1)This is the team that tried starting a "Founder's Club" for season ticket orders when Petco Park first opened. There were various levels - $5K, $7K or $10K would get you access to purchase various levels of tickets. These weren't the ticket prices, mind you - these were fees being charged just to get the rights to purchase tickets. This didn't last long as the fan base lambasted the team quite vocally about this. And the team was actually surprised at the fans' reaction.

i think that is really popular with football teams. i know the eagles required season ticket holders to pay thousands of dollars for "stadium builders licenses" and "personal seat licenses" and i know they did that at the new meadowlands stadium and probably the new cowboys stadiums as well.

I get the, uh, "tastelessness" of the letter. I also get how annoying it is to get form letters. But I also don't really see the problem of offering interested applicants a program to train them before they start and help them get the job. Yes, it costs money. Running programs cost money, go figure.

So you truly can't understand how insulting it is to ask someone you've rejected dozens of times - someone you know doesn't have a job - to pay you $500 for just a chance at getting a job? To expect that you could hold the slightest hint of employment out in front of them and ask them to jump? I guess some people have to be able to relate more closely to the form-letter write, but, jeez- the problem is not that the letter is "annoying", it's that it is a transparent ploy to take advantage of desperate people. It might be economically rational to do so, but that doesn't make it defensible. Unfortunately, we are now living in a hollowed-out shell of a world where economic rationality constitutes the entirety of our ethics, so there will always be people crawling out of the woodwork to defend exactly that.

I think it's BETTER to get rejected without an interview. I applied for a job early last year where, after 2 rounds of interviews and a BS "personality test" I had to take that was over 100 questions, I got emailed a form-letter-rejection saying they're moving on. Now THAT pissed me right the #### off, as I had spent several hours of my life jumping through hoops for those clowns and they can't even be bothered to give me an explanation.

I think I want the interview, with the caveat that whomever is conducting the interview is serious about hiring me. I'm been looking for a full time teaching job for years and the constant non-feedback from prospective employers drives me nuts.

Yeah, the other terrible thing about job searches is that people seem to find it easier to just ignore you than to simply tell you 'no'. If you took the time to apply, I think you are owed at least that - simple, direct communication, it doesn't have to be more than a one-line email, but to just ignore a person... the level of disrespect that conveys is staggering, and horrifying to think that it is so commonplace.

i know they did that at the new meadowlands stadium and probably the new cowboys stadiums as well.

Oh, you better believe Smiley Jones isn't going to turn down other people's money.

The Founders All-Access tickets is the most expensive Dallas Cowboys Ticket option. These tickets cost $150,000 for the PSL and $3400 for the season ticket.

The Club Seat tickets are broken down into three separate pricing categories, red, green and yellow. They all have a season ticket price of $3400, but the PSL varies in price. Cowboys Stadium Red is the cheapest at $16,000, Green is next at $35,000 and Yellow is the most expensive seat license at $50,000 per seat.

The Loge Seat tickets cost $12,000 for the PSL and $1200 for the season ticket.

The Reserved Seat tickets are the least expensive Dallas Cowboys Ticket options and are broken down into four categories:
Cowboys Stadium HDTVSilver Corners seat tickets have a personal seat license that costs $5000 and a season ticket price of $1250.
LL Corners/Upper Sides seat tickets have a personal seat license that costs $000 (sic) and a season ticket price of $990.
Lower EZ/Upper EZ seat tickets have a personal seat license that costs $4000 and a season ticket price of $890.
Upper Sides seat tickets have a personal seat license that costs $2000 and a season ticket price of $790.

So you truly can't understand how insulting it is to ask someone you've rejected dozens of times to pay you $500 for just a chance at getting a job? To expect that you could hold the slightest hint of employment out in front of them and ask them to jump? I guess some people have to be able to relate more closely to the form-letter write, but, jeez- the problem is not that the letter is "annoying", it's that it is a transparent ploy to take advantage of desperate people. It might be economically rational to do so, but that doesn't make it defensible. Unfortunately, we are now living in a hollowed-out shell of a world where economic rationality constitutes the entirety of our ethics, so there will always be people crawling out of the woodwork to defend exactly that.

Again, I understand the "tastelessness" of it, but there are two sides. On the one hand, I get the frustration of being asked to pay money to work for someone you've been trying to get a job with. But the other side of it is that these teams are swamped with resumes, probably with little to choose from the top 100. Offering a little training camp to those who really want it to help separate out the top of the crop may seem a bit evil, I get that, but I also see some merit to it. Otherwise you are probably drawing names from a hat.

