What matters most when recruiters (for academia) make selections from the post-PhD pool. Where the student went to school? What the student's GPA was? What the student's research topic was? Other? Feel free to rank these characteristics from most important to least.

Number one is probably "Do they know you?". Sorry to say, but that's the way of the world. After that I'm not really sure.

Thanks. Can you elaborate? Do they get to "know you" through conferences, published papers, etc.?

They could get to know you in all of those ways, networking obviously gets your name out there more but to be honest it's mainly blind luck that someone you worked with has a job opportunity.

My boss at my last job used to hold CVs up in the office and ask if anyone knew the person on the CV. If the answer was no they usually went in the bin. If the answer was yes then he would ask about what the person was like and, if the answer was good, they would probably get an interview. This is a pretty extreme case (and technically illegal) but it highlights the point that most employers (including academics) would prefer to employ someone that they know. Some people look very good on CVs and interview well, but then turn out to be @rse holes. If you know them already then you know that that won't happen.

Incidentally, I got my next job because I knew a few people who worked at a different place, in fact my current job is the first I've had where I haven't known anyone there before I started.

Thank you, Screamingaddabs.(up)

In the UK it's mainly about your publications for permanent posts. Short-term contracts seem to have more of the 'do we know this person' character. But as you've written in US English, I'm guessing you might be asking about the USA. I've heard that there the institution you attended and who writes your reference letters play a much bigger role.

Thanks, Bewildered. Yes, I'm referring to schools in the USA. Hopefully, it is more about publications here as well.