Generally I appreciate it when those who are rejecting me give reasons. In this case, however, I dunno.
These criteria, ostensibly, are, in order, the most important factors they considered:
1. education
2. experience
3. composition experience, education, and professional commitment
4. other language proficiency / cross-cultural experience
5. administrative/professional potential
6. overall quality of application packet.
On 1, education: I have an MA in the subject. I sure hope the person you picked has a PhD in Applied Linguistics.
2: Experience: eight years of ESL experience, including 8 consecutive semesters at a community college isn't enough? Sheesh.
3: Again, 8 and 8 doesn't fly? Again, the MA thing. Professional commitment... What, presenting at the state-wide conference wasn't commitment enough? Would a photo of my ESL tattoo have helped?
4: I sure hope the person you picked speaks four or more languages, has visited over three dozen countries, and lived in seven or more.
5: Ouch. Denied.
6: Quality of application packet: darn.
I have to say, the last two seem pretty... vague.
Here's what I suspect: either they already had some part-timer picked out for this position, but they still had to open it up to the general public anyway, OR someone with a PhD applied. That's what I'll tell myself, and simply gear up for my interview tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment