I used this case to start off my Molecular Biology lecture class in the Fall of 2000. This is a junior/senior level course with about 90 students, 10 of whom are first-year graduate students. I used the case in their one-hour discussion section to supplement the three hours of lecture and group quizzes that I do. The first week, I had the groups discuss the candidates in the case and make a recommendation, which they then shared with the entire class during the in-class discussion. The second week they had to try to get examples of recommendation letters written by their professors (with all names blacked out) and then discuss these within their groups. Below are some of the comments the students made when I asked them what they learned from this exercise. I asked them to answer that question at the end of the three- to five-page summmary paper that I asssigned with this case. In the summary paper, they had to tell me which candidate they had picked for the interview and why as well as provide a summary of their own strengths and weaknesses and how they might improve.

• To be sure, completing this project has been rewarding. It has allowed me to see the letter of recommendation process from a number of angles. I am better for having seen the perspective of the student, the recommender, and the person responsible for filling a position in a job or an academic program.

• By reading over the requirements for a good candidate for an employment opportunity, I can see how important it is to be able to work in a group setting and make contributions to its success by being able to follow, lead or communicate results to others.

• Though a strange assignment at first, I came away from it with a better understanding of the importance of group dialogue, academically and especially professionally. I also have a better idea of what an evaluation letter looks like and the steps that I would have to take in order to ensure myself of obtaining a persuasive one.

• I have recently applied to medical school and wish I had been exposed to this exercise prior to my application process. I am very impressed with this exercise and hope that many more students are exposed to it at an early point in their university experience.

• It was an interesting experience to discuss this with a group due to thte different ways of thinking and reasoning of each person in the group.

• When discussing whom we decided to hire during our discussion section, I actually got quite involved and expressed some of my ideas to the whole class not just my group. That is something I do not always do in a room full of people.

• When I arrived in discussion and presented my choice, it was not popular. Many people in the group had chosen Ted as a second or third choice, but the overwhelming majority favored Martin. It was the ensuing discussion and my attempt to justify my choice that led me to a surprising result. Often in my argument, I would attribute a characteristic to Ted that did not appear in the recommendation. After a while, I was forced to concede not only to the group, but also to myself that Martin was the better candidate. I was left with the question: If even I believe now that Martin is better, and if he appeared better on the checklist, why did I choose Ted? After looking over the exercise again later and over my notes from the discussion, I realized, with great surprise, what had happened. I had recognized that Ted was alot like me, so I had taken my own characteristics and imposed them on Ted, even though they do not appear in his evaluation. I realized that I wanted to hire Ted, with my own best traits.

• Most undergraduates have little concept of how hiring and firing is really done.

This is how the class voted on the five candidates:

Candidate	No. of Votes
Ted Forrest	33
Kathryn Grady	26
Martin Clinger	22
Terri Gordse	5
William Latham	2

Comments submitted 10/15/2000 by:

Susannah Gal
Department of Biological Sciences
State University of New York at Binghamton
sgal@binghamton.edu