Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska governor

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Does the information that you provide include the classes that you took? Really? I wonder if that's a field based thing. I've only seen degrees, employment history, courses taught, papers published, kind of stuff on CVs. I've never seen a transcript kind of thing. Is the listing of courses common in your field?

It's odd that it seems like they want to get rid of you, rather than they want to see what you've done. Or is that already in your presentation and they're asking for even more substantiation when they ask for the CV?

The race/ethnicity and gender stuff may never completely go away, but at least as you built a professional reputation, who you are will be understood in advance by more and more people that you work with.

I don't list classes on my resume; I've had the same job for a few years now so other than my undergrad/grad school, I don't even list much about my educational background.

Basically, they're looking for an excuse. The same clients don't ask for the resumes of my male counterparts. If people are acting like this over their architects, you don't think they're being as cautious about their presidential candidates?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't list classes on my resume; I've had the same job for a few years now so other than my undergrad/grad school, I don't even list much about my educational background.

Basically, they're looking for an excuse. The same clients don't ask for the resumes of my male counterparts. If people are acting like this over their architects, you don't think they're being as cautious about their presidential candidates?

No, I don't think it's caution in politics. But it may be an excuse to back up a decision that you've already made in both cases.


It's a faulty analogy though on a lot of levels. You have a whole range of choice in architects and if it's an individual building, you have complete control over the process of choosing if you have enough money. With presidential candidates, it's selection by committee and election by the country at large to accomplish a task that no one has defined in advance.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

No, I don't think it's caution in politics. But it may be an excuse to back up a decision that you've already made in both cases.


It's a faulty analogy though on a lot of levels. You have a whole range of choice in architects and if it's an individual building, you have complete control over the process of choosing if you have enough money. With presidential candidates, it's selection by committee and election by the country at large to accomplish a task that no one has defined in advance.

which again leads to what i was saying before, if there was a question about her academic credentials, then the onus was on the vetting committee.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

which again leads to what i was saying before, if there was a question about her academic credentials, then the onus was on the vetting committee.

I disagree. I do not think that the vetting committee needed to disqualify her because she went to four colleges in five years and then graduated.

And that's really all that they could do. They didn't have a Sarah Palin who graduated from one elite university in four years to sub in. They only could have eliminated her as a choice and could have gone with one of the other candidates that people discussed as possibilities last summer, who would have brought a different set of strengths and weaknesses.