At a large university in Texas, I had two professors - one amazing in everyway, the other not. The amazing professor published great research, wrote well, and had great teaching skills. The other professor gave lackluster classes, published research that was routine, and shocked me that they could be teaching at this level (inspiring in a pessimistic way).
Both up for tenure - the amazing professor was passed on because the other had a more desirable background. Both women. As a grad student, I understood the difficult of hiring, but this was honestly incredible.
I thought of this when I read the following from the article: "I was startled to learn that academic achievements were not always what mattered most." and "only to fall short of securing a faculty position due to factors outside my control."
Was the one who got tenure the one who brought in bigger grants? Unfortunately in the R1 Universities these days that is probably the most important thing, even more than your academic family tree https://academictree.org/
Isn't it almost always the case when there's a job that there is more than one applicant who is qualified under a loose definition of the qualifications, and thus the decision makers have to come up with tighter and tighter definitions until there's one winner?
I suspect it's the case 99% of the time. You have some widget factory, some team leader leaves, and of his team of 10 you need a new leader. 4 of them are veterans and could do the work if you asked people who understand the business but are not involved in the decision. So then what? Well lets say you have to have published papers in the Journal of Widgets. Great, that leaves three. Now let's see how they do on random questions at interview. Fantastic, 4 of the 6 committee members think it's candidate B. Congrats.
It's an effect of the pyramid structure. People who can do the work have to be whittled away somehow, even if it's some silly criterion.
Academia seems to lean on the side of crap for the most part. That being said I've grown a keen, if naive, interest as I've enjoyed past mentoring opportunities. I remember reading a post of someone hosting a programming workshop at their local library and I feel it would be a worthy and approachable step towards feeling it out.
That's the history of most institutions. There's a mistake about believing in merit and skills when it's usually a combination of political skills, ability to game the system (which are not necessarily the most important for the actual job) and initial privilege/wealth (a bad simplification of the point I'm trying to make on personal circumstances that don't relate to effort, it's more nuanced).
It's not the end of the world as long as you're not authortiarian and inclined to believe that in any hierarchy, the more valuable/skilled/apt person is naturally at the top.
It's very hard to create a system that scales and doesn't show signs of heavy bureocracy and/or corruption (if you know about the internals) because, very soon, it's easy to find out a gap between working for your career and working to maximise the output value of your job.
The author's piece makes me think that all PhD students should serve at least once on an academic hiring committee. This would be a very clear way of communicating to PhD students what research universities want from their tenure-track faculty, by putting them in the room where the decisions are actually made.
I was in the author's shoes, but I was lucky enough to find out all the same information through Internet sites written by embittered PhDs who described what the negative side of the process was like. I went into industry instead, first for an R&D government contractor, then big tech. Like the author, I don't have any regrets about it.
I don't blame the committee for filtering on specialty, though. The academic job market is so tight for applicants that every PhD has to flood every job opening with applications to have a chance. There's something to be said for channeling people to the right job instead of any old job.
PhD programs IMO should stop being an implicit lottery for the ivory tower, maybe by having explicit "industry" and "academia" tracks and being careful with how many of the academic PhDs they're producing. But they'd have to admit just how unfair the system is to the students.
I also think that there needs to be a “non-professor” track in grad school.
Too often, grad school applicants are just kids that have overachieved in academic settings and think to themselves “I’ve been good at school my whole life, why not just do school forever?”. A lot of them would actually thrive in industry but they just continue doing school out of inertia.
Grad school could help those kids figure out if they like working in industry by mixing in courses taught by industry folks and/or pushing for internships rather than traditional RA positions.
The only surprising thing to me about this is that anyone is surprised by any of it. It's been going on for decades if not centuries. It's not like industry is any better really
As a professor who served on a hiring committee this past year in a top-15 engineering department in the US (and not in CS), some of this did not really ring as true to me. Overall, I came away more pleasantly surprised by our process than how I might have assumed it to be as a PhD student (where I assumed it was entirely based on favoritism). Based on the intersection of publication record, research statement and topic areas we were recruiting for this cycle (which was clearly advertised in our position), there were really only about 20-25 applications which were plausibly competitive.
We ended up doing a standardized set of Zoom interviews for about 15 of them - here too, many candidates were simply unable to clearly explain their past work and make a clear pitch for their vision and work (even with slides). This is an essential skill for running a lab and one any prospective candidate should practice and refine! From that point on the whole department was involved and, at least for us, everyone had an equal say and felt safe speaking up. ~4-5 were invited for on-campus interviews and one candidate was liked the most by nearly everyone, leading to a consensus.
As a public university, there are a lot of things we do in a standardized way, and sets of personal questions etc. we do not ask. Is it fair? I'll leave others to judge, as selecting one person to hire out of ~200 applicants is not an easy task. But I don't think it was capricious either. At our department, we intend for everyone who comes as an assistant prof to be tenured, so it is very much a long-term hire and commitment we are making. We take that job seriously.
I remember talking to one my professors about this particular research topic I found interesting, and that I’d be interested in working with prof X about this topic. I was told that it was a great idea, it was also important that I understand I would never get a stable job in academia if prof X was my advisor, because of political reasons.
My father ( university professor) told me that unfortunately this was all too common.
My first job working for minimum wage in a theater, I was invited to go to IHOP or someplace like that after we closed. I asked what they talked about and the answer I got was, "mostly work politics", so I suppose that was a good early lesson for 15 year old me that basically wherever you get two people together, you will get politics.
My suspicion for the reason that academia is seen as being so political is because they're actually not very good at it. The top of the heap of political practitioners in my experience tend to be the VP+ level leadership in publicly traded companies.
This reminds me of "your personal statement sucks"[1] by Dr. Angela Collier(Physics PhD), who also served on a hiring committee. The advice she gives is that your personal statement is your one shot to convince the hiring committee that you have unique things that would be a huge positive to the role you seek. I thought it was worth the watch time.
Reminds me a lot of some of the ACOUP academic explanations, although those are history not science focused. The feel about academia being a tiny exclusionary club is the same.
It’s way worse on the humanities side, from my experience. Not that it’s easy in STEM, but there are more positions and also better funding from both industry and government.
The absolute best professor I ever had in undergrad or grad school was in his 60s, had been teaching for decades, and was still an assistant professor. He didn't publish much, had written one book a long time ago, but god damn he was just a natural master at teaching. I took classes I wasn't interested in, just because he was teaching them. He liked to do the thing professors are supposed to do, and was punished for it. I notice that academic achievements, even in this article about the messed up priorities of university hiring, doesn't seem to include being good at educating kids.
I think the real takeaway is the professor adamantly demanding his postdoc get an interview. In business or academia, leveraging personal connections is the only guaranteed way to make career progress.
Very different experience than mine being on a hiring committee. The CS market has been so great that candidates have a lot of choice in where they land.
We’d sift through maybe 200 applications, quickly reject most (i.e., do they have any top pubs in the area we are hiring for?). Most of them were wildly out of scope.
Pick 10 from the remaining 30 applicants that we think (a) are the best and (b) would potentially accept the offer.
We had several failed searches after many, many interviews.
CS is going through the abundance phase of its cyclical mismatch between jobs-available and candidates seeking jobs. This is driven by a decade of healthy industry hiring, which has seen a lot of candidates (plus existing faculty) depart academia for greener pastures. (NB: if you happen to be in ML, then nothing you’re experiencing now should be viewed as normal — this an unusual hiring spree due to “hot field” FOMO.) Eventually the economy will cool down the way it did in the early 2000s and after the 2007/2008 cycle: then you’ll see what musical chairs looks like when the music stops.
Here is my own experience of getting hired into a startup.
The day I got hired the manager took the team out to lunch and I asked them how each one got hired. So results:
White male - Room mate of employee
White male - Room mate of employee
White male - Knew early employee from college in Switzerland
White female - Recruited off of LinkedIn
Indian American - Recruited off of LinkedIn
Immigrant Indian American - Recruited off of LinkedIn.
There is a lot of favoritism that goes on in industry as well. However, it is so large that it can accommodate both merit-based and network based hiring.
