0

Employers/bosses need reference letters from previous employers to assess applicants. Why can this not happen the other way round? It should've been a 2 way peer review stream. Applicants should have legitimate reasons to ask for reference letters written about the employers/bosses, shouldn't they?

cag51
  • 67,924
  • 25
  • 181
  • 247
feynman
  • 538
  • 1
  • 4
  • 13
  • 1
    There are some pretty fundamental asymmetries in the employer/employee relationship to begin with. The big one is that if the employer has one less employee, it survives with minor inconvenience. If the employee has one less employer, he starves. – Nate Eldredge Mar 09 '19 at 03:20
  • 1
    I assume you mean in academia, because in industry reference letters are not common. And in academia, there is a big asymmetry of risk the other way, in fact. We can typically be pretty confident that the university we are applying to, which has been there hundreds of years, and which we can easily research in depth via the internet or various publications, is not a fake. Meanwhile every pile of resumes is full of exaggerations and outright lies about skills and credentials. – A Simple Algorithm Mar 09 '19 at 04:15
  • ok. then we assume by employers i mean the bosses/PIs, not the institutions – feynman Mar 09 '19 at 09:16
  • One could easily say try and look at the results. I don't understand. You can find out about the reputation and work of a potential boss in plenty of way, but not ask him. And one should indeed. – Alchimista Mar 09 '19 at 13:15

1 Answers1

1

Short answer: supply and demand. Established universities are comfortable that they can get qualified applicants even with requiring letters; candidates would have a very difficult time finding a job if they required their employers to submit letters of recommendation to them.

The early stage (making a short list) is asymmetrical for sure, but it's sort of apples and orange.

  • There are only so many departments that work in a particular subfield, so the applicant is likely already familiar with the department and potentially even with the faculty members in that department. Thus, letters wouldn't provide much new information. (Possible exception for small R&D companies rather than universities, but such jobs rarely require letters).
  • Conversely, there are many applicants for any particular slot, and the hirers will know very few of them. Thus, without letters, there are few practical, effective ways to know which candidates should interview.

In later phases, the process does become more symmetrical. Both sides tend to make their own judgments at this phase rather than relying on reputation or letters.

  • These interviews should be both ways -- I would be surprised if any hirer would hesitate to discuss their interests, backgrounds, expectations, and style with a candidate they are seriously considering hiring.
  • You are also likely to have a chance to meet with the supervisor's group, colleagues, and employees at some point. If not, no reason you couldn't request such a meeting, or just set one up directly.
cag51
  • 67,924
  • 25
  • 181
  • 247