Almostgotit.com

Many thanks to ALL the folks who responded to my post yesterday!  I appreciated every comment you posted.  Additionally, Deb replied to me on her blog, 8 hours & a lunch, as did Ann over at Compensation Force, .  Ann made the good point that it’s a buyer’s market out there, so (of course) job seekers like me have to hustle. 

I agree: yes we do.  But.

Recruiters may feel justified in abusing potential employees, given the current job market.  If they do, they are making a mistake, and their organizations will suffer for it as much as any individual employee ever will.   Which is my whole point.

Also,  I am not making this up:  employers really are employing more bad hiring tricks  than I’ve ever seen before.  At the very least, they give me pause, and in some cases have kept me from applying altogether.  Nor am I the only one.

And who knows?  One of us might have been the player who turned your company into Microsoft.

“Employee needed.  No Calls Please!  Send application to P.O. Box ###.”

One last gripe: blind box ads like these that proliferate in the paper.  No employer or company name is listed, no contact information (other than a post office box) is provided.  And I’m supposed to respond with full personal detail in return?  No f-ing way.

Now I have to confess something.  I interviewed last week with an organization that had posted a blind box advertisement.  I’d seen the ad and had already ruled it out, when a person in my network  called me about the same job.  I submitted my resume and got an interview, but it wasn’t a good fit, and I think both sides figured this out in short order.

But I still have no idea why this particular organization, looking for a PR person no less, was afraid to list its own name in public. Two reasons employers may choose blind ads are (a) to covertly oust a current employee or (b) to hide their hiring activities from competing employers.  Do you want to work for a company that may fire and hire this way?  Do you want to work for an organization that may be trying to underbid its competitor for your paycheck? The listed job may even be your own!

I still have no intention of responding blindly to blind box ads in future.  There remain some intriguing work-arounds, however, which I may try next time a blind box ad catches my eye.  I do like learning how to play a player!  And if this is a new game, I am going to have to learn how to play it, albeit on terms I can also live with. 

I’ll keep trying to be fabulous.  

It’s just that I haven’t seen a whole lot of “fabulous” coming from employers these days, and damitol, can’t it be someone else’s turn to be fabulous for a change?

———-
Related Posts:
Employers: it’s Your Turn to be Fabulous (part 1 of this series)
Un-Fabulour Employers Asking for Too Much Upfront (part 2 of this series)

On the other hand, I did get a phone call yesterday from a woman who wants to recruit me to sell bad insurance products to old people.  This isn’t how she described it, of course, but I did a little research.

Conclusion: children sell insurance.  I’m thinking, however, that so long as my soul is required, I may as well skip straight to the big stuff.

Ann Bares of Compensation Force has written several good pieces recently about the notion of comparable worth and the push for pay equity. This notion has been getting a lot of press lately in the wake of several new studies which show that women earn less than equally-qualified, equally-experienced men do, even before they begin to marry or have children.

The research shows that one reason women don’t earn as much is because they don’t ask for it. Therefore, the logical solution may seem to be the one many experts have concluded: that is, women need to be trained to be more assertive in order to overcome the disadvantage they have due to a difference in genetics and/or upbringing.

Not so, according to a new Harvard study. In a series of experiments, researchers discovered, over and over again, that men and women get different responses when they try to negotiate a higher salary. A reluctance to be assertive, therefore, may be an appropriate learned response, if being assertive — by simply asking for more — may actually hurt a woman’s career.

And those who penalize women the most for asking for more? Other women. To be fair, women tended to penalize both sexes more for attempting to negotiate. Apparently, as a sex, we’ve internalized our lessons only too well.

It is a dangerous over-simplification to focus exclusively on “fixing women” so that they learn to negotiate more like men; moreover, doing so only perpetuates the problem society has always had with stigmatizing female wage-earners.

Nor (inconveniently enough) is it quite right to place the full responsibility for fixing the problem on employers, either.

The problem that needs addressing most is the whole social environment in which the risks of negotiating are demonstrably higher for women. Some of the salary inequities may seem small, especially as many insist on placing full responsibility for those inequities — still — on the shoulders of the women concerned.

But we’ve already been there. We already hold women “responsible” for damaging their own careers by choosing to be the sole-caregivers for their children or elderly parents. Which they must do without paid leave. And without resorting to damaging their spouse-and-co-parent’s career as well. (the highest paid workers of all are married men… most of whom are also fathers. Interesting?)

As small as the real, “after-adjusting-for-female-foibles” salary inequities may be, even differences of a few percentage points over the lifetime of a person’s career can add up, literally, to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And that, in this USA of 2007, is simply not acceptable.

Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels.
– Faith Whittlesey

Many thanks to WorkingGirl for the heads up after my previous post; I found the NPR link in which Robert Olen Butler talks about his now-infamous e-mail. Wow.

Butler insists that his initial email about the break-up, as well as all of his subsequent public blather, is meant to prevent people from saying terrible things about his wife — things which he details, of course. Butler also claims to be deeply grieved that Dewberry, “like many women,” (all we inept little wives, in other words) “had trouble living in the shadow of a stronger man.”

What a liar. The truth is that he’s mad as hell at her. He’s also overwhelmed with embarrassment. Ego-man Butler publically lost his trophy wife to a much-more-famous man. Moreover, she was a wife who had been a trial and a challenge to him since day #1, not because of her inadequacies but because of her irrepressible accomplishments: her very competency. By getting away from him in the end, she finally proved to be a challenge he could neither master nor meet. Pathetically, he is now trying to snatch the attention and victory back for himself by attempting to make Elizabeth Dewberry look like a freak; alas, he only succeeds in making himself look like one.

Creative Commons photo by Sister 72

Author Elizabeth Dewberry has just left her husband for Ted Turner. Dr. Dewberry’s husband is some guy named Robert Olen Butler, and I’m delighted to say I’ve never heard of him.

Apparently Butler is both a professor and a Pulitzer-prize winning author himself. I didn’t know this. What I did know was that his now-estranged wife is no slouch. She’s served as a Playwright-in-Residence, has written plays, articles and at least four novels, one of which is called His Lovely Wife, which I quoted in an earlier post because its description of what it can be like, being married to a professor, was so spot on. I didn’t realize it was quite so autobiographical! Apparently, Dewberry — who is quite lovely — often found herself being introduced just like that, as in, “And here is Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Author, Robert Olen Butler!!” pause. “..and his lovely wife, Elizabeth Dewberry.”

Butler is currently in a lather because of an email about the affair which he sent around to a few of his students, which “somehow” was released to Gawker. I have no idea what Dewberry thinks of her husband’s revelations about her own life history, but Butler clearly believes himself to be quite the unappreciated hero.

In truth, he sounds like a patronizing, class “A” jerk. Not all that different from the other men he describes as Dewberry’s abusers.

Butler (whom, I’m pleased to repeat, I’d never heard of) bemoans the fact that his pretty little wife could never get out of his mighty, Pulitzer-winning shadow, despite his best efforts to pat her on the head as often as he could. This from a man who, rumors have it, once told someone wanting to introduce him at a conference that “When you have won the Pulitzer, you no longer require an introduction.”

Nice. And a great guy to be married to, I’m sure. I wonder what Mr. Marilee Jones is like?

————-
Related Posts:

The Devil in Ms. Jones: His Lovely Wife
How to (almost) get Marilee

We’ve come back from our vacation, and I’ve finished the latest Harry Potter book. (Mrs. Weasley ROCKS.) And I’ve also held, for the first time, an actual bound copy of my husband’s new book as well. It took him twelve long, hard years to write, and it’s beautiful.

But I haven’t been blogging. I’ve got writer’s block. I’ve got the photos, the notes, lots of ideas… but I’m sort of stuck.

So, you do what you can do. I’ve been catching up on several of my own favorite blogs. The Career Encourager has written some terrific posts lately, several of which have inspired me to write, well, more notes. She also posted a gracious link back to me last week — thanks, Peggy! And of course there’s Compensation Force, a terrific blog which on a personal level has been more helpful than I’ve been able to tell author Ann Bares… I’m just so impressed with the depth of her knowledge and her nuanced way of discussing compensation, salary scales, and how they really work — or ought to!

And then, there’s that “Brazen Careerist,” Ms. Penelope Trunk. (Have I used the word “brazen” yet?) Alas. Apparently she and her husband are now not speaking, and no she still hasn’t asked if he minds her blogging about their marriage, including her careful diagrams of his feelings and shortcomings, and yes she still “knows” he’s fine with it (though how she would know this when she’s determined not to ask him and he’s not speaking, I have no idea), and yes she’s also perfectly fine with being absolutely all out-there and public (she repeatedly assures us,) having apparently figured out how to live both sides of a relationship completely on her own, as in unilaterally, and moreover she loves all our comments, and so here I am giving her even more attention but no, I won’t include a link. Call it my one small feeble attempt at propriety, but you’ll just have to look THAT one up yourself. (Like, I’ve made it really hard!!!)

Penelope also suggests that we should all be blogging with our real names (she doesn’t. It’s complicated. But there, I’ve just given her a link after all) I agree with her reasoning on that one, and have always hoped to “come out” eventually myself. But maybe when I’m a little more “after the fact” and less in the thick of things.

All of which makes one more way to trick ones’ self, just a little, out of being stuck. So there.

Photo by by mrlerone (Creative Commons)

Okay, I’ve got one:

Recently, a large university hired several cannibals in an effort to increase its diversity.

“You are all part of our team now,” the Human Resources officer gushed during their orientation briefing. “You get full benefits, including a meal card, and you are welcome to go to any of the campus cafeterias for something to eat: but please don’t eat any employees.”

The cannibals solemnly promised they would not.

Four weeks later, the dean called all the cannibals into his office.

“You’re all working very hard and are doing a tremendous job. We have noticed a marked increase in the whole university’s performance. However, um… one of our secretaries has disappeared. Do any of you know what happened to her?” The cannibals all shook their heads, “No.”

After they left the dean’s office, the leader of the cannibals turned  to the others. “Okay — which one of you idiots ate the secretary?”

A hand rose, hesitantly.

“You fool!” the leader bellowed.  “For four weeks we’ve been eating administrators, even the odd faculty member or two, and no one noticed a damned thing.  Wasn’t that good enough for you?

But NOOOooo, you had to go and eat someone who actually does something around here!”

Still thinking about Marilee Jones.  A lot.  I’ve been reading lots of good commentary on the situation (some of the best to which I’ve posted links, right column) 

Our world, most especially the academic part of it, is still astonished at (and extremely resistant to) the idea that anyone can be so good at something without a degree.  Even in cases when they can produce two pages of (verifiable) publications and achievements. 

We can huff and puff all we want to about how a degree is a useful standardized measure of dependability or capability.  Or whatever.  We may even be right, most of the time.   But all our noise flies out the window when we have an exception right in front of us, proof in hand, and we turn the other way.  That is the point at which our myth is exposed.  We don’t care about the “dependability and capability” after all – our true fealty is to the degree!

Most of human chauvinism, of course, is based on self-interest, e.g.:  I worked hard on my own degree, and I need it to mean something.  I don’t WANT people without degrees to be as qualified as I am.  (Personally? I also permanently damaged my career in order to hand-raise my children, and thus don’t WANT the children of working parents to be as wonderful and well-adjusted as mine are!)  

Life is about exceptions, though.  And ah, confession is good for the soul. 

I don’t know Marilee Jones personally of course, but any accusation that she was a greedy “opportunist”  I dismiss out of hand.  We all are all of us that, and in this country it’s considered a virtue.