Hiring is a total crap shoot anyway and this is not to say that just because someone comes recommended by someone else they are automatically bad. They just look better in comparison because mentally we automatically lower the hiring bar as this person comes "recommended" from a known source.
If you are going to build a team you will probably select for people you know and trust first, so choosing from people in your network is a natural way of doing this. This is literally called 'networking'. If it isn't a startup this can become a problem as the hiring process should be more open for everyone otherwise you won't be able to get a job anywhere without knowing someone from there first.
> There is a lot of favoritism that goes on in industry as well.
There sure is, but I don't think your example is evidence for that. People just like to hire based on recommendations and through friends. Several times now I've been interested in some startup, and when I looked at their team page, they were all from the same group: either all Indian, or all russian speakers, or something else. I bet most startups are like this, just that some cases are more apparent than others.
I am struggling to see what you are trying to say here, especially since you use somewhat arbitrary way to group people by race and sex. Can you clarify?
Is the founder white? Does he/did he live in a majority white country (you mentioned a college in Switzerland, a country which is most likely 90% white)? If so, why is that weird and why does that matter? Unless you think that "white men" are fungible, using this category makes no sense.
There is another dynamic that helps the recommended hire succeed in the workplace environment. They initially get help navigating the workplace. This is extremely important for career development.
For e.g. If you know what to look for in a code base that might make a difference between a commit on day one versus messing around the code base for a week and trying to be really careful.
I finished my Ph.D. in 1991 and thought I wanted to be a professor. I applied to a few dozen openings, but it was the middle of a recession [1] and there were hundreds of people applying for single openings. I was not a standout candidate so I never stood a chance.
In retrospect, having now learned more about the realities of academic life, this is probably one of the best things that ever happened to me. I think I would have been as miserable as a professor as I was as a grad student. The idea that tenure == freedom turns out to be a Big Lie. There is no more freedom in academia than there is anywhere else in the world. The life of a professor is, first and foremost, a never-ending Sisyphean treadmill of writing grant proposals. At the end of the day, it's all about the money.
Of course you can get yourself into a nice comfortable niche where you are The Man and all your proposals are greenlit by default, but you can do that outside of academia too by finding a patron or a big enough group of fans, but then you are beholden to them. The only real freedom is having money of your own, and even that comes with strings attached because then you have to manage the money and deal with people asking you to write checks.
Always be careful what you wish for. The hardest part of getting what you want is figuring out what it is.
The idea that tenure == freedom turns out to be a Big Lie. (...) The life of a professor is, first and foremost, a never-ending Sisyphean treadmill of writing grant proposals. At the end of the day, it's all about the money. (...) The only real freedom is having money of your own, and even that comes with strings attached because then you have to manage the money and deal with people asking you to write checks.
As a tenured professor, I can confirm all this as an accurate description.
Furthermore, to add to what you said, you don't even have real freedom on things like where to publish - the typical question of "why don't you just refuse to submit articles to exploitative for-profit publishers like Elsevier?" - because you are almost always working with PhD students, postdocs, etc. And while your career may not depend on where you publish, theirs does. (A possible exception to this is mathematics, and maybe some other research fields, where many papers are single-author. But that only happens in a minority of disciplines).
There is something where the freedom is more or less real, though: choosing research subjects. This year I wanted to do some fun experiments with LLMs, not very related to my usual research. I found a collaborator, did that, had fun, and it's part of the work I'm paid to do. That's a kind of freedom that most jobs don't give you. Even that is quite restricted because most of your research has to be on things that funding agencies like, but at least it's something.
Sometimes it's hard to calibrate and compare expectations about something far in the future.
There's kind of a "haha, we're screwed" undertone to a lot of things. How is a young person really supposed to know which ones are really horrible dead ends and which ones are actually workable if you care?
Is a singing career or a professor more of a dead end? English PhD or history PhD? Lawyer or video game programmer?
Those all have different chances for success, different time horizons, and different off-ramps when they don't work out.
Tracks that allow you to have some kind of job earlier, even an unskilled/unrelated one, at least allow you to potentially collect some savings or maybe even start a family. It grounds you in reality somewhat so you can compare your life against the world around you rather than only seeing your peers struggling with you.
