A new trend?
L Smith
about the current
employment situation in the United States. Within that quote was a
description of a man who
had lost his job several months ago and was having no success in finding
a new job. The thing
that caught my attention was the number of resumes the article claimed
he was sending out
each month. I remember thinking that with that many resumes, there was
no way he could be
doing any research into the companies to find out what they actually needed.
In a related topic, there have been articles recently in the papers
about how companies are
struggling to keep up with EEO-related rules due to the huge number of
resumes they're
receiving each day. The wide-spread availability of email accounts has
made it almost 'painless'
to send hundreds of copies of your resume out in a very short time, and
lots of people are
doing so. I believe this has also been discussed on this forum.
Well, folks, I think I'm seeing an indication of how companies are
going to start addressing
this issue. I've seen a couple of ads recently that specifically tell
applicants NOT to send a
resume to the company. Instead of soliciting a resume, they list the
skills and/or experience
required for the job and ask you to send them a short message describing
specifically how
you satisfy each of those required skills or experience points.
I suspect that as people continue to use the 'carpet bomb' approach to
sending out resumes,
more and more companies are going to be going to this sort of 'targeted
applicant' approach.
Rich Lemert
jat...@ecn.ab.ca
: There was a post here recently that contained a quote from an article
: about the current
: employment situation in the United States. Within that quote was a
: description of a man who
: had lost his job several months ago and was having no success in finding
: a new job. The thing
: that caught my attention was the number of resumes the article claimed
: he was sending out
: each month. I remember thinking that with that many resumes, there was
: no way he could be
: doing any research into the companies to find out what they actually needed.
Or simply didn't qualify on the grounds of being over-educated and/or too
old.
<snip>
: Well, folks, I think I'm seeing an indication of how companies are
: going to start addressing
: this issue. I've seen a couple of ads recently that specifically tell
: applicants NOT to send a
: resume to the company. Instead of soliciting a resume, they list the
: skills and/or experience
: required for the job and ask you to send them a short message describing
: specifically how
: you satisfy each of those required skills or experience points.
: I suspect that as people continue to use the 'carpet bomb' approach to
: sending out resumes,
: more and more companies are going to be going to this sort of 'targeted
: applicant' approach.
It's a free-for-all nowadays when it comes to CVs. Some companies won't
accept functional resumes. Some don't want too much detail on the grounds
that they take too much time to read. Some go as far as to delete any
that are sent as e-mail attachments to guard against viruses. I've yet to
see a job ad that specifically states what sort of CV that will be
accepted.
--
***************************************** "We set sail on this new sea
* Dr. Bernhard Michael Jatzeck, P. Eng. * because there is new knowledge
* * to be gained and new rights to
* jat...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca * be won, and they must be won
***************************************** and used for the progress of
all people."
John F. Kennedy at Rice
University, Houston, Texas,
September 12, 1962
Arthur E. Sowers
The latest I hear is as before, they still scan resumes into computers nd
scan for key words. i.e. the companies have tight beam radar turned on.
The smart applicants find out what the key words are and pack their
resumes with the key words. Kinda like radar chaff.
They also generate that big sucking sound that pulls in H1Bs and now L1s.
rick++
In the mid-1980s the number of applicants per facuty position sky-rocketed
to often over a thousand. Much of this was due to word processing
replacing typewriters, compared to increase in candidates or decrease in jobs.
Arthur E. Sowers
I have yet to hear rumors or reports that the ratio of applicants to jobs
has dropped down from the 50-150+ to one range to anything reasonable
and/or to anything like a real shortage (i.e. zero applicants per job).
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On 10 Feb 2003, rick++ wrote:
>
>
>>I think it is an "old trend".
>>In the mid-1980s the number of applicants per facuty position sky-rocketed
>>to often over a thousand. Much of this was due to word processing
>>replacing typewriters, compared to increase in candidates or decrease in jobs.
>>
>
>
> I have yet to hear rumors or reports that the ratio of applicants to jobs
> has dropped down from the 50-150+ to one range to anything reasonable
> and/or to anything like a real shortage (i.e. zero applicants per job).
