These processes involve systematically considering a wide range of potential future candidates, and narrowing down to a smaller list of individuals to invite to apply, based on their body of research, and other information publicly available (for example, the courses they have taught, the activities they have been involved with, etc., as noted in their online curriculum vitae).

Advertisement Documents

After the search plan is approved, the apply page text or the pdf advertisement generated by AP Recruit can be used for external ad postings. All short- and medium-length ads must at a minimum include the apply link and the following statement:

“All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age, or protected veteran status.”

Posting and publishing advertisements

All advertisements for academic recruitments are automatically posted to the following locations:

• AP Recruit
• Northern California Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (Norcal HERC)
• Higher Ed Jobs
• Inside Higher Ed
• Academic Keys
• indeed
• local jobs network
• The California State Workforce Site (CalJobs)
• Community Outreach Organizations

Support for posting job advertisements in additional locations

Job Elephant is available to assist with most advertising, at no additional cost from the normal posting fees. The Berkeley campus representative from Job Elephant is Michael Ang (michael@jobelephant.com). Please note that units may choose to use this service, but there is no requirement to do so.

Selection Criteria

The University strives not only to hire new faculty who excel or will excel in research, but also faculty who are committed to all of the University's objectives. In particular, successful candidates should also demonstrate a commitment to education, mentorship of students, service, and to equity and inclusion. Selection criteria should assess all of these dimensions of excellence.

A broad "holistic," or a narrow approach to the development of selection criteria – “we know the best when we see it” or "the candidate is clearly excellent if they have X number of citations by X career stage" – ignores consideration of a nuanced and complex set of values and candidate characteristics that will truly add distinction to Berkeley. If applicants applying will be at different career levels (e.g., starting the first assistant professor position versus being a current assistant or associate professor), it is important to create a clear plan for how to evaluate candidates with such different experience. It is also important to consider the relative weighting of the established criteria, and whether the weighting will change at the different stages of evaluation.

Most importantly, ensure that all committee members agree on what the selection criteria are and how they should be evaluated (including what evidence they will look for to determine the extent to which candidates meet the criteria). Most committees meet in person for discussion and decision-making at this step.

General questions for selection criteria consideration include:

• What kind of questions is the candidate asking in his/her research?

• Has the candidate adopted a distinctive approach?

• What would the impact be if the candidate is successful?

• How wide-ranging is the impact? Does the impact span the subfield, field, and/or bridge into other fields?

• What are the qualities of mind revealed by written and oral presentations by the candidate? What is the evidence for creativity, rigor, leadership, defining new research, etc.

• What evidence is there that the candidate will engage in productive research collaborations within or beyond the Department?

• What is the evidence that the candidate will engage productively with undergraduate and graduate students in lecture sections, seminars, and as research mentors?

• What is the evidence that the individual will work well with a diverse group of students, understanding differences in needs and the importance of removing barriers to success for all students?

• What is the evidence that the candidate will actively advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging through their research, teaching, and/or service?

• Is there the promise that the candidate will work effectively to build and sustain Berkeley as a strong institution? For example, Berkeley is strong when it supports academic excellence through faculty leadership, promotes a diverse range of scholarly inquiries, and creates equal opportunities for faculty colleagues and students.

A rating system based on the overall selection criteria for the search can assess each candidate in the areas of research, teaching, and service, with consideration for advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging and contributing to a positive campus climate as part of all three areas. Rather than using a basic system, such as 1 = interview, 2 = discuss, and 3 = do not interview, which tends to be subjective, create a points system or other evidence-based system for each of the major selection criteria. We recommend conducting a calibration exercise for reviewing each area, including research and teaching. Importantly, develop a process for how the committee will use rubric scores to make decisions. Please refer to our guidance on creating a rubric to assess faculty candidates for more information including calibration instructions and sample rubrics. 

Consider creating a cut-off score for advancing equity and inclusion, below which a candidate would not move forward in the search process (would be considered “below the bar”), regardless of their scores in other areas, similar to what would be done for research quality or plans. For example, if 5 points are given for various components of advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (e.g., understanding 5 points, track record 5 points, and plans 5 points), assign a value below which a candidate would not be considered competitive and would not move forward regardless of their scores in other areas (e.g., any single 0 or 1 out of 5 would disqualify a candidate from further consideration).

Consider creating additional selection criteria for later stages of review (e.g., soft interviews, campus visits) that reflect the types of information learned in these stages that is considered necessary for selecting the final candidate. This can support continued focus on the established overall goals for the search. Examples might include assessing level and type of engagement with student groups during the campus visit; clarity and quality of teaching displayed in a teaching demonstration; level of fluency in a non-English language in a presentation; potential for collaboration with a particular center; demonstrated leadership skills for a senior position, etc. This can reduce the inadvertent inclusion or consideration of factors unrelated to the position (e.g., "likeability," "energy levels," "do they have a champion," "do they do too much service," "will they be willing to move," etc). 

