The candidate review and evaluation process generally results in a short list of candidates who will be invited to campus for interviews. This step in the search process can be especially challenging without clear criterion and procedures for evaluating candidates without bias. On the basis of a pre-determined set of selection criterion and clearly defined position requirements, search committees may elect to include a screening interview of 60-90 minutes before the full interview.

Below are some best practice strategies for arriving at the short list of candidates:

1. With the entire committee willing to consider all candidates objectively:
   • Review your objectives, criteria, and procedures.
   • Emphasize that the committee represents the interests of the department as a whole, and, in a broader context, the interests of the entire university.
   • Remind the committee that the deans will expect the search committee chair to make a convincing case that the review was thorough and handled fairly. Some committee members may otherwise want to start with only their favorite candidates and to argue against others without considering them objectively.
   • Remind the committee that increasing the diversity of the faculty is an important criterion to consider in choosing among otherwise comparable candidates.
2. To handle the mechanics of selecting the “short list” efficiently and strategically
   • Consider creating a “long short list” before choosing the short list. Have all members of the search committee thoroughly review and evaluate the applicants selected. If this list lacks women and/or underrepresented minorities, consider more aggressive recruitment efforts before moving to the next phase in the search.
   • Remind committee to give sufficient time for evaluating each applicant.
   • Consider evaluating applicants on several different rating scales – one for teaching ability, one for mentoring potential, etc. Discuss the relative importance of different criteria.
   • Schedule subsequent meetings to allow search committee members sufficient time to conduct thorough evaluations.
   • After search committee members present initial evaluations, review the ratings a second time.
   • Opinions expressed early in the process can change after many candidates are considered and comparisons become clear.
   • Consider including the top candidates from various separate rating scales in your “short list.”
   • Selection of the “short list” candidates, and possible alternates, should be conducted at a meeting scheduled to allow committee members proper time to review the strengths of the candidates from the longer list.
   • Before finalizing the “short list,” determine if qualified women and underrepresented minorities are included. If not, revisit top women and underrepresented minority candidates to see if evaluation bias played a part in their exclusion from the “short list”.
   • Do not allow individuals to dominate the process or to push for dropping or retaining candidates without defending their reasons.
   • Ask quieter members of the committee for their opinion.
   • Be sure that standards are being applied uniformly. Be able to defend every decision for rejecting or retaining a candidate.
   • Do not allow personal preferences or narrow views of the review to dominate the process.
   • Evaluate each candidate’s entire application; don’t depend too heavily on only one element such as the letters of recommendation, or the prestige of the degree-granting institution or postdoctoral program.
   • Keep detailed notes so that the reasons for decisions will still be clear later.
   • Examine practices to ensure that applicant evaluation is not inadvertently screening out will-qualified applicants from minority-serving institutions.
   • Divide the task of thoroughly evaluating the qualifications of each candidate amongst the search committee. Try to make sure that each candidate received a thorough and in-depth review from at least two, and preferably more, members of the committee, and that each committee member is responsible for thoroughly evaluating the qualifications of a manageable group of candidates.