The comments on the Kalamazoo thread highlight the lack of transparency in the hiring process. I think we can all agree that we would like more transparency. We would like to know what our status is after interviews, and we'd like to know sooner rather than later. There are self-serving reasons why we would like more (and more timely) information. There are undoubtedly self-serving reasons for search committees to keep their cards close to their vests at least some of the time.
The fact that we'd like to know more doesn't mean that search committees owe us this information. Are we just a bunch of spoiled babies who don't like the lengthy, anxiety-inducing job process? Is the philosophy job market somehow that much worse (or different) than other job markets in this regard? For the most part, when you've gotten as far as a first-round interview or campus interview, you will find out whether or not you're still a contender, although you might not find out as soon as you'd like to. (There are exceptions to this rule, as with all rules, natch.) Assuming good will on the part of all parties, there may be legitimate reasons for SCs to withhold this information for a while.
But how much information do search committees really owe us? Do they owe us the truth if we directly ask for information we are not entitled to know?
~zombie
0 comments:
Post a Comment