Post by another guest on Feb 9, 2009 21:53:28 GMT -5
la guest,
I’m puzzled by your comments. On the one hand you say: “I think candidates are justified in their frustration over the lack of information about their status.” As far as I can tell, this is all this thread is about. If you agree that the frustration over the lack of information about one’s status is justified, then it seems to me that you agree with the spirit of this thread. (This would also explain why you found it necessary to add that your department actually notifies candidates about the status of your search. Surely you (seem to) think that this is the right thing to do—which is basically what people have claimed in their posts in this thread.)
However, you then go on to say: “you need to take into account the fact that candidates are quite simply obsessing over the issue.” I’m not sure I see the obsession you are talking about in this thread. If one is justified in being frustrated over the lack of information about one’s status, and consequently writes a blog post about it—maybe in the hope that some SC member might, as a result, realize that she can do something that would cost her nothing and would mean a lot to others—it really doesn’t seem like obsessing to me. Maybe we have different interpretations of the texts posted in this thread, but I didn’t see anyone blaming “search committees for the miserable state of the job market.” No one even complained about not getting a job. Everyone knows (or should know) that there are many more talented and qualified hopeful philosophers out there than there are jobs. Moreover, no one is asking for a day-to-day update. But when you have a person—a human being with hopes and desires—on campus for a visit, and you talk to that person for a whole day and you act like you care about that person, it is very rude to simply ignore that person once you decided to hire someone else. As I understand it, departments don’t offer positions on a daily basis. What I think people are unhappy about is that when department do make an offer, they do not notify the rest of the candidates even though they could very easily do so. By notifying the rest of the candidates they would demonstrate that they are respectful of the fact that they are dealing with human beings (and not just dossiers).
As for updating the wiki with information one has: now that’s an interesting issue. Here’s one way to think about it. Surely it’s not la guest’s job to update the wiki. But similarly, it is not la guest’s job to help her elderly neighbor carry his groceries up the stairs. Nevertheless, if la guest is young and healthy, it would probably be rude of her no to help her neighbor even though it is not her job to do so. We won’t put her in jail if she fails to help her neighbor, but we might think poorly of her behavior.
Now here’s another way to think about the situation. La guest came across information and it is not up to her to decide whether this information ought to be made public. So, for example, if a friend tells la guest a secret, it would certainly be rude of la guest to post this secret on the internet.
I’m not really sure what to think about this. Perhaps the question comes down to whether information about campus interviews and job offers is (or ought to be) private information as far as schools are concerned. Is there any reason for schools to prefer that this information will not be made public? If not, then it seems to me that there is no reason not to make the information public regardless of how one came to have this information (unless, of course, one was specifically asked to keep it a secret), because doing so will make some people happy (even if those people are obsessive job candidates), and it will hurt no one. However, if making this information public might harm schools then perhaps there is good reason not to make it public. Can anyone think of (good) reasons why schools might prefer to hide information about interviews/offers?
I’m puzzled by your comments. On the one hand you say: “I think candidates are justified in their frustration over the lack of information about their status.” As far as I can tell, this is all this thread is about. If you agree that the frustration over the lack of information about one’s status is justified, then it seems to me that you agree with the spirit of this thread. (This would also explain why you found it necessary to add that your department actually notifies candidates about the status of your search. Surely you (seem to) think that this is the right thing to do—which is basically what people have claimed in their posts in this thread.)
However, you then go on to say: “you need to take into account the fact that candidates are quite simply obsessing over the issue.” I’m not sure I see the obsession you are talking about in this thread. If one is justified in being frustrated over the lack of information about one’s status, and consequently writes a blog post about it—maybe in the hope that some SC member might, as a result, realize that she can do something that would cost her nothing and would mean a lot to others—it really doesn’t seem like obsessing to me. Maybe we have different interpretations of the texts posted in this thread, but I didn’t see anyone blaming “search committees for the miserable state of the job market.” No one even complained about not getting a job. Everyone knows (or should know) that there are many more talented and qualified hopeful philosophers out there than there are jobs. Moreover, no one is asking for a day-to-day update. But when you have a person—a human being with hopes and desires—on campus for a visit, and you talk to that person for a whole day and you act like you care about that person, it is very rude to simply ignore that person once you decided to hire someone else. As I understand it, departments don’t offer positions on a daily basis. What I think people are unhappy about is that when department do make an offer, they do not notify the rest of the candidates even though they could very easily do so. By notifying the rest of the candidates they would demonstrate that they are respectful of the fact that they are dealing with human beings (and not just dossiers).
As for updating the wiki with information one has: now that’s an interesting issue. Here’s one way to think about it. Surely it’s not la guest’s job to update the wiki. But similarly, it is not la guest’s job to help her elderly neighbor carry his groceries up the stairs. Nevertheless, if la guest is young and healthy, it would probably be rude of her no to help her neighbor even though it is not her job to do so. We won’t put her in jail if she fails to help her neighbor, but we might think poorly of her behavior.
Now here’s another way to think about the situation. La guest came across information and it is not up to her to decide whether this information ought to be made public. So, for example, if a friend tells la guest a secret, it would certainly be rude of la guest to post this secret on the internet.
I’m not really sure what to think about this. Perhaps the question comes down to whether information about campus interviews and job offers is (or ought to be) private information as far as schools are concerned. Is there any reason for schools to prefer that this information will not be made public? If not, then it seems to me that there is no reason not to make the information public regardless of how one came to have this information (unless, of course, one was specifically asked to keep it a secret), because doing so will make some people happy (even if those people are obsessive job candidates), and it will hurt no one. However, if making this information public might harm schools then perhaps there is good reason not to make it public. Can anyone think of (good) reasons why schools might prefer to hide information about interviews/offers?