Evaluation processes

Once applicants have applied to our faculty positions, there are a number of important considerations to ensure that all are fairly evaluated. By federal law and University policy we must ensure that our employment processes are fair and equitable, and offer equal employment opportunity. We also have a vested interest in hiring outstanding faculty who will make extraordinary contributions in their research, teaching, and service while sharing our University values of equity and inclusion, and our public mandate to serve a diverse student body. There is little that is of greater importance for Berkeley’s future than careful selection of new colleagues. 

Search plans should specify in detail the process by which they will evaluate all applicants, including decisions about the authority of the search committee in the various stages of the process:

• The process for assigning committee members to review applications, including how many readers for each application

• Role of committee members generally - chair, equity advisor or liaison, etc., and graduate students specifically (for example, as members of the search committee, in getting feedback on short list candidates, etc.)

• The evidence-based system to be used for evaluating candidates (e.g. a scoring system), including how to handle widely divergent scoring of individual applicants by search committee members

• Initial review of candidates - for example, the first review, or series of reviews, to select the long list - including detailed description of scoring/evaluation processes, use of rubrics, etc.

• Long list to select the medium list of candidates for “soft interviews” (if applicable), including soft interview questions, if conducting

• Long or medium list to select the short list, including seeking input from department faculty, if applicable

• Campus visits, including presentations/job talks, assessing DEIB, interviews, meetings to be held, role of equity advisor, etc.

• Seeking feedback and input from department community following campus visits (e.g., faculty, graduate students, postdocs, staff)

• Selecting the finalist - committee deliberations, search outcomes, voting procedures
• Confidentiality and the handling of unsolicited information

• Role of the department faculty not on the search committee

• How the conflicts of interest policy will be followed - please refer to the conflicts of interest section of the search guide for more information

• Voting procedures

To support innovative selection processes, consider using the "Progressive Disclosure" feature in AP Recruit. In a recruitment without progressive disclosure, the committee can see all parts of each application as soon as it is submitted. Through the use of veils and redaction, searches can hide parts of the application and disclose more materials as the search progresses. This allows the committee to focus attention on particular aspects of the applicants, or to intentionally ignore other aspects until later in the review process. Limiting the scope during early review can be used for many purposes: it can efficiently reduce a large pool, combat implicit bias, limit who receives consideration for a particular hire, and more.

Refer to the Applicant Evaluation information in the During the Search section of the guide for guidelines on evaluating applicants during the search process. 

Search committees are typically assigned by the department chair, with one member as the chair of the committee. All search committee members should demonstrate an active commitment to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging at Berkeley. Having diverse demographic representation is also important, including women and underrepresented minorities.

Search Committee Membership

The usual committee composition includes the chair, two to four other faculty from the department, a graduate student, the equity advisor, and sometimes a faculty member from outside the department. If non‐senate faculty are included on the search committee, their role on the committee should be clarified at the outset.

For searches that are open area (e.g., all areas of Chemistry), be aware of the tendency to assign faculty to the committee who will "represent" each major subfield in the discipline (e.g., two faculty each to represent organic, inorganic, physical, and theoretical chemistry). In these searches a common pitfall is for committee members in each subfield to put forward "the best" in their area. This approach often completely misses candidates who are working between or outside the boundaries because they don't rise to the top of any dominant subfield list. 

To assign a non-Berkeley affiliate access as a search committee member, a Calnet Sponsored Guest account must be created. Click here for instructions and more detailed information. Once the Calnet Sponsored Guest account has been created please allow 48 hours AP Recruit to refresh before adding them as a reviewer. 

Equity advisors: Departmental equity advisors may or may not serve on the search committee. If the Equity Advisor is not a search committee member, one member of the committee should be appointed as the “equity liaison” for the search, and communicate with the equity advisor throughout the search process. See the Equity Advisor Role page for information on the role of the equity advisor in faculty searches. At a minimum, equity advisors must sign off on search plans, applicant pools, short lists, and search reports; ideally they are consulted throughout the search process. Proactive discussion with the search committee about candidate outreach and fair search practices should be standard practice. When evaluating applicant pools and shortlists, equity advisors should consider if sufficient effort was made to attract a diverse pool of candidates, especially for the long list. They can also serve as an excellent resource for search committees, including:

• Ideas for proactive, personal outreach
• Advising on the rating/evaluation plan for all candidates
• Interviewing short list candidates during the campus visit
• Providing a written summary of each finalist’s potential to contribute to equity and inclusion, based on both the evaluation of the Statement on Contributions to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging as well as the campus visit and in-person meeting.

Graduate students: Graduate students are involved to some extent in the majority of faculty searches at Berkeley. It is recommended that one or more graduate students serve as members of the committee. Practices vary as to whether or not the graduate student is a voting member of the committee (if committee votes are taken) and if he/she has access to letters of recommendation. A common practice is for the graduate student to formally poll the full graduate student population in the department/school and present summary results to the committee. It is advisable that a graduate student serving on the committee not be an advisee of one of the search committee members. The role of graduate students on the search committee can include:

• The creation of a graduate student committee, with one member serving on the search committee
• Clear expectations to all graduate students regarding what kind of feedback they will be asked to provide, and how that feedback will be used by the search committee
• Invitations to all graduate students to attend job talks, have an opportunity to meet with each finalist as part of a meal (as a group), and to submit individual written feedback via a Google Form after each campus visit is complete.
• The graduate student committee can collect feedback from all students and present a written summary to the search committee on behalf of the graduate student body regarding each of the finalists, as well as a recommendation of a proposed candidate.
• All graduate students participating in evaluating candidates should receive information about the selection criteria being used by the committee, including norming/calibration.

