UC Berkeley Departmental Faculty Recruitment Self-Study
Fall 2004

The purpose of the self-study is (1) to provide each department with an opportunity to take stock of its successes and failures in recruiting new faculty, (2) to compare its current condition with comparable departments and with its discipline generally, (3) to review critically its recruitment procedures, and (4) to identify new opportunities and creative approaches to attracting highly qualified faculty who will strengthen the campus as it seeks more effectively to serve its students and society.

To help you in completing the self-study, we have developed this web-based evaluation form. (Please note that your department completed a self-study two and four years ago by answering several open-ended questions.)

When you have completed the self-study, please press the submit button at the bottom of the form.

At any point along the way, you can save your work by pressing one of the save buttons (located at the end of each section) and return to the form at a later point in time (or back up and continue your work).

If you have any questions, please contact us at: astacy@socrates.berkeley.edu

Please note that you will need the following information to fill out the survey:
(1) recent history of faculty appointments (since June 2000), formal and informal offers of employment to preferred candidates, and finalists who came to Campus for an interview (the search reports you have filed for searches conducted since 1999-2000 should contain this information);
(2) the national PhD pool from which you draw your applicants (see http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/datamgmt/ for information on availability pools);
(3) your own granting of PhDs (see Cal Profiles http://calprofilesplus.vcbf.berkeley.edu/degree/)

You might want to print out the survey and have the data prepared in advance of filling out the self-study.

A. Recent Faculty Appointments, Success at Hiring First-Choice Candidates, and Finalist Interviews

1.	To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions about your history of faculty appointments since June 2000:

	Types of appointments	Number of appointments since June 2000 (e.g. 12)?
a.	Total number of faculty appointments?
b.	Total number of women faculty appointments?
c.	Total number of under-represented minority¹ faculty appointments?
d.	Total number of Asian American faculty appointments?
e.	Total number of International² (non-U.S.) faculty appointments?
f.	Total number of appointments at the assistant professor level?
g.	Total number of appointments at the associate professor level?
h.	Total number of appointments at the full professor level?
i.	Total number of appointments made with a search waiver?

¹Under-represented minorities include: African American, Chicana/o American, Latina/o American, and Native American.

²International (non-U.S.) include: visa holders and temporary residents.

		Very confident	Somewhat confident	Not too confident	Not at all confident
	How confident are you in the accuracy of the numbers you have provided above?

	If not confident, please explain why:

		All of the time	Most of the time	Some of the time	A little of the time	None of the time
	For appointments made after June 2000, how often have these appointments begun with a search that targeted a specific subdiscipline within your department (e.g. American Politics within the Political Science Department, etc.)?

	If your department tends to target specific subdisciplines at the beginning of searches, what is your department's rationale for taking this approach? If not, what is your department's rationale for offering open positions?

2.	To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions about your recent success at hiring first-choice faculty candidates.³

Specifically, for candidates who were offered positions with start dates after June 2000 (whether an appointment was eventually made or not), how many of each of the following types of first-choice faculty candidates turned down your formal or informal offer.

	Types of first-choice candidates	Number of first-choice refusals for positions with a start date after June 2000 (e.g. 4)?
a.	Total number of refusals by first-choice candidates?
b.	Total number of refusals by women who were first-choice candidates?
c.	Total number of refusals by under-represented minorities who were first-choice candidates?
d.	Total number of refusals by Asian Americans who were first-choice candidates?
e.	Total number of refusals by Internationals (non-U.S.) who were first-choice candidates?
f.	Total number of refusals by first-choice candidates for untenured positions?
g.	Total number of refusals by first-choice candidates for tenured positions?

³First-choice faculty candidates include: candidates that your department rated as the first choice for the position and were either formally or informally offered the position.

		Very confident	Somewhat confident	Not too confident	Not at all confident
	How confident are you in the accuracy of the numbers you have provided above?

	If not confident, please explain why:

3.	Overall, how would you rate the impact of each of the following job factors on your department's ability to recruit successfully first-choice candidates (for positions with a start date after June 2000)?

	*UC Berkeley Job Factors*	Very positive impact	Somewhat positive impact	No significant impact	Somewhat negative impact	Very negative impact	Not applicable or do not know
a.	Departmental reputation/quality
b.	Quantity and quality of space for research
c.	Quality of campus-wide research and library facilities
d.	Start-up packages
e.	Opportunity to collaborate with other faculty
f.	Diversity of faculty
g.	Support staff
h.	Teaching responsibilities
i.	Quality of students
j.	Diversity of students

	UC Berkeley Job Factors (continued)	Very positive impact	Somewhat positive impact	No significant impact	Somewhat negative impact	Very negative impact	Not applicable or do not know
k.	Administrative responsibilities/opportunities
l.	Salary offer
m.	Benefits (health and retirement)
n.	Spousal/partner employment issues
o.	Availability of housing
p.	Availability of good schools for children
q.	Availability of high quality childcare/infantcare slots
r.	Geographical location
s.	Other

If other, please specify:

	Please use the box below to provide us with any additional comments you would like to make about successfully recruiting all first-choice faculty candidates to UC Berkeley:

	Please use the box below to provide us with any specific comments you would like to make about successfully recruiting women and minority first-choice faculty candidates to UC Berkeley:

4.	To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions about your history of on-site interviews of faculty candidates for positions with a start date after June 2000 (on-campus finalist interviews prior to appointment--whether an appointment was made or not):

	Types of interview candidates	Number of on-campus interviews for positions with a start date after June 2000 (e.g. 30)?
a.	Total number of interviews for ladder-rank faculty positions?
b.	Total number of interviews of women faculty recruits?
c.	Total number of interviews of under-represented minority faculty recruits?
d.	Total number of interviews of Asian American faculty recruits?
e.	Total number of interviews of International (non-U.S.) faculty recruits?