>
It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
nowhere near that for many other universities.
J.
Val E. Ryan
It is bullshit of the same kind as would be the announcement by the
Bush administration that a group of Afro-Americans was arrested: they
were found to mutter the words "Man... man... oh man...". The
administration believed they were talking about the manuals of how to
operate/explode the shuttle.
Regards,
Val E. Ryan
Arthur E. Sowers
On 11 Feb 2003, Val E. Ryan wrote:
> "Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E4873E6...@earthlink.net>...
> > Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10 Feb 2003, rick++ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I think it is an "old trend".
> > >>In the mid-1980s the number of applicants per facuty position sky-rocketed
> > >>to often over a thousand. Much of this was due to word processing
> > >>replacing typewriters, compared to increase in candidates or decrease in jobs.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I have yet to hear rumors or reports that the ratio of applicants to jobs
> > > has dropped down from the 50-150+ to one range to anything reasonable
> > > and/or to anything like a real shortage (i.e. zero applicants per job).
> > >
> >
> > It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> > nowhere near that for many other universities.
I can tell you for a fact that at "many other universities" its the same.
I've been there, made the applications not all that long ago, and either
in phone conversations or rejection letters they say what the number is.
Maybe in engineering its less, but I gave a seminar at Northwestern back
around '95 and they were telling me they got 500 applications for a
faculty job.
The most recent issue of The Scientist has many pages of adverts for
postdocs. Looked to me like ten times as many as for faculty. Most of
those positions have people in them who are not looking for another
postdoc, but are looking for a faculty job.
The situation in the non bio sciences is not as bad because there isn't as
much non-bio money (i.e. NSF & DoD & NASA to name a few compared to NIH,
& Howard Hughes) to flood the pool between PhD and real jobs.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> It is bullshit of the same kind as would be the announcement by the
Brian G. Moore
"George Smiley" <zx...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:slrnb4i0g...@callisto.jtan.com...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> > nowhere near that for many other universities.
>
> Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
> position which attracted 300 applications.
>
> --
> George Smiley
>
Well, I guess one could quibble with the word "many," but I saw Jeff's post
as just pointing out that at least at SOME universities, the number of
applicants is not nearly that high, not arguing that some universities still
get high numbers of applicants.
I was on search committees in the Chem. dept. of a small, undergraduate
campus for several years in the 90s and I saw the number of applicants per
position drop precipitously from the mid 90s to the late 90s. My guess is
that we are going to see them going start to go back up now, however.
--
Brian Moore/ brian...@hotmail.com
HugJE
>[snip]
>>
>> It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
>> nowhere near that for many other universities.
>
>Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
>position which attracted 300 applications.
>
>--
>George Smiley
My cousin recently applied for a chemistry faculty position at three different
universities. He was told by each school that there were well over 100
applicants. One was a non-tenure track teaching position, with a two-year
contract and no guarantee of further employment, and that too attracted over
100 candidates.
Patentreject
Jeffrey J. Potoff
George Smiley wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
>
>
> Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
> position which attracted 300 applications.
Biochemistry explains everything. How many industry jobs can one get
witha biochemistry degree? In engineering there is significant
competition between academia and industry.
J.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2003, Val E. Ryan wrote:
>
>
>>"Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E4873E6...@earthlink.net>...
>>
>>>Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Feb 2003, rick++ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think it is an "old trend".
>>>>>In the mid-1980s the number of applicants per facuty position sky-rocketed
>>>>>to often over a thousand. Much of this was due to word processing
>>>>>replacing typewriters, compared to increase in candidates or decrease in jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have yet to hear rumors or reports that the ratio of applicants to jobs
>>>>has dropped down from the 50-150+ to one range to anything reasonable
>>>>and/or to anything like a real shortage (i.e. zero applicants per job).
>>>>
>>>
>>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
>>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
>>
>
> I can tell you for a fact that at "many other universities" its the same.
> I've been there, made the applications not all that long ago, and either
> in phone conversations or rejection letters they say what the number is.
