[summer]

Although this article does not mention K-12, I would like to point out that a very similiar practice takes place in education on the K-12 level -- at the beginning of the hiring process.

In my own experience, without prior notice, I was twice asked to take a "personality test" when applying for a K-12 teaching position, even though this is not what the school calls it. (All teacher applicants take the tests when a school or district uses the test; not just me.)

The test is timed - you have to answer the 50 or so muliple choice questions in X minutes (meaning: you must answer quickly). The Gallup organization, as well as other big companies, create these tests -- which do not measure knowledge of subject matter, nor anything else pertaining to teaching.

IMO, these tests should be called: "ARE YOU A LIBERAL OR A CONSERVATIVE? NOW WE WILL FIND OUT"

I have never seen any news articles written about these tests. It infuriates me that such tests are secretly flung at applicants, because what it says to me is this: The fact that you know the subject matter really DOES NOT COUNT, the fact that you can teach DOES NOT COUNT, the fact you do not have a criminal record really DOES NOT COUNT, and the fact you have outstanding prior recommendations DOES NOT COUNT. What REALLY counts as a teacher is that you "believe" what WE believe.

Here is the type of question from such a test: A student has cheated and is now crying. As a teacher, what you would do is: (a) empathize with the student or (b) tell the student cheating is wrong. (and other choices)

Now, I would think if you are a liberal teacher, you will chose (a) empathize. But, if you are a conservative, you will probably choose (b).

I think these tests for K-12 teachers should be illegal -- and prohibited. They provide no information pertaining to the actual skill or subject matter knowledge of the teacher. Rather, IMO, these "tests" are solely intended to determine what a teacher's political beliefs may be.

I also think that while collegiality may be a factor in any job situation, if there is a problem with a person so severe to be denied tenure, then the person should have already been fired prior to the tenure application. Otherwise, collegiality is really not an issue at all.

[summer]

FYI.

[summer]

FYI.

[balrog666]

We all know this is how they weed out the fools and ideologically driven professors including the outright wackos and the feminazis who sometimes slip through the hiring interviews. It's simple enough, if they denied them tenure because they were incompetent or ultra-leftists who graded by gender (or any other victimist criteria), then they'd get sued.

[Balding_Eagle]

Now, I would think if you are a liberal teacher, you will chose (a) empathize. But, if you are a conservative, you will probably choose (b).

We are engaged in warfare for the hearts and minds of those who follow us, namely our children.

Answer (a), without disclosing to anyone you are doing so. Live and teach using answer (b). Our country, and our future will be better for it.

I recognize that that isn't how things should be, but it does recognize and give appropriate response to the subversive ways of our enemies (thats how I feel about those who would sneak that test on you and others). I honestly don't know how you can live and work in that enviroment.

[LS]

Obviously I don't know your situation, but I have been on several promotion and tenure committees in my university department, and can tell you that this "collegiality" business is very important and it doesn't have anything to do with political ideology. (believe it or not!)

Want to know what it involves? There are many "young" faculty (just out of grad school, no matter how old they are chronologically) who think that their "specialty" is all that matters and they shouldn't have to teach Western Civ or U.S. History. No matter how we spell out in our interviews that ours is a "teaching university," people get through our process who think they are going to (I'm not making this up) teach "women in the pre-colonial era" as their entire course on U.S. History!!! Moreover, they utterly REBEL at teaching Western Civ if they are "Americanists."

Now, this has everything to do with "collegiality" because if everyone doesn't pull his or her fair share, some people end up with 5 sections of 35 kids each, while others have 2-3 with (literally) 4-5 kids each. If you think there isn't a massive difference in grading (at a department where we require tons of writing and essay tests) then you're mistaken. "Collegiality" is a generic phrase used to refer to "pulling your own weight" and literally "doing your job."

Oh, and I am on the lookout for ANY political discrimination, but I can assure you that so-far, once they have been offered a job, the issues are all about workload and fairness.

[AmishDude]

Martin Snyder, director of planning and development at the American Association of University Professors. "We just saw three cases simultaneously that all came down to the same thing. They're all male-dominated departments that hadn't tenured a woman in a long time, or ever, and there's some language about how the woman `just doesn't fit in.' What comes through is the sense that these are aggressive women who are seen as uppity."

That is a filthy disgusting lie and the article proves it. Here are the departments in question

1. biology
2. business
3. psychology
4. biology

That these professions are male-dominated is a roll-on-the-floor-split-the-sides laugh riot. Particularly psychology. Math, physics and computer science department would hire an ax-murderer as long as she was female. They -- out loud -- talk about the "need" to hire "a woman".

I'm not sure what the real story is here (other than whining) but it could be extreme unprofessionalism. I mean "run-ins with graduate students" are not common.

Trust me, there is no glut of untenured female professors in male-dominated fields. Not by a longshot.

summer, I really don't think this applies to the K-12 situation. The personality tests are not administered at the university level and the bar for professional behavior is remarkably low. Based on my experience, these cases are people who are abrasive, unpleasant and arrogant -- beyond that of the usual Ph.D! The NYT found some women because "arrogant men don't get tenure" doesn't have the sexism angle.

[tsomer]

The Gallup organization, as well as other big companies, create these tests -- which do not measure knowledge of subject matter, nor anything else pertaining to teaching.

Sounds like a personality test; they want to make sure you're the touchy-feely type-- naive,in other words. I wouldn't think it too dificult to fake them out.

But, what do they gain by sending a bunch of teddy bears into what passes as a classroom these days? One good fight with a student or parent and goodbye to their wet-nose idealism!