Friday, November 14, 2008

Job Hunting

“Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”

Prospective employment questionnaire for the Obama administration

(Where do I start?)

“Please list all aliases or “handles” you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

(All of them?)

“Diaries: If you keep or have ever kept a diary that contains anything that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.”

(Aren’t diaries embarrassing by definition?)

“Have you had any association with any person, group, or business venture that could be used – even unfairly – to impugn or attack your character and qualification for government service?”

(Who do I leave out?)

Answering these 63 questions requires a full time assistant. Maybe I’ll pass on applying. Who would be stupid enough, or understaffed enough, to leave something out. I guess we’ll know soon enough.

See: Jackie Calmes, "For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All," New York Times, November 13, 2008.

1 comment:

Sarah said...

I suppose Obama's tell-all book allowed him to escape any PR fiascos from skeletons in the closet, so perhaps his transition team believes that its only fair that his appointees to do the same?

What I'm interested is learning is how many well-qualified, bright people will a) choose not to apply because of the invasiveness of these questions; or b) be passed over for an appointment based on an angry 3am post to an electronic bulletin board read by seven people ten years ago...