However, I do agree with other commentators that much depends upon whether she is a pathological liar.  I strongly suspect she is not.  I believe, instead, that much of the great good that she has contributed came from an interior acknowledgement of her own mistake.  As penance for it, even.  I think she has been truly sorry for much of the last 28 years. 

I also think it is absolutely wrong, even in the slightest degree, to look backwards now and recast her whole working history in light of this new information (that she had no degree.  And that she lied.)  To do so is fraudulent on our part, and only exposes our own grave disingenuity and chauvinism:

“She didn’t have a degree, so turns out she doesn’t know what she is talking about.”

“She lied, so therefore can say nothing to us at all about how to tell the truth.”

Garbage.

One of the things Marilee wrote about (and yes, we’re on first name basis now) was the importance of integrity.  In a book she co-authored last fall, Less Stress, More Success: A New Approach to Guiding Your Teen Through College Admissions and Beyond,  she writes:

Holding integrity is sometimes very hard to do because the temptation may be to cheat or cut corners.  But just remember that ‘what goes around come around,’ meaning that life has a funny way of giving back what you put out.

This is what I tell my kids, too.  But reading those words now makes me ache.  Just listen to her confession, her fear, even her contrition.  Thing is?  People who cheat quite often do get away with it, and people who don’t cheat quite often get shafted.  Sometimes, unfortunately, ‘virtue has to be its own reward.’  And often a pretty damned shabby one, at that.

Moreover, it’s just cheap for those who “have” to admonish those who “haven’t” for being greedy and ungrateful.

I’ve been hanging around the academy for over 20 years now.  Guys, academics do really ugly things, all of the time.  (as humans do in general, I imagine.)  They plagarize.  Have terrible, exploitative affairs. Torpedo the careers of each other’s Ph.D students out of sheer spite. 

And yes, quite often, they lie. 

According to the New York Times article on the subject of Marilee Jones’ “resignation”, Phillip L. Clay, M.I.T.’s chancellor declared:

There are some mistakes people can make for which ‘I’m sorry’ can be accepted, but this is one of those matters where the lack of integrity is sufficient all by itself.  This is a very sad situation for her and for the institution. We have obviously placed a lot of trust in her.

(The aptly-academic Latin to respond with here would be ”res ipsa loquitur“)

Dr. Clay is probably correct that there is no conceivable way that MIT or any other university could re-absorb Marilee Jones back into its ranks, but “integrity” has very little to do with it.  Jones is now a public embarrassment to them and worse, an irreducible iconoclast.   (as in, literally: “a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration. a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.”)

She’s gotta go. 

In a fair world, though?  Half the rest of ‘em would go with her.

—-
Related Posts: 
MIT really blew it
Marilee Jones joke
How to (Almost) get Marilee
Coming Out: I’m a closet academical

The University of Tennessee’s Lady Vols just won their 7th national championship under Coach Pat Head Summitt.  Summitt is  the all-time winningest coach in NCAA basketball history (men or women). For 32 seasons she has proven herself as a winner and role model. Summitt’s coaching has created 12 Olympians, 19 Kodak All-Americans, 65 All-SEC performers, 45 international participants and 38 professional players.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Pat Head Summitt never actually graduated from UT-Martin, as it says she did on her resume — when one can even find it.

And what would the fans do now if UT forced her to resign over it?

By all accounts, MIT’s Marilee Jones is the Pat Head Summitt of college admissions.  The Ivy League dean of admissions is also a celebrated writer and speaker.  She is concerned about the effect on young people of the rising competition to get into top colleges, and has preached that we need to get back to supporting the “human being” rather than over-hyping the “human doing.”

Her 28-year career at MIT, apparently all spent in the admissions office, saw her rise from administrative assistant to the top position. 