> Maybe in engineering its less, but I gave a seminar at Northwestern back
> around '95 and they were telling me they got 500 applications for a
> faculty job.
>
Northwestern = top ten university. Your area = bio-medical? Result =
lots of applications.
> The most recent issue of The Scientist has many pages of adverts for
> postdocs. Looked to me like ten times as many as for faculty. Most of
> those positions have people in them who are not looking for another
> postdoc, but are looking for a faculty job.
>
> The situation in the non bio sciences is not as bad because there isn't as
> much non-bio money (i.e. NSF & DoD & NASA to name a few compared to NIH,
> & Howard Hughes) to flood the pool between PhD and real jobs.
Ain't that the truth. George W. floods NIH with money while NSF funding
stays flat. The APS is lobbying hard for more funding for the physical
sciences, hopefully something will come of that.
J.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
When I applied for faculty positions I received that kind of info from
some places. And from others? I wasn't told the number of applicants,
but I know it wasn't over 100. Why did your cousin only apply to 3
universities? Is he not very interested in finding a position?
J.
Arthur E. Sowers
Sounds about right to me.
Arthur E. Sowers
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
> George Smiley wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> >>nowhere near that for many other universities.
> >
> >
> > Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
> > position which attracted 300 applications.
>
> Biochemistry explains everything. How many industry jobs can one get
> witha biochemistry degree?
Take a look at the back pages in The Scientist. Pharma & biotech.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
In engineering there is significant
Arthur E. Sowers
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
> HugJE wrote:
> >>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> >>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
> >>
> >>Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
> >>position which attracted 300 applications.
> >>
> >>--
> >>George Smiley
> >
> >
> > My cousin recently applied for a chemistry faculty position at three different
> > universities. He was told by each school that there were well over 100
> > applicants. One was a non-tenure track teaching position, with a two-year
> > contract and no guarantee of further employment, and that too attracted over
> > 100 candidates.
>
> When I applied for faculty positions I received that kind of info from
> some places. And from others? I wasn't told the number of applicants,
Why didn't you ask?
> but I know it wasn't over 100.
How do you know if they didn't tell you and you didn't ask?
Why did your cousin only apply to 3
> universities? Is he not very interested in finding a position?
You must _think_ the job market is worse than you _say_ it is.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> J.
>
>
Arthur E. Sowers
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
> Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2003, Val E. Ryan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E4873E6...@earthlink.net>...
> >>
> >>>Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 10 Feb 2003, rick++ wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I think it is an "old trend".
> >>>>>In the mid-1980s the number of applicants per facuty position sky-rocketed
> >>>>>to often over a thousand. Much of this was due to word processing
> >>>>>replacing typewriters, compared to increase in candidates or decrease in jobs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I have yet to hear rumors or reports that the ratio of applicants to jobs
> >>>>has dropped down from the 50-150+ to one range to anything reasonable
> >>>>and/or to anything like a real shortage (i.e. zero applicants per job).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> >>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
> >>
> >
> > I can tell you for a fact that at "many other universities" its the same.
> > I've been there, made the applications not all that long ago, and either
> > in phone conversations or rejection letters they say what the number is.
> > Maybe in engineering its less, but I gave a seminar at Northwestern back
> > around '95 and they were telling me they got 500 applications for a
> > faculty job.
> >
>
> Northwestern = top ten university.
Far from it. Second tier at best, maybe almost third.
Your area = bio-medical? Result =
> lots of applications.
Desireable location.
> > The most recent issue of The Scientist has many pages of adverts for
> > postdocs. Looked to me like ten times as many as for faculty. Most of
> > those positions have people in them who are not looking for another
> > postdoc, but are looking for a faculty job.
> >
> > The situation in the non bio sciences is not as bad because there isn't as
> > much non-bio money (i.e. NSF & DoD & NASA to name a few compared to NIH,
> > & Howard Hughes) to flood the pool between PhD and real jobs.
>
> Ain't that the truth. George W. floods NIH with money while NSF funding
> stays flat. The APS is lobbying hard for more funding for the physical
> sciences, hopefully something will come of that.
