While doing a bit of catch-up reading at the reference desk this afternoon, I came across an article on college rejection letters, "Rejection: How Colleges Do It." It appears students have started not only sharing their rejections, but critiquing them as well. It made me reminiscence a bit about my job hunt. While applying to a college and applying for a job are different, the sting of rejection is fundamentally the same. The reactions from some of the students to wording in the letters made me laugh. Not at them, because at that age it's all so important, but because as you continue in life you'll still get strange rejection letters.
For me several stand out. One wasn't even a rejection letter per se. I had the honor of being offered an interview and then a week later having the interview offer pulled. Due to budget constraints, they could only interview two, so sorry, not you. Believe it or not, almost a month later the same university called to see if I was still interested. It appears the other two interviews did not go well. I said yes. Friends were aghast, but I wanted/needed a full-time job. I was also impressed that they did call me back as many universities might have been too embarrassed. And, yes, I was offered and accepted the job and have very fond memories of my two plus years there.
The other was a rejection letter with somewhat of a twist. I had already received rejection letter one from this particular institution. Then, several months later, I received an e-mail that they were again considering candidates from the applicant pool, was I still interested. Again, what the heck. I don't remember if the interviews fell through or if the selected candidate declined. At any rate, I didn't hear from them again until I received the second rejection letter. They thanked me for interviewing with them, but advised they had selected someone else. I never interviewed with them. It would have been a great location and probably a good job, but I still think of that institution as a bit flaky.
The other one that stands out was a rejection letter to an entry level job stating there were more qualified candidates. This for a job that encouraged new graduates to apply. Now, I realize that many times experienced librarians apply for entry level positions due to location, goals or any number of other reasons, but to be told I was underqualified for an entry level job is still something I shake my head about. I'm sure that's not how they intended it, but that's how it came across.
I also have one reject letter that stands out in a good way... a positive rejection. It had wording stating something to the effect that they hoped I would apply for future positions at their insitution. That one made me feel pretty good.
I'm sure I could cull a few more from the folders I have (for some reason I still have many of my reject letters) but those are the ones that years later still stand out. Do you have any rejection letters that stand out?
April 29, 2009
April 28, 2009
Thoughts on online training...
As with a lot of institutions, most of the required training here is done online. It's done through a site that is poorly laid out and cumbersome to get into (a 14 character/digit/special character password is required and it frequently has to be re-set). Once in there, apparently whatever group is responsible for the training creates the training. There is nothing resembling consistency.
At previous positions, it was simple PowerPoints. You read them, maybe took a short quiz, then completed the training. Here it's a bit different. Almost like some have discovered some new funky technology and it must all be incorporated into the trainingl. I've see everything from extremely busy, cluttered, flashing PowerPoints to plai, nothing but bullet points PowerPoints.
The most recent was a short notice training. Another PowerPoint, but with a few twists I hadn't seen before. One was a timed, boxed highlight of each of the bullet points, forcing you to either read at their speed (slow) or ignore the slowly highlighting bullets and read at your own speed. The worst feature though had to be the flow charts. Yes, the flow charts. Not only was the process documented using flow charts, but the user had to click on each step to read about that part of the process. These were not two or three step flow charts. They were very detailed, mulit-step flow charts.
Going through this training made me realize that not only is it important to convey the information, but it is equally important how that information is conveyed. Just because there are a lot of bells and whistles available, doesn't mean they should be incorporated into the training. Sometimes, simple is best. What do you want to be remembered from the training? The valuable content or the funky presentation?
At previous positions, it was simple PowerPoints. You read them, maybe took a short quiz, then completed the training. Here it's a bit different. Almost like some have discovered some new funky technology and it must all be incorporated into the trainingl. I've see everything from extremely busy, cluttered, flashing PowerPoints to plai, nothing but bullet points PowerPoints.
The most recent was a short notice training. Another PowerPoint, but with a few twists I hadn't seen before. One was a timed, boxed highlight of each of the bullet points, forcing you to either read at their speed (slow) or ignore the slowly highlighting bullets and read at your own speed. The worst feature though had to be the flow charts. Yes, the flow charts. Not only was the process documented using flow charts, but the user had to click on each step to read about that part of the process. These were not two or three step flow charts. They were very detailed, mulit-step flow charts.
Going through this training made me realize that not only is it important to convey the information, but it is equally important how that information is conveyed. Just because there are a lot of bells and whistles available, doesn't mean they should be incorporated into the training. Sometimes, simple is best. What do you want to be remembered from the training? The valuable content or the funky presentation?
April 16, 2009
Usage & Processes...
It's been a long time since I posted. A good portion of that time has been spent gathering usage statistics. As most libraries are probably doing, we are trying to reduce our journal and database subscriptions. Naturally one of the factors we looked at/are looking at is usage statistics not only for databases, but for individual journal subscriptions. Gathering usage statistics for individual journal titles has proven to be easier said than done.