Nobody knew it yet, but back when she applied for that first secretarial position three decades ago, she lied about her college credentials.  No one cared enough about such a lowly employee to investigate, and all of her subsequent promotions were based on her MIT experience and accomplishments alone.

And now she’s was forced to resign for doing on her resume what (according to CNN)  57% of the rest of us do, too. 

In a statement issued through MIT, Jones wrote:

“I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to MIT 28 years ago and did not have the courage to correct my resume when I applied for my current job or at any time since.  I am deeply sorry for this and for disappointing so many in the MIT community and beyond who supported me, believed in me, and who have given me extraordinary opportunities.”

No, she shouldn’t have done it.  But she was 26 years old, bright, perceptive, and vulnerable to the glory buzzing around her, all the time, about the sanctity of high achievement.  And maybe, as a mere secretary, she didn’t think it would matter very much.

But her first promotion came, and then her second.  At any point she could have come clean, but she knew that as soon as she did, the ride would be over.  And by every measure that mattered, she had earned that ride.  There is no “Bachelor’s Degree of Admissions Deanhood.”  She learned her job, just as any other person with a whatever-degree in her position would have done, by doing it.  And I have no doubt that Marilee Jones was so compassionate with students in large part because of her secret. 

If it turned out that Sofia Coppola wasn’t really the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola, we wouldn’t take away her Academy Award.  Sure, she had a hand-up in the business (as did her cousin, Nicolas Cage) but their accomplishments are their own.

Marilee Jones’ real sin is not that she lied, but that she made a fool out of MIT.

Like any university, MIT is dedicated to the preservation and advancement of its own main product: the Almighty Academic Degree.  If Marilee had been honest from the beginning, sure she may have kept her job for 28 years, but she’d still be an administrative assistant. She could have played the game their way and gone back to school, but how galling to spend the money and time, not to mention endure such a drop in the academic food chain, when any other business would have promoted her for her chops alone.

Here’s my confession:  I want Marilee Jones’ autograph.

I’m very grateful (thanks, dad) for my own college education.  But let’s not deify credentials to the point that we’ll admit no exceptions.  This forces vulnerable people to do what Marilee Jones did.  And then it forces the rest of us to jettison them when they expose our own, far greater fraud.

A few weeks ago, world-famous violinist Joshua Bell played his best stuff on a 3.5 million dollar Stradivarius in the Washington D.C.  subway, and 1000 people walked right by him because he wasn’t playing in a concert hall.   Marilee Jones is a world-famous dean of admissions, she played her best stuff, and her accomplishments are no less impressive because she wasn’t playing with a degree.

MIT should accept Marilee Jones’ apology and make a real name for themselves by hiring her back. 

—–
Related Posts:
Hail Marilee, denied any grace
How to (almost) get Marilee
The Devil and Ms. Jones
The Marilee Jones Joke

Well…It took almost exactly a year, but guess who is now officially billable at approximately 9 (That’s N-I-N-E) times her previous hourly wage as paid by The Institution Which Shall Not Be Named? And guess who is also a little horrified, given all the existential stuff that’s been going on around my house lately, by how much it even MATTERS?  (But. You know what? It DOES.)

I may even forgive my previous employer for dismantling half my portfolio (by taking down the website I’d built for them, one which was getting national attention – the whole unpleasant email discussion about which was then forwarded to me by the webmaster) (A few days before I found out I’d also not been invited to my own retirement party.) (On my birthday.)  (Just as the professional theatre I’d applied to was finally rejecting me after several sets of interviews.) (And not long after someone, who should have known better,  helpfully told me that my previous employer and board all found me “inflammatory”)

(Oh, my God, the woe…..) 

It’s still hardly any hours.  It’s still not a salary.  It may not be what I want to do with the rest of my life.  

But I will so definitely TAKE IT!  Here, have a cigar.  And guess what?  You’re next!

(and, um, that “inflammatory” thing? That’s just me, with my lighter.  And the fattest cigar you’ve ever seen.  Flaming.)