Last night, the Hong Kong University Council voted against the search committee's recommended candidate, a law professor, to the university's pro-vice chancellorship. After the Council meeting was adjourned, a student representative revealed the reason some Council members gave for voting against the appointment. Considering that those voted against the appointment include CEOs, former university presidents, and a renowned surgeon, the reasoning they allegedly made — lack of a doctoral degree, lack of publications, "not showing sympathy" after a Council member fell in a previous meeting — are quite comical.
According to the student representative, 12 members voted against the recommended candidate while 8 members supported the appointment. So any other candidate would require the support of at least 3 additional Council members in order to be appointed. So if I, by accident, am presented to this council as a candidate to a senior post at the University of Hong Kong, would I fare any better? Will the reasoning Council used for opposing the appointment of the law professor apply to me as well? Let's review some of the Council members' alleged reasons for voting against the appointment.
Member 1:
"He doesn't have a Doctoral Degree."
I have a doctorate.
"He became the Dean of the Faculty of Law only because he is a nice guy."
"He's too nice" is a statement often used for describing me.
Probability of member changing the vote: Depends on how nice he thinks I am
Member 2:
"He rarely publishes papers in academic journals and was the lead author of few academic papers."
The number of academic journal papers with me as an author: 6; the number of academic journal papers with me as the lead author: 5. Both numbers increase by 5 if one counts the papers presented in academic conferences. This output would likely considered low by this Council member.
Probability of member changing the vote: Very Slim
Member 3:
"According to results from Google Scholar, his research articles had only been searched for four times in the past five years."
The claim appeared to be based on this search result. According to the same web site, my work had been searched for 50 times.
Probability of member changing the vote: 50-50
Member 4:
"He fails to meet the academic standard expected of an Associate Professor."
Would my work meet the academic standard expected of an Assistant Professor? Probably not.
"He didn't show me any sympathy after I fell (in a previous meeting)."
This may be a little late (two months, in fact), but get well soon.
Probability of member changing the vote: Depends on how well he receives my well wishes
Members 5, 6 and 7:
"His integrity is questionable as he revealed that he was the only candidate before the appointment is confirmed."
No one, other than the people involved in the hiring process, has knowledge of my candidacy for any post.
"In the business world, any candidate who maintains a high profile during the hiring process would never be hired."
The above probably applies here as well.
Probability of members changing the vote: Hopeful
Based on their comments, up to 6 members who voted against the appointment may change their minds if I was presented as a candidate. Provided the 8 members who supported the appointment don't change their votes, perhaps I, and anyone with similar credentials, can start dreaming of a senior management position at a prestigious university.