The Hiring Committee (HC)

Everything starts with the HC, which includes Robin, our full-time PhD students, our full-time MSc students, and our 4th-year undergrad students. This creates a large group. All HC members have equal power, equal votes, and equal responsibilities in the hiring process.

Why have such a large HC?

We want our intake to be as equitable and democratic as possible. None of us are free of the risks of favoritism or unconscious bias. A large group with equal power massively dilutes the impact of any one HC member's opinion (whether positive or negative) of a candidate.

Having more members means more diversity within the HC, further reducing the risks of unconscious biases affecting our intake. We all bring unique perspectives due to our different roles, life stages, responsibilities, and experiences. Our intake is more well-rounded when we honor that.

Why include 4th-years on the HC?

As our 4th-years have been with the lab for years already, they're very aware of which personalities and traits fit well into Berman Lab. Gaining experience with the intake process is also part of our "4th Year Academy", which provides our 4th-year students with powerful experience in reviewing applications, assessing candidates, notifying applicants with good or bad news, conducting intake interviews, and fulfilling a significant role in shaping the future of the lab.

Step 1: Intake and sub-group assignment

We post when intake is open and students submit their packages. All applications are then divided equally among all members of the HC, creating a sub-group of applications for each HC reviewer. If an applicant is assigned to an HC member who knows them (perhaps they've shared classes or clubs, or have communicated via email with Robin, etc.), then applications are traded with other HC members until everyone is in a situation to judge applicants based purely on the application package.

Step 2: Nominations and interview voting

Each HC reviewer examines all of their applications. The reviewer nominates two candidates from their sub-group for interviews and notifies the other applicants that they weren't selected. Once all HC members have chosen their nominees, all HC members read the applications of all nominated candidates, and then vote on which of those candidates should receive interviews. Those with the most votes are scheduled for interviews, and those who aren't receiving interviews are notified by an HC reviewer (we divide all notification tasks equally among HC members).

Step 3: Interviews and final voting

All interviewees are given their interviews and all are recorded. Members of the HC that can attend a given interview do so; HC members who are unable to attend watch the video later. After attending and/or watching interviews for all interviewees, each HC member votes privately on their top choices. When everyone has finalized their votes, Robin collates them into a table shared among all HC members to show who received the most votes. Those students are invited to join the lab, and HC members equally share the task of notifying other candidates that they weren't selected.