Tweeted twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/946990178438139904
10 clarified title (question has no relation to the driver's license)
source | link

How is the applicant's drivingbringing attention to his/her own application viewed if you know nothing about him/her?

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/hersubmitting the application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/herthe application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, you've never chatted with him/her, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drivebring their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

(An aside: this question is different from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101229/ : there, you know something, though little, about the candidate.)

How is the applicant's driving attention to his/her own application viewed if you know nothing about him/her?

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, you've never chatted with him/her, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

(An aside: this question is different from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101229/ : there, you know something, though little, about the candidate.)

How is the applicant's bringing attention to his/her own application viewed if you know nothing about him/her?

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After submitting the application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about the application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, you've never chatted with him/her, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll bring their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

(An aside: this question is different from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101229/ : there, you know something, though little, about the candidate.)

9 added 25 characters in body; edited title
source | link

How is the applicant's driving attention to his/her own application viewed if you know nothing about him/her?

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know little or nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, you've never chatted with him/her, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

(An aside: this question is different from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101229/ : there, you know something, though little, about the candidate.)

How is the applicant's driving attention to his/her own application viewed?

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know little or nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

How is the applicant's driving attention to his/her own application viewed if you know nothing about him/her?

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, you've never chatted with him/her, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

(An aside: this question is different from https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101229/ : there, you know something, though little, about the candidate.)

8 added 9 characters in body
source | link

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know little or nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant isseems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know little or nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant is too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

Let us assume that a postdoc is applying for a tenure-track faculty position in computer science in an English- or German-speaking country. After having submitted his/her application, the postdoc contacted certain faculty members of the target institution and gave them a heads-up about his/her application. Now, you are one of the contacted members. You work in the same field, but know little or nothing about the candidate; you have not cited his/her papers or vice versa, and no senior person has spoken in his/her favor or against him/her. What is your usual approach towards the candidate's request for attention? Here are some possibilities:

  1. That's spam. You don't know the sender and don't have time to care; you move the letter to the trash bin and stay neutral.

  2. The applicant seems to be too weak, arrogant, or in despair so that he/she has to speak for himself (instead of his advisor); you decide to vote against him/her.

  3. The applicant's area is near to yours; you decide to take a look at his/her application to find out whether a future collaboration is deemed possible.

  4. You copy-and-paste a boilerplate standard answer. (E.g. "Your research and teaching statements as well as your CV are very impressive! Unfortunately, I'm only very marginally involved into the hiring process. If the hiring committee asks me, I'll drive their attention to your application.") You really don't wish to be influenced but get kudos in case the candidate gets the job.

  5. ... (your experience goes here) ...

7 added 44 characters in body
source | link
6 added 82 characters in body
source | link
5 added 3 characters in body
source | link
4 added 29 characters in body
source | link
3 added 29 characters in body
source | link
2 added 1 character in body
source | link
1
source | link