I told you months ago to look into bio-terrorism for funding. Weeks ago I
mentioned a national conference on all this moola falling into the laps of
anyone who can get their shit togetehr on this. Or, are you already
rolling in grant/contract money?
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> J.
>
>
Brian G. Moore
"George Smiley" <zx...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:slrnb4kln...@callisto.jtan.com...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:40:38 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> > George Smiley wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> >>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
> >> Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry
faculty
> >> position which attracted 300 applications.
> >
> > Biochemistry explains everything. How many industry jobs can one get
> > witha biochemistry degree?
>
> Depends on the area of biochemistry you have experience in.
>
> > In engineering there is significant competition between academia
> > and industry.
>
> There is certainly a glut of "biochemists" and biologists.
>
> --
> George Smiley
>
Everybody says this. What I don't get is that whenever I see an ad for a
"chemist" (on here or elsewhere), what they are really looking for is a
biochemist or molecular biologist.
I suppose it might have to do with total numbers? If the total number of
biochemists, etc. is much larger (than say non-biochemist chemists), the
number of job opportunities could be much greater, and there could still be
a glut.
But it is kind of interesting. Art and others have said that chemists are
in not as bad a position as biochemists & molecular biologists. I don't
debate that, but I've gone almost decade long periods of time and not seen
an advertised industry position in chemistry that came even remotely close
to my area.
--
Brian Moore/ brian...@hotmail.com
HugJE
Good question. I can only speculate that:
1) He is being very selective.
2) He is just getting started on his search.
3) He doesn't want to give up on his industrial job just yet, so he's "feeling
out" his options.
4) There are not many positions where he feels he is a good fit (he is an
analytical chemist, BTW).
My guess is that each of the above is a factor, among other things.
Patentreject
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George Smiley wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
>>>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
>>>position which attracted 300 applications.
>>
>>Biochemistry explains everything. How many industry jobs can one get
>>witha biochemistry degree?
>
>
> Take a look at the back pages in The Scientist. Pharma & biotech.
Too busy writing grant proposals.
J.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
>>
>>HugJE wrote:
>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
>>>>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
>>>>
>>>>Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
>>>>position which attracted 300 applications.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>George Smiley
>>>
>>>
>>>My cousin recently applied for a chemistry faculty position at three different
>>>universities. He was told by each school that there were well over 100
>>>applicants. One was a non-tenure track teaching position, with a two-year
>>>contract and no guarantee of further employment, and that too attracted over
>>>100 candidates.
>>
>>When I applied for faculty positions I received that kind of info from
>>some places. And from others? I wasn't told the number of applicants,
>
>
> Why didn't you ask?
Because I received offers I was happy with and saw no need to continue
collecting information for a job search when I wasn't searching any more.
>
>
>>but I know it wasn't over 100.
>
>
> How do you know if they didn't tell you and you didn't ask?
You're right, Art. No one talks to each other in academia. Nor is it
possible to infer information from other known quantities. We should
just accept your assertion that because someone told you that they 500
applications in biochemistry at Northwestern that all faculty positions
in all departments are getting 500 applicants.
>
> Why did your cousin only apply to 3
>
>>universities? Is he not very interested in finding a position?
>
>
> You must _think_ the job market is worse than you _say_ it is.
I didn't say it was 3 applications per opening, did I? I know what the
hiring process is like for faculty positions. The number of applicants
per opening isn't as important as you make it out to be. Departments
are looking for specific people to fill specific holes. Different
departments are looking for different things. So, while you may not fit
the profile that one department wants, you may fit the profile another
is looking for. Aren't you the one who is always saying to go fishing
where there are fish? Why would want to purposefully limit your
opportunities for employment?
Anyone who is in an engineering or science related field should be
prepared to make a national job search. Local searches are unlikely, in
many cases, to prove fruitful.
J.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>>
>>>On 11 Feb 2003, Val E. Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E4873E6...@earthlink.net>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 10 Feb 2003, rick++ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think it is an "old trend".