And on a sidenote, I don't really agree that these are necessarily "desperate people." Obviously, working for an MLB team is a hugely popular choice. If money weren't an issue, probably all of us would work for one, right? If anything, a lot of these applicants probably already have money and want to get an in in the sports world, don't you think? If I am desperate for a job, I'm applying at wal mart and the grocery store, not holding out hope for the Mariners to come calling. The Mariners would be my first choice if I was already set financially, however. Specifically, this woman doesn't sound particularly "desperate," what with her extensive education and years of executing international events, and all. By the sounds of it, this woman considers herself vastly overqualified and is only applying because she wants to work in sports.

I should note that I would probably have the same response to the email that she did.

I think I want the interview, with the caveat that whomever is conducting the interview is serious about hiring me. I'm been looking for a full time teaching job for years and the constant non-feedback from prospective employers drives me nuts.

Obviously, feedback is better than no-feedback. But what I mean is, given the choice between no interview and no feedback, and 3 interviews followed by no feedback, I think I'd take the former. Although there is value to the interview experience,of course.

agree with zachtoma. extremely poor form for the pads to try to hit up someone for money whom they otherwise couldn't be bothered to give the time of day.

Again, I understand the "tastelessness" of it, but there are two sides. On the one hand, I get the frustration of being asked to pay money to work for someone you've been trying to get a job with. But the other side of it is that these teams are swamped with resumes, probably with little to choose from the top 100. Offering a little training camp to those who really want it to help separate out the top of the crop may seem a bit evil, I get that, but I also see some merit to it. Otherwise you are probably drawing names from a hat.

Let's also keep in mind that those seminars are highly unlikely to matter.

"Thank you for applying. We have had literally hundreds of applicants, so it's tough to choose someone. If you take this course that we're offering, it will likely make your resume stand out amongst the pile that we currently have and improve your chances of getting a job with us in the future."

Wow! I can pay for a course that has no purpose other than to improve my chances at this one job from 1 in 500 to 1 in 100! What a deal!

"Oh, okay. Thank God there are 100 people who aren't ass-hats that we can hire to do this simple job. Have a nice day."

You're only going to hire one of them anyway, so all I did was decrease my chances from 1 in 500 to 0 in 500. Who cares?

But I also don't really see the problem of offering interested applicants a program to train them before they start and help them get the job. Yes, it costs money. Running programs costs money, go figure.

These programs have one purpose, and that's to line the pockets of the people running them. For people trying to get low-paying entry-level jobs, $500 is absurd.

But I also don't really see the problem of offering interested applicants a program to train them before they start and help them get the job. Yes, it costs money. Running programs costs money, go figure.

So you're going to ask the people who you probably won't hire to fund the program? That takes some balls. Why is it that companies don't want to pay for training?

Wow! I can pay for a course that has no purpose other than to improve my chances at this one job from 1 in 500 to 1 in 100! What a deal!

"Oh, okay. Thank God there are 100 people who aren't ass-hats that we can hire to do this simple job. Have a nice day."

You're only going to hire one of them anyway, so all I did was decrease my chances from 1 in 500 to 0 in 500. Who cares?

Well, that's a decision for the applicant to make based on her situation. For the person who is retired and pensioned and just wants really badly to work at PETCO, maybe it's worth it to spend a couple bucks to go 2% to 10%. We can argue about whether it's an evil thing for the Padres to do, but whether or not it's a sound choice for the applicant depends on the applicant.

Obviously enough applicants are willing to pay the money for the program or else it wouldn't survive...if you're not one of the willing, no big deal.

These programs have one purpose, and that's to line the pockets of the people running them. For people trying to get low-paying entry-level jobs, $500 is absurd.

Once again, let's stop acting like the Padres are the last place on earth anyone wants to work for and they are conning out desperate folks from their only chance at work. The Padres are, obviously, an immensely popular place to work. People are applying for jobs not out of some last-ditch desperate act, but because they think it would be cool to work for a baseball team. So while I agree there is something distasteful with what the Padres are doing, let's try to

If you took the time to apply, I think you are owed at least that - simple, direct communication, it doesn't have to be more than a one-line email, but to just ignore a person... the level of disrespect that conveys is staggering, and horrifying to think that it is so commonplace.

If you RTFA, you'll see that she did get some form rejections, which I agree ought to be considered obligatory.

