<p>No. In hiring for faculty positions at many universities, HR plays no role in the vetting of applicants or their credentials. They may review the list of interviewees – for purposes of compliance with affirmative action policies – and they may request proof of diplomas/degrees received. But that’s about it. As a Dept. Chair I hired 17 faculty members and never had any communication with HR about credentials, other than the affirmative action check. I think this is fairly typical at research universities.</p>
<p>(FWIW, at the first university I was hired at, they fingerprinted all new employees as well as required us to sign a loyalty oath. But this was after I was hired.)</p>
<p>I suspect that new assessments of the ATF materials taken from the Anderson/Bishop home (the epoxy, the note pads) during the original investigation of the bombing attempt may yield forensic data that was not possible at the time of the original investigation. Geez, they had some of the same components in their home. Creepy really. Given that the package was addressed to Mr Paul Rosenberg MD, I thought it pointed to the husband’s involvement at the time. She would likely have left off the Mr, or addressed it to Mr and left off the MD if she was addressing the package. </p>
<p>I hope ATF puts forward a new forensic evaluation of the materials.</p>
<p>I thought the article said that the materials were similar? We probably have half a dozen varieties of epoxy in our house, and given S1’s hobby of building electronic devices, probably a lot of other suspicious materials, as well. </p>
<p>I did notice the strange address format when I first read about the bomb, but I thought it pointed away from both of them. Anderson has a Ph.D., and probably knows the correct way to address a physician. Or maybe it was misdirection?</p>
<p>When, exactly, was the unabomber active? Could this have been one of his?</p>
<p>Don’t HR people get the gist of a problem employee by asking “If this individual ever reapplied for work at your institution, would you re-hire her?” If the answer is “Absolutely NOT,” that pretty much sums it up without getting into the dirty details.</p>
<p>I don’t think a big company would answer that question. When I worked in aerospace, the only answer that was allowed was the dates of employment. If more questions were asked, they were told that they could not answer those questions (whether the employee was stellar or not.) </p>
<p>And, since many large companies have that protocol, prospective employers often don’t bother asking questions that they know they won’t get any answers.</p>
<p>As for fingerprinting…It’s very likely that Amy was fingerprinted when she was hired by UAH, but the problem was that her record was clean. Even her FBI file came back clean. It was clean when checked again shortly after the shootings.</p>
<p>I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Jim Anderson has a phd. I don’t remember reading anything that said he has doctor degree so I have always assume he did not. They met as undergrads at NEU, I believe he has a degree in computer science or engineering but has done some work in biomedical field.</p>
<p>“When, exactly, was the unabomber active? Could this have been one of his?”</p>
<p>I remember reading one of the article, and it said that they tried to match the bomb up with the unabomber, but the construction and material was completely different that they dismiss the connection.</p>
<p>Amy Bishop’s publications reveal that in 1993 the papers were originating out of Children’s Hospital. The gap in employment and the fact that her papers were coming out of Children’s Hospital should have caused UAH to make additional inquiries.</p>
<p>I think a thorough review of the investigations of the Braintree PD, Mass state police, and DA’s office are in order in light of the rampage. I think a revival of the ATF investigation of the bombing attempt is also in order. I think a thorough review of the hiring practices of UAH are also in order since, after all, they did hire a mass murderer.</p>
<p>It’s not strange that Bishop’s publications were coming out of Children’s Hospital, or Beth Israel. Most (>95%) of Harvard Medical School faculty are based in the teaching hospitals. Children’s Hospital, like Beth Israel, Brigham and Women’s, etc., is adjacent to the medical school. Most of the grants come through the hospitals - take a look through the NIH database. It is strange that she bounced around from field to field - neurosciences, cardiology.</p>
<p>I am on a university faculty. When we hire people, we have letters of recommendation and conversations with supervisors and co-workers. Believe me, we get a very good idea of the personal traits, as well as the abilities, of the candidates. We find out, among other things, how collegial the candidates are. HR is not involved.</p>
<p>I am baffled by the fact that UAH hired her. There would have been dozens of well-qualified applicants for the tenure-track position. Why was she chosen? I’m sure there were many with much stronger publication records and glowing recommendations.</p>
I got this same answer and observation from 2 other acquaintances who are on a university faculty. One mentioned the “inventions” as a possible explanation.</p>
