The right method of choosing good professors

Recruitment practices can sometimes leave students in the hands of professors who are experts in their subject but struggle to explain it clearly, writes P John J Kennedy

P John J Kennedy

A recent LinkedIn debate, sparked by a postdoctoral scholar’s frustration with a private university’s hiring process, which includes a written test, a demo class, and an interview, has reignited a crucial question: How should India recruit its college and university faculty? This is not just about bureaucratic procedure. It’s about the kind of higher education system we want. Should faculty be hired as researchers first and teachers second? Or should teaching ability, often treated as an afterthought, finally take center stage? The answer is not simple because India’s higher education landscape is diverse.

The UGC broadly categorises India’s institutions into teaching-focused, teaching-research, and research-intensive, each with different needs. However, most hiring processes treat them identically, as if a brilliant researcher will automatically be a great lecturer or a dynamic teacher must also churn out journal papers.

Private universities, especially, face a unique tension. Their survival depends on undergraduate enrollment. Students just out of school and their parents, who pay the tuition fee, want engaging classrooms, not faculty CVs stuffed with publications. However, recruitment often prioritises research metrics over teaching skills, leaving students stuck with professors who know their subject, perhaps even deeply, but cannot explain it clearly.

Written test – a redundant filter

Walk into any faculty recruitment drive, and you’ll likely find candidates hunched over answer sheets, scribbling away in a timed test. The logic? To assess subject knowledge. However, here’s the flaw: These candidates already hold master’s degrees, PhDs, or have cleared the NET. If they have made it this far, they know their discipline.

What written tests do not evaluate is whether they can teach. Can they hold a student’s attention? Break down complex ideas? Handle a room of restless undergrads? A paper test will not tell you that. Worse, it risks favouring rote memorisers over true educators—those who can make a subject come alive.

Importance of a demo class

If there’s one step that should be non-negotiable, it’s the teaching demonstration. Unlike schoolteachers, who typically train in pedagogy, college faculty often enter classrooms with little to no formal teaching preparation. The result? Brilliant minds who drone through lectures, losing students within minutes.

A demo class cuts through the noise. It shows:

Can they explain a concept clearly without oversimplifying it?

Do they engage students or just talk at them?

Can they handle questions, spark discussion, or adapt on the spot?

I have sat through countless faculty recruitments, and the demo is where stars rise and red flags appear. A candidate might have a PhD from a top university, but if they cannot hold a classroom’s attention, what good is that pedigree to students?

Filtering beyond the CV

The interview shouldn’t be a rubber stamp. It is the chance to ask: Who is this person, really?

Subject mastery: Can they discuss their field in depth rather than just recite facts?

Teaching philosophy: Do they prioritise student care or merely syllabus coverage?

Research integrity (if relevant): Is their work meaningful, or just padding for promotions?

Too often, interviews devolve into box-ticking—confirming degrees, publications, and regulatory compliance. But the best faculty are not just qualified; they are invested. They see teaching as more than a job and research as more than a mandate. The interview should uncover that.

India’s obsession with publication counts has backfired. In many institutions, faculty are pressured to publish, not to advance knowledge, but to meet the demands of regulatory bodies. The result? A flood of shallow papers, plagiarism scandals, and predatory journals thriving on desperation. This does not mean research should vanish. However, for teaching-focused colleges and universities, forcing faculty into relentless publishing distracts from their real job: educating students. If an institution lacks labs, funding, or research culture, why hire faculty as if they are at the Indian Institute of Science?

A better blueprint for hiring

So what’s the fix? A smarter, more flexible approach:

Scrap the written test: It’s redundant. Subject knowledge is already verified by degrees and interviews.

Make demo classes mandatory: Teaching skill isn’t optional. See it in action.

Deepen the interview: Probe teaching philosophy, adaptability, and institutional fit.

Be honest about research expectations: If an institution’s strength is teaching, hire teachers. If it’s research, hire researchers. Stop pretending every institution must do both.

Great faculty members do not just transmit information; they inspire. They turn disinterested students into curious thinkers. However, we need hiring processes that look beyond paperwork and into the human side of education to find them.

India’s higher education system is at a crossroads. We can continue to copy outdated recruitment models, or we can design ones that serve students. The choice is ours—but the time to rethink is now.

(The author is a former head of a Bengaluru-based university)