Not really my experience in a science department at a top university in Canada. I've served on several hiring committees and also been involved in about 20 hirings over the years. Yes, there are typically 100+ applicants, but only about 5-10 of them are truly excellent.
In contrast to what the writer described, I had an experience where a colleague strongly opposed considering his former PhD student for a position because their research interests were significantly different from the advertised position.
One thing that has consistently surprised me during these hiring exercises is encountering candidates who appear exceptional on paper and deliver a decent public talk about their past research but completely fail when it comes to their proposed research talk.
At least in science, if you're truly exceptional, you will find a position at a top place, despite whatever politicking or EDI considerations are influencing the hiring process.
> One professor strongly advocated for his own postdoc, even though his CV was not at all competitive. After considerable debate—and without consensus—he was invited for an interview anyway.
This alone happens more frequent than not. Idea here is to land (PhD) on a remarkable lab with a supervisor on the committee...
This is strange to me. Many universities, including mine, avoid interviewing applicants with a PhD or postdoc from the same institution to which they are applying.
This is such a generalization that I deem it devoid of value. Besides the fact that not all hiring decisions happen that way, R1 institutions are not the only ones around. If you have a passion for teaching and want to stay engaged in research, there are other options like primarily undergraduate institutions. There are good reasons to prefer industrial posts to academia, and vice versa.
It's great that the author found a good job and is happy, but being a tenured professor has its own advantages (at least in the US system)... 9 month years (three-four months holiday/year), essentially no boss, salary (maybe lower than equivalent in private sector, but is sufficient), paid sabbaticals, unpaid leaves, 2-days/week teaching and the rest of the time on pet projects, job security, ability to do contracting on the side. But to get that there is quite an upfront commitment and its uncertain. Probably if you did the same amount of effort in the private sector you could get some of those things, but I doubt all of them...
I thought I wanted to work on cars for a living, then I delivered parts for O'Reilly during one summer and was told straight to my face "If you like cars don't do this job."
I'm reminded of (I think?) one of Paul Graham's essays on the difficult and rewarding things in life – that if you knew how difficult it would be, you might not have done it? You might not have started.
I don't know... sometimes, there are those things that might be difficult and then not worth it. It strikes me that to be a professor, you have to be a little out of it, maybe even a little psycho.
This is just what humans are like. I say this a lot but I still don't understand how people are so naive about this kind of thing. You're not going to find anywhere that isn't like this eventually. We not only don't live in a meritocracy but meritocracy itself is impossible. It's just idealism that disregards nature (unless you redefine it to some meaningless vague Darwinianism.)
In healthier environments results are better. For instance, if a qualified person applies to a useful and growing company, they are going to be treated with respect and offered good pay.
Rather, "meritocracy" is a theatre that provides perfect alibi for nepotism.
Referring to someone's CV is not in principle different from referral by a person. It's just another document that has been curated by people, for the same purpose.
I have posted on HN before: If you can get out of Academia, do so. It's in your best interest to get out. This article spells out why. Academia is like spending your adult life in middle school.
[+] [-] mocha_nate|2 years ago|reply
Both up for tenure - the amazing professor was passed on because the other had a more desirable background. Both women. As a grad student, I understood the difficult of hiring, but this was honestly incredible.
I thought of this when I read the following from the article: "I was startled to learn that academic achievements were not always what mattered most." and "only to fall short of securing a faculty position due to factors outside my control."
Just a different story from academia.
[+] [-] shinjitsu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|2 years ago|reply
I suspect it's the case 99% of the time. You have some widget factory, some team leader leaves, and of his team of 10 you need a new leader. 4 of them are veterans and could do the work if you asked people who understand the business but are not involved in the decision. So then what? Well lets say you have to have published papers in the Journal of Widgets. Great, that leaves three. Now let's see how they do on random questions at interview. Fantastic, 4 of the 6 committee members think it's candidate B. Congrats.
It's an effect of the pyramid structure. People who can do the work have to be whittled away somehow, even if it's some silly criterion.
[+] [-] otachack|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewmorgan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isaacremuant|2 years ago|reply
It's not the end of the world as long as you're not authortiarian and inclined to believe that in any hierarchy, the more valuable/skilled/apt person is naturally at the top.