Role of the department chair in the search process: The rights and responsibilities of the department chair should be clear. It is advisable that the chair moderate the full faculty discussion of candidates without stating his/her opinion. The chair’s letter on the case should express the sentiment of the faculty; faculty members are entitled to review the letter the chair writes. If the chair has a different opinion from that of the faculty, he or she may write a personal letter.

Conflicts of interest: It is important to establish a standard protocol for handling consideration of an applicant who was a recent graduate student or postdoc in the department or who has been, or is currently, a close collaborator of one of more departmental faculty. Information on likely applicants should be taken into account when establishing the membership of the search committee. In an ideal process, a candidate’s formal advisor, or other faculty members who have worked closely with a candidate should not serve on the search committee. Should there be appropriate reasons for a different process, OFEW is available to consult on appropriate modifications consistent with the goals of conducting a process that is fair to all applicants, and approve any such modifications as part of the search plan or as situations arise during the process. Refer to the Conflicts of Interest information in the During the Search section below for the full policy on conflicts of interest in faculty searches.

Search committee authority during the search process

There are a number of points during the faculty search process where it is important for departments/schools to have pre-established practices for the level of autonomy given to the search committee, and for the level and timing of inclusion of the department chair and the department/school faculty during the search process. These decisions should be made and agreed upon by the department prior to launching the search.

• Agreement on the purpose and scope of the search: An important role of the search chair is to ensure that the committee has a shared understanding and agreement on how the position is conceptualized and defined, beyond what the FTE allocation states. Any differences of opinion should be examined and managed prior to evaluating any candidates. Unspoken or unaddressed disagreements regarding the focus of the search is a common reason that searches fail.

• Search description in the advertisement: Typically, the search committee has the authority to write the description of the position consistent with the approved language in the FTE allocation. This authority may also be given to the department chair per department policy. In some units, the description is shared for discussion with the full department prior to the search. It is important that the advertisement description clearly reflect the goals of the search in terms of area, scope of the position, and desired qualifications.

• Consideration of applicants by faculty not on the search committee: Each department should have a process that specifies who can give input and at which stages of the search. It is strongly advised that the search committee not accept input on candidates from department faculty until a long list of candidates for serious consideration has been established. Faculty who are not on the search committee often want to advocate for a candidate known to them, or conversely to highlight a candidate they feel is not well qualified. But unless faculty members have reviewed all candidates at that stage and used the criteria established by the search committee, input of this type might give an unfair advantage or disadvantage for certain candidates.

• Creating the “long list”: It is typical for the search committee to have the autonomy to create the long list (those under Serious Consideration). If the long list is presented to the full faculty for discussion, it is expected that each department faculty member will review the complete files for all the long list candidates using the same criteria as the search committee before offering feedback on any candidate. A process for gathering input for selecting candidates to be invited for an interview should be determined in advance.

• Creating the “short list”: The practices regarding generation of the short list are more varied. In some units, the search committee is given this authority, and sometimes their deliberations are confidential. In other units, there is extensive discussion with the full faculty, and sometimes a vote is taken. The practice should be determined in advance, and common selection criteria used.

• After campus visits by candidates on the short list: It is necessary to be clear how feedback will be gathered from all faculty who participated in the candidate visits. The best practice is to gather formal feedback from faculty, postdocs, and students after each visit, using an online tool. In many departments, the department faculty convene to discuss the candidates after all campus visits are complete. It is important that faculty who participate in discussions attend all candidate interviews, and that remarks focus on evidence related to the established selection and evaluation criteria rather than general impressions or hearsay.

• Voting: All departments should have transparent voting policies and procedures. In some units the search committee makes a clear recommendation for a first choice candidate (sometimes with an alternate), while in other departments, the faculty discuss the pros and cons of each finalist and then vote. If the faculty meet to discuss more than one candidate, there should be two separate considerations. First, each candidate should be considered independently to determine if she/he meets Berkeley’s standards for appointment. For those that do, there needs to be further discussion and voting regarding the top choice.

Refer to the Senate Search Plan checklist for a list of all items that must be complete prior to submitting search plans for approval. When all checklist items have been confirmed the search plan can be submitted for approval. The Recruitment will be in a “Draft” state and edits can continue to be made as needed until the search plan receives final approval by OFEW. However, once OFEW starts review please do not make additional changes. 

Use the following approval chain for senate search plans: 

• Search Committee Chair – assign the correct name if not auto-populated

• Department Chair – assign the correct name (for professional schools with no department chair the department analyst name can be put here)

• Dean’s Analyst – assign the correct name

• Dean – assign the correct name

• OFEW (“Diversity Office”) – names are auto-populated (do not add an alternate name)

Once approved, the final search plan PDF serves as the permanent record of what was approved. Publish the recruitment so it can begin accepting applications.