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 (those FTE approved for more than one unit), 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 must 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 broad and diverse applicant pools of highly qualified candidates. Additionally, job descriptions that state a broad range of academic areas typically yield a richer, more diverse pool of candidates than those that are narrowly specified. 

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:

“UC Berkeley is committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in research, teaching, and public service. The excellence of the institution relies on an environment in which the diverse community of faculty, students, and staff are welcome and can thrive.”

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. The inclusion of other documents is determined by the search committee, and more can be requested at a later point in the search process as needed (e.g., only for the medium or short list candidates). Required documents, however, cannot be changed after the search opens.

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

Candidate application materials (Further guidance for senate searches that will be conducted in AY 2025/26 is forthcoming)

Faculty search committees should request and receive application materials that allow them to adequately assess candidates’ qualifications in research, teaching, and service. Per UC Regents policy, stand-alone statements on contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging cannot be used in faculty recruitments. However, search committees can, and should, solicit application materials that provide applicants the opportunity to speak to their capacity for faculty excellence at UC Berkeley, which includes contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in teaching, research, and service, as relevant to the specific department/position.

Suggested language for application instructions:

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.”

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 and research statement. 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, 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 members can be prematurely influenced by the assessment of an outside individual before making their own independent evaluation of the candidates’ qualifications. Some candidates in particular can be advantaged or disadvantaged by signaling of prestige or “pedigree,” or lack of it.

• 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's advisor appeared to play a major role in the research,” “she may be a good leader in the future”) can be sufficient to skew search committees’ overall assessment of a candidate.  

• In many searches the majority 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 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 other assessments 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.

Attestation, disclosure, and reference checking regarding prior misconduct for senate faculty hiring 

To comply with California state laws (SB 791 and AB 810), senate faculty hiring requires attestation, disclosure, and reference checking regarding prior misconduct. The program has three components: 

• Inclusion of a signed Authorization of Information Release with all applications; 

• Applicants who are identified as a finalist must disclose any final administrative or judicial decisions issued within the last seven
  years related to misconduct, including sexual harassment;

• Use of the signed release form to make a reasonable attempt to obtain information from previous employer(s) concerning any substantiated allegations of misconduct, regardless of the proposed hire’s responses in the misconduct disclosure form.

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. 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 meet them.

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.

Availability Demographics

Availability demographics serve as the benchmark by which the applicant pool can be compared in aggregate, by gender and race/ethnicity. For most positions at Berkeley the data come from IPEDS through the National Center for Education Statistics, and provide information about the national availability of PhD recipients over a relevant recent time period (five years for assistant professor positions and 15 years for tenured positions).

The search committee should review the availability data, conduct appropriate outreach, and compare the applicant pool to this information as a benchmark to evaluate the general effectiveness of the 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 provide it with no negative repercussions. The gender and race/ethnicity information provided is presented in aggregate form as a general comparison with the benchmark data.

Groups for equal employment outreach

UC Berkeley establishes and maintains both a federal Affirmative Action Program (AAP) and a California Nondiscrimination Program (CNP), fulfilling requirements at both the federal and state level to provide equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination in hiring and personnel processes. The UC Berkeley AAP and CNP provide yearly data on groups that are “underutilized” on the Berkeley campus by broad job group, and by schools and colleges. The AAP focuses on individuals with disabilities and protected veterans and the CNP focuses on all protected categories (e.g., gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, disability, etc). Underutilization is defined as having fewer individuals in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected given their availability in the job market.

Groups for specific outreach for searches reflect those that are underutilized compared to their availability; the University must make efforts to address underutilization through recruiting a broad and inclusive pool of applicants, and eliminating any policies or procedures that would disproportionately inhibit the employment of individuals from particular groups.

It is important, however, to note the distinction between efforts to create a broad and inclusive pool of applicants that will receive equal employment opportunity, and the prohibition of the consideration of identity in selection processes and decisions. 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.” UC Berkeley must ensure equal opportunity, but positions are not set aside for individuals from specific groups, and employment decisions cannot based on any aspect of identity.

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. This supports the University’s commitment to address barriers that face groups underrepresented in academic careers.

Other applicable nondiscrimination laws

Federal Laws:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974 - prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy) and national origin.
• Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973– prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in employment.
• The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act – requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance qualified veterans and to prohibit discrimination against protected veterans in employment practices. 

State Laws:

• California Fair Employment and Housing Act – prohibits discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in employment based on race or color, religion, national origin or ancestry, physical disability, mental disability or medical condition, marital status, sex or sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and expression, age with respect to persons over the age of 40, and pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.   
• California Government Code Section 12990 Requires state contractors to implement and adhere tonondiscriminatory programs to ensure equal employment opportunities for all employees and applicants. 

