Date
(Comments
b y
c ommittee
m embers
a re
a
m atter
o f
o pinion)
VI.
Reasons
f or
D isqualifying
C andidates
The
c andidate
d id
n ot
a ddress
d iversity
i n
t heir
c omments.
•
•
Communication
s kills
d id
n ot
m eet
e xpectations.
•
Degree
r equirements
a re
n ot
c omplete.
•
The
c andidate
h as
i nsufficient
e xperience
f or
t he
p osition.
•
The
c andidate
d id
n ot
r espond
t o
q uestions.
•
The
c andidate
e xhibited
u ndesirable
o r
u nacceptable
b ehavior
o r
c omments.
•
Based
o n
c andidate’s
r esponses,
c andidate
w ould
n ot
b e
a
g ood
f it.
•
cgmurphy 10/30/13 9:49 AM
Comment [3]: Contribute
p ositively
t o
t he
v ision
Salary
i s
u nacceptable
t o
c andidate.
•
of
t he
p rogram
( ?)
F urther
t he
m ission
t o
i ncrease
access
a nd
r etention
o f
a t
r isk
s tudents?
o f
t he
university
a s
a n
H SI?
I f
t he
l atter,
t hen
t he
m ore
The
c andidate
w ithdrew
f rom
c onsideration.
•
blatant
l ine
o f
“ did
n ot
a ddress
d iversity”
m ight
b e
able
t o
b e
o mitted.
VII.
Potential
P itfalls
w ith
T elephone
I nterviews
Failure
t o
p lan
a dequately
a nd
a sk
t he
r ight
q uestions
i n
t he
l imited
t ime
a llotted.
•
Failure
t o
b e
s ensitive
t o
d iversity.
H ave
y ou
m ade
e very
r easonable
a ttempt
t o
s creen
f or
•
inclusion
r ather
t han
e xclusion?
Lack
o f
a ttractive
c andidates
a fter
t elephone
i nterviews.
Y ou
h ave
s creened
o ut
v iable
•
candidates
a nd
m ay
n ow
h ave
a
f ailed
s earch.
T he
c ommittee
n eeds
t o
g o
b ack
t o
e arly
stages
o f
s earch
t o
s ee
i f
a ny
f laws
i n
p rocess
m ight
b e
r esponsible
f or
l ack
o f
g ood
candidates.
VIII.
ELIMINATION
O F
C ANDIDATES:
If
a
c andidate
i s
e liminated,
t hey
n eed
t o
b e
i ssued
a
w ell-‐written
p ersonalized
l etter.
•
Candidates
g enuinely
a ppreciate
a n
i ndication
o f
t he
r eason
t hey
w ere
e liminated
f rom
t he
pool.