 |
| We are VERY important. |
We have gotten 35 applicants for a VERY specifically worded job application that has just hit its deadline.
This is the entire text of the automatic email to candidates. It was voted on by my colleagues:
Due to the large volume of applications, we will only be in contact with those that are selected for an interview.
Only 35? Must be a narrow field.
ReplyDeleteI am told when they ran a search 2 years ago, they had 11! It is a small sub discipline within a small department.
DeleteRude! Can you volunteer to email the remaining 31 (or whatever)? As much for the protest value for your colleagues as decency to the candidates.
ReplyDeleteJust before Easter, I had an interview and teaching demo for a full-time position, so at that point, was probably one of 5-7 finalists for the job. I was told I should hear back early the next week, but I still haven't heard a peep. Writing's on the wall, of course, but is it really that much trouble to ask an administrative assistant to send out a form email?
ReplyDeleteUgh, I'm sorry. That's rough.
DeleteSo obnoxious.
ReplyDeleteI worked for someone as an adjunct for 12 years and they voted to not contact the candidates who interviewed but weren't selected. Then she was all bright and shiny to my face. This is a woman who pounced on my current chair at the ACS meeting to tell her I'd applied. You approach someone's current chair, you better be seriously considering that candidate, and if you seriously considered that candidate, you send them the fuckin' Dear John letter.
And I'm the best adjunct they had but I refuse to teach for her now. And the next time a position opens she'll tell me I should apply again, like she's done before.
I worked there 12 years - what did my current chair (I had been here a year at that time) possibly know that she didn't already know?
I hate searches. I hate search committees. I hate tenured jerks who treat contingent faculty like untouchables.
Send fucking rejection letters!
I will only contact you if I am NOT coming for an interview.
ReplyDeleteI'm on a non-academic (church) search committee, and volunteered to be corresponding secretary partly because I feel strongly that this needs to be handled promptly, and well. I'm pretty sure it would be anyway, but it shouldn't take a church context for that to happen; there's such a thing as plain old human decency.
ReplyDeleteThe slightly new (to me) wrinkle in the church context is that there's an electronic matching system (sort of computer dating for churches and pastors, using the standardized denominational forms we fill out at the beginning of a search). Etiquette on dealing with those matches seems to be evolving. Apparently both parties are notified of a match, so we'll probably get in touch with candidates to let them know about our timeline and process, and to invite them to send further information (e.g. a cover letter) if they're interested, but that probably also means sending rejection letters (well, we've decided not to take this further letters) to those people, even though they didn't apply in the first place. Some people feel that's unnecessary; others feel it's polite to provide some closure.
The other interesting wrinkle: some pastors include faith statements in the packages that go to the centralized denominational database, and some don't; it's their choice. I wondered why, and was told that some applicants tailor their faith statements for the particular congregations to which they apply. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. I understand tailoring cover letters and c.v.s; as far as I know, that's standard practice in academia, and I've done plenty of it myself. And I understand the argument for tailoring -- some pastors are willing to serve congregations with which they do not entirely agree theologically, and to keep any disagreements to themselves, focusing instead on what they and their parishioners have in common. I get that. I also get that faith statements are shaped to meet denominational theological requirements all the time, and may not represent the full complexity of a candidate's thinking (or the fact that, when it comes to faith, many of us think different things on different days). All that said, I'm still having a bit of trouble getting my mind around the idea of tailored faith statements. I probably need to grow up and be a bit less idealistic. Ministry is, after all, a job as well as a vocation, and I certainly object when others emphasize the vocational over the professional/employment aspects of teaching.