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 typically not the case that “the best will hear about our position and apply.” Intensive outreach is effective at identifying strong candidates who may not otherwise apply, particularly those from groups that are underutilized compared to their availability for academic positions. Sending a standard form letter to dozens (or more) department chairs at peer institutions is not typically successful on its own. Identifying potential candidates and contacting them personally to encourage them to apply (without promising an interview or position) is effective. Templated outreach emails are available here

Suggestions to identify strong potential applicants include:

• Identifying 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 banned, or academic freedom and tenure is being challenged. Consider sending personal invitations, knowing that many of these faculty may not otherwise be on the market.

• Utilizing directories of prestigious fellowship programs at both the dissertation and postdoctoral levels that support individuals from a diverse set of 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 contributions to diversity and equal opportunity in their academic career. 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 initiatives that support diversity, equity, inclusion, or belonging;
• 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 groups underrepresented in the field;

• Approaching and/or interviewing potential candidates from a variety of backgrounds 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 promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in their research, teaching or service.

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)

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 hires new faculty who excel in, or show exceptional promise in research, teaching, and service, including giving due recognition for contributions in all areas that promote diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging in accordance with the University’s mission, Principles of Community, and UC policies. Selection criteria should assess excellence in all dimensions, and be specific to the faculty job. Each criterion should be defined in a way that makes clear what evidence would support its evaluation, taking care to avoid generic criteria such as "excellence in research" or "promise in teaching." Do not assume that all committee members and department faculty will naturally agree on what excellence in any one area looks like. 

As part of the discussion of the selection criteria, consider how they can be consistently applied throughout the search (from initial evaluation stages, to the selection of the short list, to campus job talks and interviews); how the criteria will apply equitably to candidates at different career levels or stages (e.g., more publications is not necessarily evidence of "better" or "best"); whether different criteria need different weighting, ensuring that such weighting does not devalue certain aspects of the faculty job. This can also reduce the inadvertent inclusion or consideration of factors unrelated to the selection criteria (e.g., "likeability," "energy levels," "do they have a champion," "do they do too much service," "will they be willing to move," etc). 

Consider using criteria that will assess:

• Research accomplishments in the area of the search; future research plans; and inclusive research practices that promote the excellence of research.
• Prior teaching experience; teaching approach; future teaching interests; and specific efforts and future plans to support the success of all students through curriculum, classroom environment, and pedagogy.
• Mentoring experiences and approach, including past efforts and future plans to foster equitable and inclusive research environments.
• Specific prior and proposed academic, professional and/or public service, including activities that would further the University’s diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging goals. 

Candidate evaluation and rating

A rating system provides a meaningful way to operationalize and apply the selection criteria in a consistent and reliable manner. We recommend assigning a range of points to each criterion (e.g., 1 - 5), rather than a single score for all areas, which can be difficult to defend with evidence (ie., no candidate is uniformly strong or weak in all areas, and relative strengths and weaknesses in one area or another is difficult to score with a single value). 

We recommend conducting a calibration exercise for the rating system, and developing a process for how the committee will use scores to make decisions about who advances and who does not. Please refer to our guidance on creating a rubric to assess faculty candidates for more information including calibration instructions and sample rubrics. 

Competitiveness screen for very large applicant pools. 

To save search committee reviewers significant time, and allow them to focus deeply on candidates most likely to be competitive for a Berkeley position, consider creating an initial "competitiveness screen." This type of evaluation is most appropriate in one of two cases: for very large applicant pools (~ 200 or more candidates), and for searches in very narrow areas. The outcome of a competitiveness screen should be a dichotomous yes/no decision, and should be used as a "floor" rather than a "ceiling," below which candidates would not be considered at all viable for a Berkeley position. Committees using this process should clearly define and quantify in advance of the search the criterion for the yes/no decision such that it can be consistently applied and link to specific evidence in the application. If more nuanced ratings are needed a competitiveness screening should not be used. Opportunities to more deeply assess the content, caliber and other important elements of candidates’ research impact should occur at a later stage. Note that for searches where many candidates are currently PhD students it may be more difficult to define a floor, and therefore a competitiveness screen may not be appropriate. As in all aspects of evaluation, a minimum of two search committee members should review each application. 

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 and state law and University policy we must ensure that our selection 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 mission 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 (there should be a minimum of two reviewers in early stages, and all committee members should review all files beginning at a minimum with the long list of those under serious consideration). Search committee reviews should always be noncomparative prior to group discussion.

• 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 (simply taking an average of two reviews can inadvertently remove strong candidates prematurely)

• 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, 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 biases (e.g., PhD institution, name, etc), 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 a commitment to promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging at Berkeley. 

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 can miss 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, equity advisors should consider if sufficient effort was made to attract a diverse pool of candidates. 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

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 may 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 could give an unfair advantage or disadvantage to 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 "medium list": Processes for including department faculty in the creation of the medium list are similar to what is stated above for the long list.
  

• Creating the “short list”: 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. Feedback from staff can also be valuable. 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 (or view recordings), 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 – 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.