Wow. I just took a trip down memory lane looking through my old resumes. I don't have the ones I wrote post-undergrad that got me my first library job, but looking back at my grad college resume/application and the ones that followed, it seems pretty pathetic to me now. I had scholarships and grants, teaching assistant and research assistant experience, professional association membership & offices, and yet, now knowing what I see the state of the job market from the hiring side, I realize it's a miracle I got a job at all.
I know that my first full-time, permanent post-grad school position was possible because my first time library job out of undergrad had people who vouched for me or they wouldn't have hired me (someone I worked with let that slip by accident). Then there were the months of hunting for a corporate library job, specifically in pharma, but I kept my options open. I think what finally dashed my hopes was an association meeting where I met someone who had applied for the same temp position I had; she had about 15 years experience in that specific area, I had none.
Finally I got lucky with an employer willing to take me on despite a long commute and limited experience, and after that I was twice as lucky to find a jump to LIB when the opportunity arose. Still, it makes me wonder how many extremely talented, sharp as a tack grads being passed over when people who have 10-20 years experience in a particular field, but aren't necessarily the best, are the ones being hired.
Experience has its place, most definitely, when it comes to particular areas. However, how often do employers look at the big picture of what happens if you train someone who is bright, capable, and flexible, in the skills that the experienced researcher has - and they turn out to be even better than the other candidate? Is investing in training so frowned upon that it is the last resort? What is the answer to this?
Adding injury to insult are the layoffs of experienced professionals that have advanced skills but their departments were laid off, so they weren't given an option. These are top-notch people who are being re-hired at entry level (and often temp positions) and who deserve so much more, especially after prior years as manager, mentor, and expert who are suddenly busted down to the equivalent rank of private because of the job market and outsourcing. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a second look and evaluate a total candidate instead of just an automated HR run. Perhaps pick a slightly larger list of resumes that pass the initial run including pros and newbies, interview them personally or even on the phone, and see how they present themselves.
Intelligent, well-spoken, capable, personable, questioning people will be the ones you want to keep in the end, regardless of prior experience or lack thereof, and will lead to a stronger department in the end. Please, think long term, not short term, and remember to consider those with potential who are just starting out; they could turn out to be the best of all.
I know that my first full-time, permanent post-grad school position was possible because my first time library job out of undergrad had people who vouched for me or they wouldn't have hired me (someone I worked with let that slip by accident). Then there were the months of hunting for a corporate library job, specifically in pharma, but I kept my options open. I think what finally dashed my hopes was an association meeting where I met someone who had applied for the same temp position I had; she had about 15 years experience in that specific area, I had none.
Finally I got lucky with an employer willing to take me on despite a long commute and limited experience, and after that I was twice as lucky to find a jump to LIB when the opportunity arose. Still, it makes me wonder how many extremely talented, sharp as a tack grads being passed over when people who have 10-20 years experience in a particular field, but aren't necessarily the best, are the ones being hired.
Experience has its place, most definitely, when it comes to particular areas. However, how often do employers look at the big picture of what happens if you train someone who is bright, capable, and flexible, in the skills that the experienced researcher has - and they turn out to be even better than the other candidate? Is investing in training so frowned upon that it is the last resort? What is the answer to this?
Adding injury to insult are the layoffs of experienced professionals that have advanced skills but their departments were laid off, so they weren't given an option. These are top-notch people who are being re-hired at entry level (and often temp positions) and who deserve so much more, especially after prior years as manager, mentor, and expert who are suddenly busted down to the equivalent rank of private because of the job market and outsourcing. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a second look and evaluate a total candidate instead of just an automated HR run. Perhaps pick a slightly larger list of resumes that pass the initial run including pros and newbies, interview them personally or even on the phone, and see how they present themselves.
Intelligent, well-spoken, capable, personable, questioning people will be the ones you want to keep in the end, regardless of prior experience or lack thereof, and will lead to a stronger department in the end. Please, think long term, not short term, and remember to consider those with potential who are just starting out; they could turn out to be the best of all.
posted by AnonymousX at 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home