Abstract
Drawing on historical anecdotes, this essay critiques the bureaucratization of faculty evaluation and recruiting in U.S. universities. Using the 1768 appointment of poet Thomas Gray as a starting point, it traces how informal, patronage-based hires evolved into multi-layered procedures that create an ‘absurd’ faith in objectivity. Four fallacies are identified: the illusion of abundant objective evidence, the belief that numerical scoring enhances accuracy, the assumption that codified detail guarantees wiser judgments, and the conviction that involving more reviewers ensures better decisions. Through examples of distorted reference letters, anonymous allegations, and tenure cases deferred until the final year, the analysis shows how these fallacies erode fairness, morale, and departmental quality. The piece calls for earlier, candid renewal decisions, ethical responsibility among faculty, and a shift from vacancy-driven searches to proactive, continuous recruitment akin to private-sector talent scouting. It concludes that ethical judgment, not bureaucratic ritual, should anchor academic personnel decisions overall.
Recommended Citation
Garvie, Peter
(1992)
""Vaine Opinions, Flattering Hopes, False Valuations": Some Problems In Faculty Evaluation And Recruiting,"
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin: Vol. 82, Article 4.
Available at:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol82/iss1/4