>>>>>>>In the mid-1980s the number of applicants per facuty position sky-rocketed
>>>>>>>to often over a thousand. Much of this was due to word processing
>>>>>>>replacing typewriters, compared to increase in candidates or decrease in jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have yet to hear rumors or reports that the ratio of applicants to jobs
>>>>>>has dropped down from the 50-150+ to one range to anything reasonable
>>>>>>and/or to anything like a real shortage (i.e. zero applicants per job).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
>>>>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
>>>>
>>>I can tell you for a fact that at "many other universities" its the same.
>>>I've been there, made the applications not all that long ago, and either
>>>in phone conversations or rejection letters they say what the number is.
>>>Maybe in engineering its less, but I gave a seminar at Northwestern back
>>>around '95 and they were telling me they got 500 applications for a
>>>faculty job.
>>>
>>
>>Northwestern = top ten university.
>
>
> Far from it. Second tier at best, maybe almost third.
You're out of the loop, Art. Northwestern is no thrid tier university.
>
> Your area = bio-medical? Result =
>
>>lots of applications.
>
>
> Desireable location.
>
>
>>>The most recent issue of The Scientist has many pages of adverts for
>>>postdocs. Looked to me like ten times as many as for faculty. Most of
>>>those positions have people in them who are not looking for another
>>>postdoc, but are looking for a faculty job.
>>>
>>>The situation in the non bio sciences is not as bad because there isn't as
>>>much non-bio money (i.e. NSF & DoD & NASA to name a few compared to NIH,
>>>& Howard Hughes) to flood the pool between PhD and real jobs.
>>
>>Ain't that the truth. George W. floods NIH with money while NSF funding
>>stays flat. The APS is lobbying hard for more funding for the physical
>>sciences, hopefully something will come of that.
>
>
> I told you months ago to look into bio-terrorism for funding. Weeks ago I
> mentioned a national conference on all this moola falling into the laps of
> anyone who can get their shit togetehr on this. Or, are you already
> rolling in grant/contract money?
Got grant money, looking for more. Might be able to spin something for
NIH with respect to sensing.
J.
L Smith
Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:Is he not very interested in finding a position?
Whatever your cousin's reasons are for being selective - if that is indeed what he's doing -Good question. I can only speculate that: 1) He is being very selective. 2) He is just getting started on his search. 3) He doesn't want to give up on his industrial job just yet, so he's "feeling out" his options. 4) There are not many positions where he feels he is a good fit (he is an analytical chemist, BTW).
he's going to need to be very patient and he's going to have to do a lot of groundbreaking.
He'll need to make sure the departments to which he's applying are likely to have openings
in his area within the next few years - either because they're a large department with a
reasonable amount of turnover or because he knows that someone is within a few years
of retiring. He'll also need to make sure he's very well known within the department - and
not just among his analytical colleagues. If he can snag a seminar opportunity, that will help.
He'll also need to chat with people at technical conferences and call them up from time to
time just to chat about how things are going. It would also be a good idea to let them know
that he's interested in a facutly position, whether he's actively searching or just keeping an
eye open for opportunities.
Another way of saying this is that he wants to get as many people in the department
interested in him as he can, so that in the best-case scenario _they_ invite him to apply
for an opening, or, at the very least, someone lets him know that there's an opening he
should look into.
He'll need to be very patient to use this approach, but if he's already got a decent job
he can afford at least some patience.
And, lest you think this is too far-fetched, it's very common for senior-level faculty
to be recruited this way.
Rich Lemert
Arthur E. Sowers
Yeah, and I told you that would happen, too.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| http://www.magpage.com/~arthures |
-----------------------------------------
> J.
>
>
Arthur E. Sowers
Its not in the top ten, and its not in the top 20, either. Second tier:
depends on where in the second tier you are. The name showed up nowhere in
the The Scientist article I quoted recently. Where do you get your
sentence reference? And, GA tech wasn't mentioned either and you thought
they were such hot shit. But Georgia was mentioned.
You're talking through your hat.
> >
> > Your area = bio-medical? Result =
> >
> >>lots of applications.
> >
> >
> > Desireable location.
