It's rather humorous that faculty believe _our_ jobs are so amazingly complex and "ill-defined" so as to be beyond the scope of valid selection tests, performance appraisal, etc.
In hiring, psychology departments abandon everything they (should) know about measurement and prediction. When's the last time anyone on this list participated on either side of a structured interview (standardized questions AND scoring procedure)? When's the last time you evaluated a candidate's ability apart from their famous advisor who just so happens to sit on the editorial board of the journal publishing the candidate's work? When's the last time anyone applying for a faculty position completed a measure of cognitive ability (which the research shows predicts job performance across jobs better than just about anything else)? When's the last time anyone applying for a faculty position completed an integrity test (which are also valid predictors of counterproductive behavior AND performance across job levels)? I know...let's blame it on those old farts who have tenure and are set in their ways. And let's tell our students that the "real" world will be the same way. Therefore, there's really no point in them learning about good selection practices. They'll always face resistance. Maybe the psychology (university?) establishment is more interested in hiring people like Kerri Dunn. People who are dishonest and therefore willing to do anything to push their liberal crap on young minds (and get a new car out of the deal while they're at it). Al --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