Anyone can have a good day or a bad day. She is not stupid and many have reported that she can be caring and engaging when she wants to. One’s conduct throughout the day of the interview counts a lot towards the decision.</p>
<p>Charming and engaging does not make up for a mediocre publication record and lukewarm, pro-forma recommendations. She would have had to give at least one talk on her research. The audience would have included faculty from several departments, and she would have had a number of probing questions. She would have interviewed with multiple faculty members, probably from different departments, and there would have been in-depth discussions of her research. I don’t get it.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that the inventions would have done it either. UAH would have shared in the patents/royalties only if she invented it while in their employ, right? </p>
<p>I would also like to point that it is not uncommon for the date of a thesis defense to be quite different from the date the degree is awarded. A university awards the degree in May but your thesis defense might take place in early fall. Many professionals will include this fact on their resume. I know, by the time my degree was awarded, I had been working for my company for 8 months. UAH was probably aware of this.</p>
<p>Is it really that hard for someone to come up with some glowing recommendations? After all, the woman was given a PhD from Harvard. Certainly, some on the Harvard staff must have thought well of her and could have written glowing recs.</p>
<p>I would also like to point that it is not uncommon for the date of a thesis defense to be quite different from the date the degree is awarded. A university awards the degree in May but your thesis defense might take place in early fall.</p>
<p>I’m very much aware of this. But, that doesn’t mean that she could have doing “family things” from the time of her thesis defense to being awarded her PhD.</p>
<p>I think it will come out that she lied about where she was and what she was doing at various times, possibly using the fact that she had 4 kids as a reasonable “cover” for some holes in her resume. </p>
<p>We have to realize that she wasn’t a suspicious candidate…wife, mother of 4, PhD from Harvard, clean FBI report,…how safe can you get???</p>
<p>I’m not at all surprised that her history of violence was not available to UAH. As others have said, even if they did a background check, hers would have been clean. I’m not surprised that they didn’t see the negatives. I’m just baffled that they saw enough positive aspects to hire her over other candidates.</p>
<p>The Harvard Ph.D. would not have been as important as what she had done since the degree. And remember that, had she and her husband been guilty of the attempted bombing, the motive was supposed to have been a poor review of her doctoral research. No glowing recommendation there. And she’d had several unsuccessful post-docs/faculty positions in the Harvard hospitals. Who would have written those recommendations?</p>
<p>The importance of where the Ph.D. came from fades as years go by. What matters is the research. (And she didn’t even have any teaching experience!)</p>
<p>And remember that, had she and her husband been guilty of the attempted bombing, the motive was supposed to have been a poor review of her doctoral research. No glowing recommendation there.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m missing something…</p>
<p>Was the poor review of her doctoral research before or after she was awarded her PhD? If it was before, why was she awarded the PhD? </p>
<p>Either way, wouldn’t she have been able to get good recs from some people at Harvard?</p>
<p>I also don’t know how much she may have lied about what she was doing post PhD. She may have claimed to have been at home with the kids. No one has to provide proof of that.</p>
<p>I am very glad to hear that! I was beginning to wonder where we’ve come when, due to concerns about litigation, all an employer was allowed to say about a former employee is that he/she worked there from x date to y date. Seems kind of beside the point to give or require references if that is all one is able to glean about a candidate’s work history.</p>
<p>As a corporate recruiting manager I can attest to the fact that checking references from third parties and past employer assessment checking has become nothing more than an HR check mark. The legal environment we live in has rendered them worthless. It is the chief reason that people, even if they are well known to you are subjected to criminal, drug and financial background checks, because of the fear that past employers or acquaintances have in giving an honest assessment.</p>
<p>Not to defend Bishop in any way but interruptions in a work career are far from uncommon for a woman with 4 children. A prospective employer might not find such interruptions, or gaps in timing of her publications, a reason to question her credentials.</p>
<p>I could also add that in my state it is forbidden even to ask a candidate questions about his or her marital status, intentions with respect to childbearing, sexual orientation – and a host of other questions that are out of bounds from the standpoint of equal employment opportunity.</p>
<p>DonnaL, I’m sure you’re right. Perhaps there are other micro enclaves where some sanity still exists, but like most people I am not an inhabitant.</p>