		Very confident	Somewhat confident	Not too confident	Not at all confident
	How confident are you in the accuracy of the numbers you have provided above?

	If not confident, please explain why:

	For appointments with a start date after June 2000 (whether an appointment was made or not), what selection criteria has your department used in determining who among the applicant pool will be brought to campus for an interview?

For appointments with a start date after June 2000 (whether an appointment was made or not), what has been the general way that your department has structured on-campus interviews [e.g. what has been the length of the visit; what have candidates been asked to do (e.g. give a research talk, teach a seminar, etc.); and how consistent has your department been in the way that interviews are conducted (does it vary for junior and senior candidates? etc.)]?

	For appointments with a start date after June 2000 (whether an appointment was made or not), what selection criteria has your department used in determining who among the finalists is the first choice for the position (the first individual to be formally or informally offered the position)?

If you would like to save your work, please click the save button now. You may return to this section at a later time.

B. Applicant Pools and National Availability

5.	To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions about what you believe to have been the nationally available pool of women, under-represented minority, and Asian American candidates for your faculty appointments with a start date after June 2000.

As an example of PhD availability pool data, you might want to look at the following University of California Office of the President (UCOP) webpage: http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/datamgmt/

	Types of candidates	Percentage of nationally available pool (e.g. 38%)?
a.	Women as a percentage of your available faculty candidate pool within the U.S.
b.	Under-represented minorities as a percentage of your available faculty candidate pool within the U.S.
c.	Asian Americans as a percentage of your available faculty candidate pool within the U.S.

	Please explain how you derived the above percentage for women:

	Please explain how you derived the above percentage for under-represented minorities:

	Please explain how you derived the above percentage for Asian Americans:

	If international candidates are an important part of your faculty applicant pools, please explain what you believe accounts for this pattern:

6.	Thinking about your finalists for recent faculty appointments (whether an appointment was made or not), what three PhD institutions have produced the greatest number of finalists to your positions (you may include UC Berkeley)?

Top producers of job finalists	PhD Institution (e.g. Univ. of Michigan)
First PhD producer
Second
Third

7.	To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions about the number of PhDs you have granted since June 2000:

You might want to use Cal Profiles Plus in answering these questions: http://calprofilesplus.vcbf.berkeley.edu/degree/

	PhDs granted	Number of PhDs granted since June 2000 (e.g. 45)?
a.	Total number of PhDs
b.	Total number of PhDs to women?
c.	Total number of PhDs to under-represented minorities?
d.	Total number of PhDs to Asian Americans?
e.	Total number of PhDs to Internationals (non-U.S.)?

		Very confident	Somewhat confident	Not too confident	Not at all confident
	How confident are you in the accuracy of the numbers you have provided above?

	If not confident, please explain why:

If you would like to save your work, please click the save button now. You may return to this section at a later time.

C. Evaluation of Departmental Success at Appointing Women and Minority Faculty

		Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
8.	Overall, how would you rate your department's success at hiring women faculty since June 2000?

	Please explain why you rated your department as you did and what you believe accounts for your relative level of success at hiring women:

		Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
9.	Overall, how would you rate your department's success at hiring under-represented minority faculty since June 2000?

	Please explain why you rated your department as you did and what you believe accounts for your relative level of success at hiring under-represented minorities:

10.

Please list below three peer departments nationally that you believe are a good comparison group to your department and briefly explain why you chose them:

	Institution Name (e.g. Princeton)	A brief rationale for this choice:
a.
b.
c.

		Better than average	Average	Worse than average
11.	Overall, how would you evaluate your department's success at hiring women faculty in comparison to these three peer institutions (since June 2000)?

	Please explain why you rated your department's relative success at hiring women faculty as you did in comparison to these peer institutions' relative success and what you believe accounts for any differences (if there are differences in rates of success):

		Better than average	Average	Worse than average
12.	Overall, how would you evaluate your department's success at hiring under-represented minority faculty in comparison to these three peer institutions (since June 2000)?

	Please explain why you rated your department's relative success at hiring under-represented minority faculty as you did in comparison to these peer institutions' relative success and what you believe accounts for any differences (if there are differences in rates of success):

13.	Please describe how your relative success at hiring women and under-represented minority faculty since June 2000 is reflected in your current FTE request:

If you would like to save your work, please click the save button now. You may return to this section at a later time.

D. Approaches to Enhancing Faculty Candidate Pools and Recruitment

14.

Which of the following approaches have you used in your efforts to enhance your candidate pools and how successful have they been if you used them (i.e. increasing the proportion of women and minority candidates)?

	Type of approach	Used approach (check if "yes")?	If approach was used, how successful was it?
	Type of approach	Used approach (check if "yes")?	Very successful	Somewhat successful	Not too successful	Not at all successful
a.	Prioritized sub-disciplines (established or new) where women and/or minorities are a larger proportion of the available pool
b.	Included wording in job descriptions that made clear that women and/or minorities are strongly encouraged to apply
c.	Listed faculty positions in multiple venues
d.	Circulated job descriptions among networks of educators within your discipline, including networks of women and people of color
e.	Encouraged UC President's Postdoctoral Fellows to apply to positions (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/ppfp/welcome.html)
f.	Established relationships with local and/or national organizations/groups within your discipline, including groups of women and people of color
g.	Approached or interviewed applicants at professional meetings and encouraged them to submit an application
h.	Made personal calls to encourage potential candidates to apply to the position
i.	Made personal calls to colleagues asking them to encourage potential candidates to apply to the position
j.	Interviewed candidates at a variety of conferences
k.	Designated an affirmative action officer to serve on search committees
l.	Selected diverse search committees
m.	Included graduate student input in search process