At past places of work, focus has been on database usage statistics. For some reason, electronic journal subscriptions were left out of the usage statistics gathering equation. However, these statistics are available and should be considered. Tracking usage statistics for print journals (if done) is time consuming. Getting these usage statistics online, however, at least at my place of work, has also proven time consuming and at times it has been about as easy as herding cats.
Without something like Scholarly Stats or 360 Counter, one has to go to each individual journal publisher's site or to the vendor hosting the publication (such as Ingenta) to get the usage statistics. In many cases, gathering statistics for electronic subscriptions involves two steps - activating the IP range for access and activating the Admin account for access to things like maintaining the IP range, branding, and running usage reports. The jobber we use sets up the IP access, however, here the Admin accounts at the publisher sites were not being activated. This isn't a big surprise since until this year there had been no great interest in the usage stats for our electronic subscriptions. It did hinder the usage stat gathering process, though, as it takes time to activate. Another hindrance was when the online access was activated one of two people from our Acquisitions department, the former Electronic Access Librarian, or the Collection Development Librarian were listed as the account Administrator. There was no consistency in how this was set-up meaning there was also no consistency in who received notifications regarding the subscriptions or changes to the Administrative account. In most cases, the admin account had never been accessed. I couldn't begin to count the number of places I've gone or the e-mails I've sent trying to set up access to usage stats for particular journals. Regardless of whether or not it's one title or twenty, the same amount of work is involved to set up the Administrative access. I'd never before realized how many electronic journal subscriptions were single titles from a publisher. It's given a whole new aspect to tracking login information as in many cases it needs to be tracked by journal title as well as publisher.
For some reason, I naively expected when I began this process, that someone already had all of this information on a spreadsheet and I could just use that. This is how it worked at previous jobs. Most of the databases were on a spreadsheet; none of the publishers were. This is where processes come in. As electronic subscriptions increase, there needs to be an understanding between all departments as to who does what and what that requires. The Acquisitions department never gathered usage stats or branded a database, so while they forwarded outage e-mails or upgrade e-mails, sadly, in many cases e-mails advising of platform switches or other admin account changes were simply left in someone's inbox. Creating the process that in essence changes, and in some ways questions, old processes can be daunting. Not only does there need to be a primary person for this process, who does what and the account access information should be documented. People move on to other jobs; whoever follows behind them should be able to pick up where they left off.
At past places of work, focus has been on database usage statistics. For some reason, electronic journal subscriptions were left out of the usage statistics gathering equation. However, these statistics are available and should be considered. Tracking usage statistics for print journals (if done) is time consuming. Getting these usage statistics online, however, at least at my place of work, has also proven time consuming and at times it has been about as easy as herding cats.
Without something like Scholarly Stats or 360 Counter, one has to go to each individual journal publisher's site or to the vendor hosting the publication (such as Ingenta) to get the usage statistics. In many cases, gathering statistics for electronic subscriptions involves two steps - activating the IP range for access and activating the Admin account for access to things like maintaining the IP range, branding, and running usage reports. The jobber we use sets up the IP access, however, here the Admin accounts at the publisher sites were not being activated. This isn't a big surprise since until this year there had been no great interest in the usage stats for our electronic subscriptions. It did hinder the usage stat gathering process, though, as it takes time to activate. Another hindrance was when the online access was activated one of two people from our Acquisitions department, the former Electronic Access Librarian, or the Collection Development Librarian were listed as the account Administrator. There was no consistency in how this was set-up meaning there was also no consistency in who received notifications regarding the subscriptions or changes to the Administrative account. In most cases, the admin account had never been accessed. I couldn't begin to count the number of places I've gone or the e-mails I've sent trying to set up access to usage stats for particular journals. Regardless of whether or not it's one title or twenty, the same amount of work is involved to set up the Administrative access. I'd never before realized how many electronic journal subscriptions were single titles from a publisher. It's given a whole new aspect to tracking login information as in many cases it needs to be tracked by journal title as well as publisher.
For some reason, I naively expected when I began this process, that someone already had all of this information on a spreadsheet and I could just use that. This is how it worked at previous jobs. Most of the databases were on a spreadsheet; none of the publishers were. This is where processes come in. As electronic subscriptions increase, there needs to be an understanding between all departments as to who does what and what that requires. The Acquisitions department never gathered usage stats or branded a database, so while they forwarded outage e-mails or upgrade e-mails, sadly, in many cases e-mails advising of platform switches or other admin account changes were simply left in someone's inbox. Creating the process that in essence changes, and in some ways questions, old processes can be daunting. Not only does there need to be a primary person for this process, who does what and the account access information should be documented. People move on to other jobs; whoever follows behind them should be able to pick up where they left off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)