Here are sample rubrics for you to use and adapt to your search
– Generally, the search committee should aim to develop a rubric with 5-8 criteria (or domains). This range strikes a balance between being comprehensive and efficient in assessment.
– Some committees may choose to have a single rubric, whereas others may find it helpful to have multiple rubrics for different stages of a search.
This “staged” approach with separate rubrics should be determined ahead of time and applied in the same way for all applicants.
Some committees find it useful to “scaffold” their rubrics so that they use 2-3 criteria in the first round of assessment (e.g., application screening) and then add additional criteria in subsequent rounds (e.g., interviews).
Consider and discuss these questions as a search committee:
– What are the goals for this hire in terms of clinical work, research, teaching, leadership, service, and/or outreach?
– Is there a prioritization amongst these goals for the department or division?
– How is the unit’s mission and commitment to DEI a part of each goal?
– What types of evidence will demonstrate achievement or future potential in each area?
– What would constitute a low, medium or high ranking within each area?
This is a tip sheet for assessing diversity statements, and below are two examples of rubrics used to assess diversity statements
– Rubric 1 (Nguyen and Thomas)
A caution about DEI assessment criteria
– Assessment criteria should focus on applicants’ knowledge, experience, and expertise, as well as on their potential for future contributions, not on demographic or identity markers.
– Be careful not to use DEI assessment criteria as a proxy for rating applicants’ identities, based either on their self-disclosures in application materials or on the committee’s assumptions.
A specific example is assessment criteria that specifies evaluating an applicant’s ability or potential to serve as a “role model” for students from underrepresented backgrounds. What kinds of evidence in applicants’ submitted materials or in candidates’ responses to interview questions will the committee actually assess to discern this?