It's very hard to create a system that scales and doesn't show signs of heavy bureocracy and/or corruption (if you know about the internals) because, very soon, it's easy to find out a gap between working for your career and working to maximise the output value of your job.
[+] [-] msie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jprete|2 years ago|reply
I was in the author's shoes, but I was lucky enough to find out all the same information through Internet sites written by embittered PhDs who described what the negative side of the process was like. I went into industry instead, first for an R&D government contractor, then big tech. Like the author, I don't have any regrets about it.
I don't blame the committee for filtering on specialty, though. The academic job market is so tight for applicants that every PhD has to flood every job opening with applications to have a chance. There's something to be said for channeling people to the right job instead of any old job.
PhD programs IMO should stop being an implicit lottery for the ivory tower, maybe by having explicit "industry" and "academia" tracks and being careful with how many of the academic PhDs they're producing. But they'd have to admit just how unfair the system is to the students.
[+] [-] parpfish|2 years ago|reply
Too often, grad school applicants are just kids that have overachieved in academic settings and think to themselves “I’ve been good at school my whole life, why not just do school forever?”. A lot of them would actually thrive in industry but they just continue doing school out of inertia.
Grad school could help those kids figure out if they like working in industry by mixing in courses taught by industry folks and/or pushing for internships rather than traditional RA positions.
[+] [-] thumbuddy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contemporary343|2 years ago|reply
We ended up doing a standardized set of Zoom interviews for about 15 of them - here too, many candidates were simply unable to clearly explain their past work and make a clear pitch for their vision and work (even with slides). This is an essential skill for running a lab and one any prospective candidate should practice and refine! From that point on the whole department was involved and, at least for us, everyone had an equal say and felt safe speaking up. ~4-5 were invited for on-campus interviews and one candidate was liked the most by nearly everyone, leading to a consensus.
As a public university, there are a lot of things we do in a standardized way, and sets of personal questions etc. we do not ask. Is it fair? I'll leave others to judge, as selecting one person to hire out of ~200 applicants is not an easy task. But I don't think it was capricious either. At our department, we intend for everyone who comes as an assistant prof to be tenured, so it is very much a long-term hire and commitment we are making. We take that job seriously.
[+] [-] Agingcoder|2 years ago|reply
My father ( university professor) told me that unfortunately this was all too common.
I stayed clear of academia after that.
[+] [-] hotpotamus|2 years ago|reply
My suspicion for the reason that academia is seen as being so political is because they're actually not very good at it. The top of the heap of political practitioners in my experience tend to be the VP+ level leadership in publicly traded companies.
[+] [-] drewcoo|2 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_X
[+] [-] hgsgm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikewarot|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz42lx6BhqY
[+] [-] hgsgm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robwwilliams|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ysleepy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnbear|2 years ago|reply
https://acoup.blog/2023/04/28/collections-academic-ranks-exp...
https://acoup.blog/2022/12/23/fireside-friday-december-23-20...
https://acoup.blog/2021/10/01/collections-so-you-want-to-go-...
[+] [-] kergonath|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karaterobot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lacrimacida|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GlenTheMachine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcme|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azhenley|2 years ago|reply
We’d sift through maybe 200 applications, quickly reject most (i.e., do they have any top pubs in the area we are hiring for?). Most of them were wildly out of scope.
Pick 10 from the remaining 30 applicants that we think (a) are the best and (b) would potentially accept the offer.
We had several failed searches after many, many interviews.
[+] [-] matthewdgreen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xhkkffbf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chriskanan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sriram_sun|2 years ago|reply
White male - Room mate of employee
White male - Room mate of employee
White male - Knew early employee from college in Switzerland
White female - Recruited off of LinkedIn
Indian American - Recruited off of LinkedIn
Immigrant Indian American - Recruited off of LinkedIn.
There is a lot of favoritism that goes on in industry as well. However, it is so large that it can accommodate both merit-based and network based hiring. Hiring is a total crap shoot anyway and this is not to say that just because someone comes recommended by someone else they are automatically bad. They just look better in comparison because mentally we automatically lower the hiring bar as this person comes "recommended" from a known source.
