rrr
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by rrr on Oct 27, 2011 15:58:44 GMT -5
Which indicates that one's chances for getting a job at a crap place are higher. Thus logic confirms common sense. But good to check on that sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by bluntest on Oct 27, 2011 16:06:37 GMT -5
^True. I posit that the later in the year/hiring cycle, the higher the proportion of 'crap' jobs remaining. Which, again, is common sense.
|
|
guest
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by guest on Oct 28, 2011 15:00:53 GMT -5
Sociology isn't assembly line work; we aren't interchangeable. If a place wants a gender researcher, it isn't going with an environmental soc person just because those are the people who are still left. Counting number of jobs vs. candidates is silly -- just as happens every year, some jobs will go unfilled and some candidates will go without jobs.
|
|
|
Post by unclekarl on Oct 28, 2011 21:10:34 GMT -5
Sociology isn't assembly line work; we aren't interchangeable. If a place wants a gender researcher, it isn't going with an environmental soc person just because those are the people who are still left. Counting number of jobs vs. candidates is silly -- just as happens every year, some jobs will go unfilled and some candidates will go without jobs. My (n=1) experience watching SCs is that things very a great deal by universities. Some must hire exactly what they advertise. Others will hire someone who is not a great fit for the advertised position, but comes out as a good fit. I've not personally seen what has gone on behind-the-scenes in a failed search, but it may be as simple as no one can break a tie on who to hire. I have a hard time imagining an institution not being able to find someone in this market, unless they create conditions to do so. Geographical location might be an exception.
|
|