Approved by faculty vote 15 May 1997

This document along with the accompanying table [97 version, current version] is the proposal of the PRC for an orderly set of procedures for future faculty searches from the present through the 2001-2002 academic year. We suggest that any plan adopted by the department be revisited and reconsidered no later than the 2001-2002 academic year. This proposal represents a compromise between the forces of continuity and change, each of which has a role to play in ensuring this department will be even better in 2002 than it is in 1997. In consultation with the Chair, the PRC has adopted as a working hypothesis the assumption that this department has/will have the resources to grow from its current size of 48 faculty to a projected size of 59. there are three current (authorized searches (1 AMO, 2 CME) and two recent departures (Cox, Garland) whose positions we have considered committed to their groups (CMT, CME). The six remaining potential hires may be in any of the current groups (see Table [97 version, current version]) or in other areas stimulated by new initiatives. The criteria which should be addressed in any request for authorization of a search are described below.

In considering this proposal it is important to recall that in the 1988 Hiring Plan:

• 10 departures were anticipated; 22 departures occurred.

• 17 hires were anticipated; 21 hires occurred.

The present plan anticipates an asymptotic size of 59 (58 were anticipated in the 1988 plan); the current size is 48. We note that for comparison with leading Physics Departments:

• National rank is correlated with size. Among the NRC top 25, the average size of public university physics departments is 61. Only Minnesota, UCSB and Washington are smaller than us. However, Minnesota has the Theoretical Physics Institute, an Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, a Laboratory for Computation Science and Analysis and a Microtechnology Center; UCSB has a strong Engineering College and the NSF-Funded Institute for Theoretical Physics while Washington has both the DOE-funded Institute for Nuclear Theory and 23 Research Professorships.

• National rank is correlated with support. Without increased funding it is unrealistic for the Physics Department to increase its rank. Requests for authorization to search should address the impact of the prospective hire on funding within the department.

We propose that no more than two new searches be authorized per year above and beyond attrition. This limit reflects a realistic assessment of the ability of the College and University to respond to our search requests over the next five years. The numbers associated with the current size of each group (see the Table [97 version, current version]) represent each group's base (floor) during the lifetime of this plan. During this period any retirements, anticipated or otherwise, "belong" to the group (but any requests for a search must address the criteria listed below). Proposals requesting a search will be submitted during the Fall and Winter Quarters. The PRC will rank these proposals early in the Spring Quarter and forward their recommendations to the Chair who will call a faculty meeting at which the PRC's recommendations will be discussed and a vote taken to authorize (or not) a search to begin the following Fall (Summer?) Quarter.

Criteria for Ranking Proposals Include:

How will a successful hire in this area:

1. address important problems in Physics

2. enhance our national reputation?

3. impact on research efforts in our department, on campus and in the State?

4. affect the comparison of our research in this area with departments at other leading universities? (Note: This requires a comparison of the current effort and of the effect of the new hire.)

5. impact teaching? (Note: This requires a comparison of the current effort and the effect of the new hire.)

6. impact the recent external funding history in this area? (Note: This requires a comparison of the current effort and of the effect of the new hire.)

7. strengthen ties between existing areas?

8. be one of top persons available during the search time frame? (Each proposal should identify the best groups in the proposed search area. These groups will be contacted to learn who are the best candidates available at the time of the search whether or not hey may be persuaded to apply for the OSU position.)

In addition:

9. How will this position be funded?

10. How will this position affect the current department profile? If the area is in the current department profile (see Table [97 version, current version]), the number and duration of vacancies is relevant. If not, then the impact on the profile and funding for the rest of the profile is important.