The Jason Arday case is in danger of becoming a red herring when it comes to quality control of university appointments. An anonymous letter-writer (7 August) commented that Arday “is well known for the kindness he promotes” – a rare exception within a slew of commentary that has had nothing to say about Arday’s actual job performance. As an academic at Oxford University, I would say that underqualified appointees are significantly less common or problematic than those whose research output is excellent but who, nonetheless, devote little energy to teaching, are administratively indolent, and/or lack a collegiate sensibility.There are two main reasons for this. One is that appointment panels are excessively preoccupied by impressive publication records, and pay too little attention to applicants’ willingness to put time and energy into teaching, and to engage empathetically and constructively with both colleagues and institutional systems. Too often bad appointments occur because of, not despite, the “rigour” of our processes.Second, oversight and quality control of academics once they have been appointed is often almost nonexistent. “Dead weight” appointees get worked around, not challenged; and performance reviews at the end of probationary periods are routinely conducted without meaningful consultation with the colleagues and students that they work with. Sometimes this occurs because senior management are too far removed from the day-to-day realities of academic life, or it stems from a misguided view that research productivity is difficult, whereas the bread-and-butter of teaching and teamwork is easy.Of course, serious consequences must follow from exaggerating one’s credentials in order to gain promotion. However, although I do not know Jason Arday, it’s a good bet that, from a teaching and teamwork perspective, his (and my) university have made far worse appointments in recent years that have entirely escaped both internal scrutiny and external headlines.Name and address supplied