Bastard applications.

[slemslempike]

I hate stupid requirements in job applications.

"Commitment to good quality research". Really? Well, damn, I'm a deliberately slap-dash researcher, with no pride in my work and a commitment to making it as shoddy as possible. I guess I can't apply. I mean, what on earth can they tell from the answer to that?

Comments

[zoje-george.livejournal.com]

Whether you can read and follow directions, I'd wager.

[jekesta]

Really that's one of their requirements? God. I bet they expect you to not steal from them or burn down their offices either. Moon on a stick.

[glitterboy1.livejournal.com]

Ha!

How stupid. Remember to point out that you use a spell-checker, too. Clearly, they need to be reassured.

[biascut.livejournal.com]

I bet it's something that their funding body requires them to put in. But I could just about see that it might describe a choice between someone who is doing research because it gets them paid vs. someone who is doing research with a full awareness of the purposes that their research might serve and why it was so important that it was thorough and careful?

[gair.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd guess that it's something they have to put in for the purpose of transparency and paper-trail-leaving. My old Department is currently selecting for a new lecturer post, and my ex-supervisor is working on the shortlisting, and she tells me that she has to provide a REASON in WRITING why every single non-shortlisted person isn't short-listed, so that... I don't know. So that if someone complains that they never get shortlisted for positions at this Department and they think it's just because the Head of School hates them, the School Secretary can check the file and say "No, it is because your list of publications consists of two essays in a non-peer-reviewed webjournal, and you therefore clearly do not demonstrate a commitment to good quality research."

But now all of this is making me think about Heidegger, so I had better go and lie down.