[+] [-] laeri|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robinbobbin|2 years ago|reply
There sure is, but I don't think your example is evidence for that. People just like to hire based on recommendations and through friends. Several times now I've been interested in some startup, and when I looked at their team page, they were all from the same group: either all Indian, or all russian speakers, or something else. I bet most startups are like this, just that some cases are more apparent than others.
[+] [-] poszlem|2 years ago|reply
Is the founder white? Does he/did he live in a majority white country (you mentioned a college in Switzerland, a country which is most likely 90% white)? If so, why is that weird and why does that matter? Unless you think that "white men" are fungible, using this category makes no sense.
[+] [-] sriram_sun|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmychoozyx|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lisper|2 years ago|reply
In retrospect, having now learned more about the realities of academic life, this is probably one of the best things that ever happened to me. I think I would have been as miserable as a professor as I was as a grad student. The idea that tenure == freedom turns out to be a Big Lie. There is no more freedom in academia than there is anywhere else in the world. The life of a professor is, first and foremost, a never-ending Sisyphean treadmill of writing grant proposals. At the end of the day, it's all about the money.
Of course you can get yourself into a nice comfortable niche where you are The Man and all your proposals are greenlit by default, but you can do that outside of academia too by finding a patron or a big enough group of fans, but then you are beholden to them. The only real freedom is having money of your own, and even that comes with strings attached because then you have to manage the money and deal with people asking you to write checks.
Always be careful what you wish for. The hardest part of getting what you want is figuring out what it is.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession_in_the_U...
[+] [-] Al-Khwarizmi|2 years ago|reply
As a tenured professor, I can confirm all this as an accurate description.
Furthermore, to add to what you said, you don't even have real freedom on things like where to publish - the typical question of "why don't you just refuse to submit articles to exploitative for-profit publishers like Elsevier?" - because you are almost always working with PhD students, postdocs, etc. And while your career may not depend on where you publish, theirs does. (A possible exception to this is mathematics, and maybe some other research fields, where many papers are single-author. But that only happens in a minority of disciplines).
There is something where the freedom is more or less real, though: choosing research subjects. This year I wanted to do some fun experiments with LLMs, not very related to my usual research. I found a collaborator, did that, had fun, and it's part of the work I'm paid to do. That's a kind of freedom that most jobs don't give you. Even that is quite restricted because most of your research has to be on things that funding agencies like, but at least it's something.
[+] [-] chmod600|2 years ago|reply
There's kind of a "haha, we're screwed" undertone to a lot of things. How is a young person really supposed to know which ones are really horrible dead ends and which ones are actually workable if you care?
Is a singing career or a professor more of a dead end? English PhD or history PhD? Lawyer or video game programmer?
Those all have different chances for success, different time horizons, and different off-ramps when they don't work out.
Tracks that allow you to have some kind of job earlier, even an unskilled/unrelated one, at least allow you to potentially collect some savings or maybe even start a family. It grounds you in reality somewhat so you can compare your life against the world around you rather than only seeing your peers struggling with you.
[+] [-] SKCarr|2 years ago|reply
In contrast to what the writer described, I had an experience where a colleague strongly opposed considering his former PhD student for a position because their research interests were significantly different from the advertised position.
One thing that has consistently surprised me during these hiring exercises is encountering candidates who appear exceptional on paper and deliver a decent public talk about their past research but completely fail when it comes to their proposed research talk.
At least in science, if you're truly exceptional, you will find a position at a top place, despite whatever politicking or EDI considerations are influencing the hiring process.
[+] [-] raister|2 years ago|reply
This alone happens more frequent than not. Idea here is to land (PhD) on a remarkable lab with a supervisor on the committee...
[+] [-] sangel|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LasEspuelas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ftyers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lambdasquirrel|2 years ago|reply
I don't know... sometimes, there are those things that might be difficult and then not worth it. It strikes me that to be a professor, you have to be a little out of it, maybe even a little psycho.
[+] [-] guerrilla|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmod600|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yobbo|2 years ago|reply
Referring to someone's CV is not in principle different from referral by a person. It's just another document that has been curated by people, for the same purpose.
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amatic|2 years ago|reply