I submitted an online application on August 5th, after which I heard nothing for over a month. On September 15th, I followed up via email, asking if the process was still ongoing. The response I received indicated that it was and that I would receive an update over the weekend (it was a Thursday). Predictably, no update came. Two weeks later, I received a generic email from the recruitment platform, informing me that I was among the top third of applicants and that I would hear back by the end of the month. Naturally, the deadline passed in silence. When I followed up yet again, I was met with the same discourtesy one might expect from being ghosted on Tinder.
This was a position offering a one-year contract, with a minimum requirement of a bachelor's degree. Not only do I hold a master's degree in a highly relevant field, but my thesis work specifically involves microfluidics, and I have extensive experience with CAD, all of which I documented. While I fully recognize the competitive nature of the job market, it stretches credulity to imagine there are a dozen PhD holders with this specific expertise, proficiency in CAD, and fluency in Python, all vying for a one-year contract. If this is the case, they are extraordinarily selective. Either you have an exremely competitive level that is going to bake a Nobel Prize within the next 5 years, or the recruitment process is biased at best.
What this recruitment process truly reflects is negligence—lazy, disorganized, disrespectful and dubious at best in its fairness. Is this the standard by which the institute claims to advance scientific research and technology? By disregarding candidates who not only meet but exceed every listed qualification? Candidates who rank in the top percentiles in cognitive aptitude, possess proficiency in all relevant domains, and yet do not even merit a simple phone call? If references are the sole determinant in your hiring decisions, be transparent. Do not waste candidates’ time with demands for documentation you likely have no intention of reviewing.
Many of us have made significant personal sacrifices to pursue excellence in our fields. We deserve at least the semblance of respect—the bare minimum of acknowledging our efforts. If the selection process is built on arbitrary standards, then spare applicants this farce. Is this institute truly focused on advancing medical technology, or is it more interested in boasting their commitment to fulfill gender quotas?
I strongly advise anyone self-respecting and serious about their career to steer clear of this institute, unless you have a gold-plated reference. If that’s the case, don’t bother submitting your CV, credentials, or portfolio. Just send a list of names, and save yourself the trouble.