Let's also keep in mind that those seminars are highly unlikely to matter.

This is the crux, and I have no idea. The $500 doesn't go to the Padres, and the hiring manager doesn't say that the Padres themselves are looking to hire anybody at the seminar. Do the Padres get a kickback on the registration fee if Taylor attends? That would be dastardly.

I think it's BETTER to get rejected without an interview. I applied for a job early last year where, after 2 rounds of interviews and a BS "personality test" I had to take that was over 100 questions, I got emailed a form-letter-rejection saying they're moving on. Now THAT pissed me right the #### off, as I had spent several hours of my life jumping through hoops for those clowns and they can't even be bothered to give me an explanation.

I always "fail" those personality tests myself. :(

I happen to always be an outspoken and sometimes even somewhat in your face type of person at work. I'm never afraid to take a stance that is counter to conventional wisdom, or even counter to what might be in my own best interests politically if it's what I believe is best for the company. Thats why I prefer privately owned companies to public companies. So much about public company policy is about liability and protecting from lawsuits. Smaller privately owned companies tend to be less targeted, so less anal about stupid ####.

I am the last person that would normally think negatively of someone for having the balls to stand up when something is stupid or wrong.

But in my view to write that letter the way she did showed extremely poor impulse control. How many times did she read that before firing it off ? That combined with some of the other details revealed in the article just make me feel like she is a very difficult person to deal with and has a lot of baggage that interferes with her ability to function in the workplace.

Well, there are commenters on Deadspin with handles like "Work in Sports" who insist that these seminars are wonderfully productive events that have changed the lives of thousands, so I'm certainly convinced of their usefulness.

So I gave him a dressing down for helping the department become more productive. Go figure.

Was it a Joe Madden dressing down? "Now you stop balking!! You are a bad bad bad balker!"

In my last such personality test, it told me that, in crunch time, I simultaneously won't listen to others becaue I think I'm right and that I'm unable to make a decision.

As you folks know, I'm not exactly shy about speaking up when I think I'm right. :-)

I really believe that stuff is ########. Or at least 95% ########. Once a company stoops to that level it's only one more step down to astrology.

This is the crux, and I have no idea. The $500 doesn't go to the Padres, and the hiring manager doesn't say that the Padres themselves are looking to hire anybody at the seminar. Do the Padres get a kickback on the registration fee if Taylor attends? That would be dastardly.

The Padres are clearly getting paid, they ain't hosting it for charity. And they clearly aren't hiring anyone, and I doubt even giving anyone a leg up for attending. in fact I doubt they work with the company putting on the seminar outside of cashing their checks. This is how it works, Fraudulent Seminar company approaches Padres and says "we can turn that torrent of resumes that come through your doors into cold, hard cash. We'll throw a seminar for you, you promote to your pile of applications, and we split the dough 50-50."

Working for the Padres is glamorous, far more than it should be. They ate just using a shady method of monetizing their image among job seekers, and it's shameful. If you have a shortage of qualified applicants, put your time in doing your own, free training seminar, for applicants with the most potential. But if your main selection criteria is the ability and willingness to pay a $500 check, you clearly aren't looking for future star employees, you are looking for todays suckers.

I once had to fly to New York, and had interviews with 5 different people from a single company over a two day period, had great references, was completely qualified for the job, and they approached me, (through a headhunter) trying to poach me out of the company I was working for where I wasn't doing badly. The last "formality" was to go to some shrinks office in midtown to take the damn personality test.

Two weeks later the headhunter FINALLY calls me to tell me there was "something" in the personality test they didn't like so they wouldn't be hiring me.

Not surprisingly these idiots went chapter 11 two years later. ;)

I interviewed for a new job recently. Had a two-hour+ lunch interview with the hiring manager, and he left by saying he definitely wanted me to talk with his sr manager when he would be in town the next week.

In the meantime, corporate HR sent me a link to their personality survey to take. After completing it, my next correspondence from them was a one-line brush off that they had decided to "go in a different direction" to fill the position.

Perhaps I need to quit looking for a new job and set up my own company scamming employers on the "value" of outsourcing their pre-hiring screening.

Two weeks later the headhunter FINALLY calls me to tell me there was "something" in the personality test they didn't like so they wouldn't be hiring me.

I would never take a personality test, or any other.

