next »

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

This is a question of curiosity. A few months ago, an HR representative e-mailed me to ask if I'd like my previously rejected application materials included for a position that would be opening quickly. I said that I would be interesting in applying, but with new materials. She said she'd send me the job description when it came available.

I never received an e-mail and through watching the college site, I saw that the job was never posted. Yet, I just got a rejection letter, which demonstrates that there was likely a search, albeit inside, and I was included.

My question: I was rejected by HR, by the same person who contacted me in the first place. This strikes me as odd. If she thought something about my application materials wasn't fit for that job listing, why would she offer to include them in the search? Is it possible she was under some pressure to secure a certain number of applicants?

I will admit, I am annoyed that my very outdated application materials could possibly have been sent to a committee whose members I know, since this is a local CC for which I used to occasionally adjunct. I did already request that she discard my materials, so that's a nonissue, and I don't get the impression that anyone on the SC ever saw my materials. But, I don't quite understand what happened. I think it's strange when HR screens the materials, and I can't imagine any variation of the job description that even my outdated CV wouldn't have met.

Can you tell that I am clueless? I like it better when the applications just go to the SC. I don't understand HR.

[helpful]

Was this a university? Was this a tenure track position? I have never heard of HR in a university being involved in recruiting applicants for a tenure track position.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Like I said, it was a CC. They don't have tenure, per se, but all faculty hires are permanent.

[zharkov]

HR is the refuge of the clueless and evil.  In the spirit of generosity, OP, let's assume you were just dealing with one of the clueless ones.

[untenured]

The reason is likely bureaucratic and has nothing to do with you.   Perhaps the search was considered but never approved.  Yet, since there was contact made by HR to you, some rule required them to send you a rejection letter.  I doubt there's much more to it than that.

Untenured

[mended_drum]

It occurs to me that there may be a logical error in the subject line of this thread.

[mountain_ivy]

It occurs to me that there may be a logical error in the subject line of this thread.

HR has no mind.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

The reason is likely bureaucratic and has nothing to do with you.   Perhaps the search was considered but never approved.  Yet, since there was contact made by HR to you, some rule required them to send you a rejection letter.  I doubt there's much more to it than that.

Untenured

Well, the letter actually said I had been excluded from the interview round, so it does appear a hire is taking place.

I don't know. I just hate that those old materials were used like that. I'm embarrassed by the possibility of the chair--with whom I am quite friendly--seeing them and thinking I thought that was acceptable.

[sibyl]

There is no way to know the answer. 

Folks on the SC are likely to have spotted the old date on your cover letter and the fact that you aimed it at a different position and avoided coming to any bad conclusions about you. 

That is, if they were even interested.  The evidence does suggest an internal hire.  Perhaps the HR person was recruited to call people just to make sure there was a large enough pool to justify a non-posted search.

It is also likely that, if they thought ill of you two weeks ago, they have already forgotten it.  I say this to you in all sincerity:  I remember the stories about the disaster applicants from every search, but I can't remember a single one of their names.  (I even have a hard time remembering the names of the good people, who I want to remember.)

If you are really friendly with the chair, the chair has probably come to the right conclusions about you.  But you could always call the chair (maybe around the holidays or your discipline's annual conference) and touch base.  Laugh at it.  At all costs, avoid bitterness and whininess.  The chair will probably rescue you with a frank description of events.

I had the opposite experience; after having applied for a position, I was contacted (by the SCC, not HR) and invited to reapply for another position.  I spent a good deal of time recrafting and resubmitting materials (and this was before they took email, so I also had to spend money on postage, fancy paper, and dressy paper clips).  And of course they didn't even give me a phone interview.  I don't know if that is worse or better than what you experienced.  My point is this:  shake it off and keep on going.

[untenured]

The reason is likely bureaucratic and has nothing to do with you.   Perhaps the search was considered but never approved.  Yet, since there was contact made by HR to you, some rule required them to send you a rejection letter.  I doubt there's much more to it than that.

Untenured

Well, the letter actually said I had been excluded from the interview round, so it does appear a hire is taking place.

Maybe.  On the other hand it could be just a standard letter that HR sends out to all rejected folk. 

As other's have said, there's no way to know the answer.  So why not believe the most comforting reason for the mixup?

Untenured