I just returned from the AALS faculty recruitment conference, and I share Michael’s general reactions, about the high quality of the candidates and about how strenuous the process can be, on both sides of the recruiting table.
One of my colleagues on the interviewing team had an interesting idea that might improve the process a bit. Would it be inappropriate for the interviewing school to request that candidates provide photos on their cv’s? This would be a help not just in ensuring that every interviewer accurately distinguishes the candidates ex post (not that big a problem, in my experience), but also in assisting the interviewer’s recollection of the details of each interview.
Are there any significant objections to this proposal? (I have heard that some academic departments outside of law routinely use photo cv’s, though I have no first-hand knowledge.)
Posted by Ken Simons on November 10, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Comments
as to anon @ 10:56:09 – there’s a case to be made that photos from AALS could have an impact. if the committee members must make their case to other faculty members who did not attend the conference, it’s one thing for the candidate’s appearance to have affected the post-interview enthusiasm of the committee — an enthusiasm they still must express in a way that gives others a reason to share the enthusiasm — and another thing to render that exercise unnecessary (because those who didn’t attend can react to the photo in the same way the conference attendees did). I don’t say the difference is huge, but it might not be de minimis. I remember once hearing gushing remarks, from a committee member who had attended the conference (which I’d missed), that were presented as a description of the candidate’s personal style and came across as praise of his physical appearance (in this case, praise from a woman, though I don’t know that that detail matters much). I suspect we are less prone to this bias when it makes itself visible in that way, rather than when we are simply free to share the bias by reacting to the photo.
Posted by: Peter | Nov 11, 2008 1:04:25 AM
My committee also collects stats on height and weight.
Posted by: anon | Nov 10, 2008 2:55:46 PM
I just got back from the conference too (as part of an interviewing team), and I don’t think photos would have helped the process at all. We interviewed a full slate of people, and they all made distinct (and usually very impressive, to echo others’ thoughts about the very high quality of applicants), but I’m not sure why it would have been helpful to have photos. It sometimes takes some work to remember a particular candidate, but the standard information available–FAR form, CV, paper–usually brings back the details. I’m not sure if having a photo would lead to a bias toward more attractive candidates, but I’d prefer to have deliberation and decisionmaking based only on written materials, since that seems like the most important information.
Posted by: Dave | Nov 10, 2008 2:22:00 PM
One possibility that would mitigate the effect of attractiveness (or other undue influences from appearances, leaving what counts as “undue” unspecified) is to ask candidates for photos only once they’ve been invited to interview at the AALS. Appearances will thereby have no role to play in deciding whom to invite for initial interviews, and no more role to play in deciding upon call-backs than it does already.
Posted by: anon | Nov 10, 2008 10:56:09 AM
Ken,
I think one potential concern is that interviewers may be influenced by the attractiveness of the individual as observed from the picture. More attractive candidates will probably get more interviews than otherwise, and less attractive candidates will probably get fewer. This already probably has some effect at the callback stage, but I think it’s better to limit it as much as possible: the absence of a photo keeps this from happening, and keeps more attention on the merits.
For more on the role of attractiveness in assessing professors, see this story on how physical attractiveness influences student evaluations:http://media.www.fsunews.com/media/storage/paper920/news/2003/11/24/News/Study.Shows.Benefits.To.Being.An.Attractive.Teacher-2361117.shtml
Posted by: Orin Kerr | Nov 10, 2008 10:34:42 AM
The race/ethnicity of the applicant is clearly stated on the application form. People who oppose photos on prejudice grounds should also oppose the “race/ethnicity” box on the FAR. I bet they don’t.
Having said that, the photo requirement will undoubtedly generate discrimination complaints, even if wildly meritless. Why rock the boat? The benefits of photos seem small.
Posted by: second anon | Nov 10, 2008 10:02:47 AM
Racial bias? I suspect a photo would work the other way. What hiring committee is not bending over backwards to find minority candidates and do everything possible to advance them???
Posted by: anon | Nov 10, 2008 9:48:02 AM
I interviewed with one school that, with the candidate’s permission, took a polaroid snapshot at the end of the interview. This school had two rooms working (were seeing 60 or so candidates).
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Nov 10, 2008 9:30:55 AM
Any worries about implicit racial bias (or any other implicit bias)? Resume studies with ethnic names even without photos suggest that there might be a concern, which would seem to be exacerbated by photos. Not sure if it makes too much of a difference if schools have affirmative action in faculty hiring, and I imagine physical appearance has a nontrivial effect on hiring regardless of a photo on a resume.
Posted by: anon | Nov 10, 2008 9:06:59 AM