|
|
Post by CommFac on Dec 9, 2010 0:52:02 GMT -5
I meant to say a department may not tell you they offered the offer to someone else, in case that person declines and they want to offer it you. That way, you don't actually know you are #2. Yes, if you interviewed and haven't been specifically rejected, you may be the runnerup. If departments typically interview three candidates, then half of those not initially offered the position are the runnerup. If a runnerup does accept the sliding offer, it's considered bad form for colleagues to disclose that someone else was the first choice, but it's also very difficult to conceal that fact for long. |
|
|
|
Post by What on Dec 9, 2010 7:35:02 GMT -5
I appreciate your argument if we are looking at this through the perspective of the department, but the whole point of the original thread was about the ethics of non-disclosure from the applicant's side. Even though it's in the department's best interest not to disclose who is first, that does not mean it is also best for the candidate. I myself would rather have a bruised ego, and more information about where I stand, particularly once I think about the tenure vote that may come further down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by bloch on Dec 9, 2010 9:46:35 GMT -5
i think the point is that this isn't a matter of ethics at all. the comment's from 'the department's persective' are explaining that hearing from the SC has nothing to do with manners and to see the situation in those terms is to misunderstand it. i think if someone feels very offended by this 'rudeness' it's because psychologically they need a focus point for their general frustration. i've been interviewed and never heard back. i understood where i stood. i didn't get the job. it never occurred to me to care whether they never sent a note.
|
|
|
|
Post by crap on Dec 13, 2010 12:46:18 GMT -5
Want to talk about common courtesy?
CSU San Bernardino has just sent an email acknowledging the receipt of applications... that included all applicants visible in the "To" line. So now I know the name of the 100 or so applicants for the position, and they know mine.
Personally I would rather deal with a department that is too overzealous about the information they divulge regarding the job search than one that is so careless as to announce to the world the name and email of every single person who applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by anon on Dec 13, 2010 13:41:02 GMT -5
Want to talk about common courtesy? CSU San Bernardino has just sent an email acknowledging the receipt of applications... that included all applicants visible in the "To" line. So now I know the name of the 100 or so applicants for the position, and they know mine. Personally I would rather deal with a department that is too overzealous about the information they divulge regarding the job search than one that is so careless as to announce to the world the name and email of every single person who applied. Whoa...that had to be a mistake. Most people should know not to breach the confidentiality of candidates by doing that. Techno-cluelessness is no excuse. Sorry to hear this happened to you. |
|
|
|
Post by crap on Dec 13, 2010 23:40:54 GMT -5
Sorry to hear this happened to you. No harm done to me, at least. People know I am on the market. But something like this can have major implications for people who already have a job. Personally I didn't look through the list and would never dream of relaying that information to anyone else, but you never know. |
|
|
|
Post by rant on Dec 14, 2010 15:24:17 GMT -5
Here's another rant that belongs here. I interviewed somewhere 3 weeks ago. They said they would decide sometime by the following Friday and let me know - and I have not heard anything. Maybe they offered it to someone else ( it's not on the wiki)...but why tell me if I wasn't going to hear one way or the other?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by AnonFac on Dec 14, 2010 15:30:57 GMT -5
Here's another rant that belongs here. I interviewed somewhere 3 weeks ago. They said they would decide sometime by the following Friday and let me know - and I have not heard anything. Maybe they offered it to someone else ( it's not on the wiki)...but why tell me if I wasn't going to hear one way or the other?!? Hiring decisions can be extraordinarily complex and political, hence unpredictable. A final decision may seem imminent, but then a key committee member or department star changes her/his mind, and the timetable changes. The academic process makes the hiring of Cliff Lee (baseball star this week) seem simple. You were probably told the best answer at the time. As a social constructionist wrote, an answer is whatever terminates the questioning. |
|
|
|
Post by GotYourBack on Dec 15, 2010 8:34:53 GMT -5
Yes, timelines change, deans stall, etc. but it's just common decency that if you told someone you'd contact them, you contact them. How hard would it be to shoot a quick email that says they've had a delay and will be in contact as soon as possible? I know sometimes it's awkward and uncomfortable for chairs and faculty to contact people, but if contact was promised then it needs to be delivered. I think that was also the point of some of the earlier posters. If departments don't want to let us know about positions then they shouldn't promise to (especially with specific dates!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Instrumentalist on Dec 17, 2010 12:17:17 GMT -5
Dept.'s who do not let candidates (esp. those they have made personal contact with) know that the search is over are doing the candidates a favor for three reasons:
1. There is no such thing as a normative obligation. All personal relations are for purely instrumental reasons and the sooner the applicant learns this the better.
2. Nobody should invest their hopes and dreams into any position. The position, as well as the department, colleagues and students are there to be used to advance our career. And if we don't get the job, we should just move on to the next opportunity to advance our own interests.
3. Anybody who thinks that there is any normative expectation or that a job could be a repository of our dreams will be seen by their fellow job seekers as having a psychological problem handling frustration. In addition, imaginary justiifications will be offered, for example that schools do this to avoid a law suit (although there has never been such a law suit).
Departments are doing this to prepare you for the real world of purely instrumental relations. Doesn't sociology tells us that this is the way that society should work?
|
|
|
|
Post by uhhh on Dec 17, 2010 22:39:28 GMT -5
Dept.'s who do not let candidates (esp. those they have made personal contact with) know that the search is over are doing the candidates a favor for three reasons: [...] Departments are doing this to prepare you for the real world of purely instrumental relations. Doesn't sociology tells us that this is the way that society should work? What the fuck? |
|
|
|
Post by truth hurts on Dec 18, 2010 8:28:28 GMT -5
i don't know about the favor part per se, but instrumentalist's three points are completely correct. figure it out people. the sooner the better, for the sake of your own psyche.
|
|
|
|
Post by no on Dec 18, 2010 8:41:08 GMT -5
Doesn't sociology tells us that this is the way that society should work? Um, no. Sociology does not tell me that. Could you please identify yourself? I'd like to know who you are so that if I ever meet you, I will know to walk away. |
|
|
|
Post by Milton on Dec 19, 2010 15:14:01 GMT -5
Doesn't sociology tells us that this is the way that society should work? Um, no. Sociology does not tell me that. Could you please identify yourself? I'd like to know who you are so that if I ever meet you, I will know to walk away. Milton Friedman |
|
|
|
Post by gettinmahgun on Dec 19, 2010 16:04:51 GMT -5
Damn zombie economists. Zombieconomists. |
|
