I cracked up when I saw this cartoon because you would be amazed at how often fonts come up in search deliberations. Many years ago I saw with my own eyes a full professor put a CV in the reject pile while muttering, “That’s a stupid font. Only an idiot would use that font in an application.” I didn’t see which font was verboten, but I have heard someone say, half seriously, that they would never hire someone who used “Garamond” for formal correspondence: “too pretentious.” I’d hate to hear what those guys would say about “comic sans,” “Edwardian script,” or “gigi.“
Obviously, there are professional parameters for business communications, especially in searches, but my point is really that there is a certain level of pettiness that can creep into the selection process, especially when applicants are very numerous. At previous institutions and in my professional network, I’ve heard no’s generated by paper-weight choices (“lightweight paper makes for lightweight applicants”), by conference-presentation titles (“if it has a colon in it, it must be full of feces”), and even by names (“I couldn’t work with someone with a name that close to a person from my past whom I hate”).
What was the most petty reason you’ve ever heard for rejecting a candidate?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
10 Responses to Searching for Pettiness
aandsdean - August 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Presidential candidate derailed by not being able to answer a question about his favorite wine.
sstrada - August 27, 2009 at 9:06 am
A colleague of mine once said the following: “I would never hire anyone who wore a colored shirt with a white collar.”
sstrada - August 27, 2009 at 9:06 am
A colleague of mine once said the following: “I would never hire anyone who wore a colored shirt with a white collar.”
jones41 - August 27, 2009 at 9:21 am
I rejected a candidate for a gold paperclip. It wasn’t the primary reason of course–the cover letter was weak and the conference presentation titles were discouraging–but the gold paperclip on the cream-colored, super-heavy resume stock was the final straw.
minnesotan - August 27, 2009 at 11:01 am
I like my paperclips!
kitmuller - August 27, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I once completed a three-day series of interviews and thought I was a shoe-in for the job. When the director of the department where I’d be working canvassed the interviewers, he hit a roadblock with the provost, a woman. “You can’t hire her,” she said, “reopen the search.” The director, incredulous, asked why. “I don’t like her hair,” was the answer. I eventually got the job anyway, and twenty years later, still have long, straight, blonde hair.
englprof45 - August 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm
This should be filed under both pettiness _and_ smuttiness, but I was not hired at the last minute at one institution (when all signs were go) because the chair decided that he wanted to sleep with me (even though he’s straight and I’m a lesbian)–when I politely but firmly reminded him that I was gay and so not interested, he shut down the search. At several other institutions I wasn’t hired because I was told I was “too smart” and/or “used too many big words” (brings new meaning to dumbing-down, not to mention that they were assuming that how I presented to _them_ in an interview was reflective of me pedagogically, and of the language I used with students [uh, hello? who talks in a classroom like they do in an interview?]). Pettiness? Please. Academe reeks of it. The fact that someone actually unabashedly wrote in and said she or he didn’t hire someone over a friggin’ paperclip just illustrates that point.
englprof45 - August 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm
This should be filed under both pettiness _and_ smuttiness, but I was not hired at the last minute at one institution (when all signs were go) because the chair decided that he wanted to sleep with me (even though he’s straight and I’m a lesbian)–when I politely but firmly reminded him that I was gay and so not interested, he shut down the search. At several other institutions I wasn’t hired because I was told I was “too smart” and/or “used too many big words” (brings new meaning to dumbing-down, not to mention that they were assuming that how I presented to _them_ in an interview was reflective of me pedagogically, and of the language I used with students [uh, hello? who talks in a classroom like they do in an interview?]). Pettiness? Please. Academe reeks of it. The fact that someone actually unabashedly wrote in and said she or he didn’t hire someone over a friggin’ paperclip just illustrates that point.
batchro - August 28, 2009 at 11:26 am
Having worked in the corporate world and now academe, I saw this kind of ridiculous reasoning in both places. In that respect, I would call it a draw between the two, both worlds can apply about the same amount of pettiness to the hiring process.Since the possibility of having a particular candidate around for the rest of her career is much more likely in academe, a careful examination of a candidate is necessary. What I wish, is that search committees spent more time with a candidate’s references and publication history, rather than make snap decisions based on hairstyle or the like.I have seen search committee members argue many crazy points, but most often these revolve around a candidate being not enough or too much like themselves. Rather than stating this as a reason, it is easier (and looks less petty) to push a negative off on some other reason. I mean, all it really takes is one committee member to start the “she won’t fit in here culturally” argument to get the snowball rolling down the hill.
batchro - August 28, 2009 at 11:27 am
Having worked in the corporate world and now academe, I saw this kind of ridiculous reasoning in both places. In that respect, I would call it a draw between the two, both worlds can apply about the same amount of pettiness to the hiring process.Since the possibility of having a particular candidate around for the rest of her career is much more likely in academe, a careful examination of a candidate is necessary. What I wish, is that search committees spent more time with a candidate’s references and publication history, rather than make snap decisions based on hairstyle or the like.I have seen search committee members argue many crazy points, but most often these revolve around a candidate being not enough or too much like themselves. Rather than stating this as a reason, it is easier (and looks less petty) to push a negative off on some other reason. I mean, all it really takes is one committee member to start the “she won’t fit in here culturally” argument to get the snowball rolling down the hill.