Screening Criteria - SENATE<Complete and Return in Word Format >

Screening Criteria - SENATE<Complete and Return in Word Format>

SECTION #1 : The criteria in Section #1 pertain to those who have not submitted the correct documents required by the advertised position, applied after the initial review date (IRD), or have not met the basic qualifications as advertised. Section #1 disqualifies these individuals from further consideration. Please select those from A-H that apply to your position description (flyer).

IMPORTANT NOTE: The below choices in Section #1, letters A – H, are pre-defined within the UC Recruit system and the text is not editable but the non-applicable items can be deleted. If there is need to evaluate additional Basic Qualifications, you may create up to 5 custom criteria that apply to those who have not met the basic qualification and they will be established in UC Recruit.

1. Application was incomplete, materials submitted were not the required materials.
2. Degree was not in the advertised field(s) if specific field(s) were required.
3. Did not meet stated basic research requirements.
4. Did not meet stated basic service requirements.
5. Did not meet stated basic teaching requirements.
6. Did not meet stated basic years of experience required.
7. Did not possess basic degree requirements stated in advertisement.
8. Did not possess stated credentials (e.g., board eligibility/board certification).

SECTION #2: Individuals in Section #2 have met the basic qualifications as advertised, but are not strong enough to move on in the review process (i.e., will not be invited for campus visit or identified as an alternate).

IMPORTANT NOTE: The below choices in Section #2, Numbers 1 - 9, are pre-defined within the UC Recruit system and the text is not editable but the non-applicable items can be deleted. If there is need to evaluate additional elements from the flyer, you may create up to 5 custom criteria that apply to those who have met the basic qualification and they will be established in UC Recruit.

Meets advertised basic qualifications, but…

1. Duplicates or significantly overlaps existing area of strength in department/school/college.
2. Specialization or area of expertise for position or department needs shows some deficiencies
3. Publication record shows some deficiencies
4. Lacks sufficient leadership experience for position
5. Lacks sufficient potential for successful attraction, advising, and mentoring of students/trainees/postdocs
6. Lacks sufficient research achievement/potential
7. Lacks sufficient depth/breadth of research/creative excellence or impact
8. Lacks sufficient teaching achievement/potential
9. References were weak

SECTION 2.5 – OPTIONAL In those searches where additional information is going to be requested from a subset of applicants who met the basic qualifications (e.g. reference letters for only a subset of applicants, pre-arranged interviews at professional conferences, Skype preliminary screenings, phone preliminary screenings) please use this criteria with edits to fit the particular needs of your recruitment as necessary.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The committee must provide a job related reason(s) for selecting some candidates over others to conduct the preliminary screening – it is expected these reasons will be individually based on the application materials submitted.

If preliminary interviews will be conducted, please also list the questions that will be asked)

20. The following is strong enough to warrant additional information via (what method will be used?)______. (Please fill in a job related reason why an applicant is being chosen for additional information.

21. As a result of the additional information via______, (insert method from #20) the following is not as strong as those chosen for invite for visit or alternate interviewee: (Insert job related reason(s), may be criteria from section 2)

SECTION #3: Individuals that are judged to be the most promising, and are identified for a formal campus interview or as an alternate interviewee, fall into Section #3.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The below choices in Section #3, can be edited as needed to assist you in assessing the candidates.

Meets advertised basic qualifications, and identified as potential for interview or alternate because…

30.Teaching judged to be good.

31.Teaching judged to be very good.

32.Teaching judged to be outstanding.

33.Research judged to be good.

34.Research judged to be very good.

35. Research judged to be outstanding.

36.Area of specialty matches programmatic needs.

37. Area of specialty a very good match with programmatic needs.

38.Area of specialty an excellent match with programmatic needs.

39.Service judged to be good.

40.Service judged to be very good.

41.Service judged to be outstanding.

42.Letters of recommendation good.

43.Letters of recommendation very good.

44.Letters of recommendation outstanding.

45.Strong contribution(s) to diversity through research, teaching and/or service.

46.Very strong contribution(s) to diversity through research, teaching, and/or service.

47.Outstanding contribution(s) to diversity through research, teaching, and/or service.

After your interviews have been conducted, you will need to include a brief narrative for each candidate interviewed. This narrative should indicate why the selected candidate(s) was chosen over the others, what the ranking order was (if applicable), and why the remaining interviewees were not as strong/not selected.

Rev. 9/23/16

N:\Apo\LIBRARY\RECRUIT\RECRUIT DOCUMENTATION\2016-17\2016-17 Documents Updated