> >
> >
> >>>The most recent issue of The Scientist has many pages of adverts for
> >>>postdocs. Looked to me like ten times as many as for faculty. Most of
> >>>those positions have people in them who are not looking for another
> >>>postdoc, but are looking for a faculty job.
> >>>
> >>>The situation in the non bio sciences is not as bad because there isn't as
> >>>much non-bio money (i.e. NSF & DoD & NASA to name a few compared to NIH,
> >>>& Howard Hughes) to flood the pool between PhD and real jobs.
> >>
> >>Ain't that the truth. George W. floods NIH with money while NSF funding
> >>stays flat. The APS is lobbying hard for more funding for the physical
> >>sciences, hopefully something will come of that.
> >
> >
> > I told you months ago to look into bio-terrorism for funding. Weeks ago I
> > mentioned a national conference on all this moola falling into the laps of
> > anyone who can get their shit togetehr on this. Or, are you already
> > rolling in grant/contract money?
>
> Got grant money, looking for more.
How much and from who?
Arthur E. Sowers
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>
> Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>HugJE wrote:
> >>
> >>>>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:54:16 GMT, Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
> >>>>[snip]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It might be 150+ for an opening at MIT, but I assure you that it's
> >>>>>nowhere near that for many other universities.
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh really? The institution where I work advertised a biochemistry faculty
> >>>>position which attracted 300 applications.
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>George Smiley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My cousin recently applied for a chemistry faculty position at three different
> >>>universities. He was told by each school that there were well over 100
> >>>applicants. One was a non-tenure track teaching position, with a two-year
> >>>contract and no guarantee of further employment, and that too attracted over
> >>>100 candidates.
> >>
> >>When I applied for faculty positions I received that kind of info from
> >>some places. And from others? I wasn't told the number of applicants,
> >
> >
> > Why didn't you ask?
>
> Because I received offers I was happy with and saw no need to continue
> collecting information for a job search when I wasn't searching any more.
You should ask anyway.
> >
> >
> >>but I know it wasn't over 100.
> >
> >
> > How do you know if they didn't tell you and you didn't ask?
>
> You're right, Art. No one talks to each other in academia.
A few do. I do.
Nor is it
> possible to infer information from other known quantities. We should
> just accept your assertion that because someone told you that they 500
> applications in biochemistry at Northwestern that all faculty positions
> in all departments are getting 500 applicants.
Well, when I got rejection letters back when I was searching, often they
told me how many applications they got. Even little dipshit local colleges
were getting 90 aps per job.
> >
> > Why did your cousin only apply to 3
> >
> >>universities? Is he not very interested in finding a position?
> >
> >
> > You must _think_ the job market is worse than you _say_ it is.
>
> I didn't say it was 3 applications per opening, did I? I know what the
> hiring process is like for faculty positions. The number of applicants
> per opening isn't as important as you make it out to be.
Sure it is. N applications for one job, means N-1 rejects.
Departments
> are looking for specific people to fill specific holes. Different
> departments are looking for different things. So, while you may not fit
> the profile that one department wants, you may fit the profile another
> is looking for.
Usually at different schools.
Aren't you the one who is always saying to go fishing
> where there are fish? Why would want to purposefully limit your
> opportunities for employment?
I never said that.
> Anyone who is in an engineering or science related field should be
> prepared to make a national job search. Local searches are unlikely, in
> many cases, to prove fruitful.
I agree.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Let me know what the rankings are in engineering.
J.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
How do you know they didn't make up that number just to keep people off
their back? Or to trump up their department? "We're so good we receive
200 applications for one position."
>
>>> Why did your cousin only apply to 3
>>>
>>>
>>>>universities? Is he not very interested in finding a position?
>>>
>>>
>>>You must _think_ the job market is worse than you _say_ it is.
>>
>>I didn't say it was 3 applications per opening, did I? I know what the
>>hiring process is like for faculty positions. The number of applicants
>>per opening isn't as important as you make it out to be.
>
>
> Sure it is. N applications for one job, means N-1 rejects.
It could mean N rejects.
J.