When I was a 25 year old engineer I interviewed with a gaming company (while employed at a Mac software company and had shipped some commercial software). The company already had some strikes due to location, and the layout of the office. But after giving me the tour the CEO interviewed me briefly then handed me a "programming test", and offered to let use his office for a half hour to fill it out. I immediately handed the test back to him and told him it wouldn't be necessary.

A week later I accepted a job at Apple.

Saying no to stupid requests can be a positive. First, if a company requires stupid #### like that just to get hired, just imagine what stupid #### they will make you do once you are an employee. BTW: If an HR troll ever asks me to write up a valued subordinate for using foul language in order to give them a promotion, my first response will be pull your head out of your ass before I go up the chain until you and every one who thinks like you in HR is fired.

But more importantly, force them to value you. If you truly had great interviews, then tell them to get off the pot and make a decision. Don't let them use some half baked pseudo science tests to make the decision for them. Every single girl knows the power of playing hard to get, every job seeker should as well.

I don't think it's a "stupid request" to ask applicants to write tests of their job-related skills. I wish more companies were willing to do that. Job interviews without them are based almost entirely on whether the interviewer instinctively likes you, which can be important but is also at least kind of bull-####. Programming specifically has had many problems with programmers who can't .... program and would fail a very simple test despite working as a "programmer" for years. There's a certain thought-process and problem-solving ability that should be sought out and is difficult to determine without a test.

In my most recent position I was asked to write a simple quiz, and was happy to show my skills.

Saying no to stupid requests can be a positive. First, if a company requires stupid #### like that just to get hired, just imagine what stupid #### they will make you do once you are an employee.

Winner! That said, obviously if your resume is very thin and the job market is very tight, take the damn test. If you have any kind of resume, or self respect, and somebody wants to have you take a test, pass.

If you can't ask probing enough questions as an interviewer to figure out whether an applicant knows their ####, get somebody else to do the interviewing because you suck.

Programming specifically has had many problems with programmers who can't .... program and would fail a very simple test despite working as a "programmer" for years. There's a certain thought-process and problem-solving ability that should be sought out and is difficult to determine without a test.

You can ask for samples of their work.You can ask them how they implemented a specific feature, and why they chose that implementation. You can treat them like an adult and have a probing discussion about the craft you share, or treat them like a child and rate them based on a score from a generic test someone else designed.

If you knw how to program, or any specific skilled occupation, then you know how to ask questions to determine how good someone else is likely to be at it. If you end up hiring someone who can't program, it means likely neither can you.

"She interned at Major League Soccer?!? Stop the search, we've found the perfect candidate!" -- Nobody, ever.

That said, the letter's amusing, and as someone who's about to get laid off and has been jerked around pretty badly by potential employers over the past couple weeks, it struck a bit of a nerve with me.

"She interned at Major League Soccer?!? Stop the search, we've found the perfect candidate!" -- Nobody, ever.

It'd probably qualify as relevant experience for an entry-level position in minor league or independent baseball.

I can't wait til law firms and hedge fund companies start charging applicants fees to apply. Or do they already? Its been awhile since I applied for a law firm job.

I don't think there's any problem with the letter, but it seems like it should have been written by someone who actually had an impressive resume. "working towards becoming an agent", "overseeing the execution of national and international events", "internship with Major League Soccer", and "volunteer(ing) at a minor league ballpark in my hometown" all sound like fluff and the kind of fluff that someone uses without much actual experience or qualification. She also seems to imply that she is still a law student, which would be simply a lie.

She also seems to imply that she is still a law student, which would be simply a lie.

But since lying is a skill that's taught in law school ...

Whatever you do, if they pull out an E-Meter as part of the job interview, say goodbye.

someone who's about to get laid off and has been jerked around pretty badly by potential employers over the past couple weeks,

Goddammmit -- sorry to hear that; there but for the grace of fate go most of us, I suspect.

Yeah, the other terrible thing about job searches is that people seem to find it easier to just ignore you than to simply tell you 'no'. If you took the time to apply, I think you are owed at least that - simple, direct communication, it doesn't have to be more than a one-line email, but to just ignore a person... the level of disrespect that conveys is staggering, and horrifying to think that it is so commonplace.

I think it should go further than that.

Our company recently sourced a big chunk of our initial applicant screening and a lot of the administration around hiring, theoretically, to save the hiring manager time...

For an open position last year, I had a number of internal applicants - several of whom were really good fits, but the ultimate hire just fit best. A couple of the rejected applicants were definitely possibilities for future spots and if nothing else, they were valuable for the company in general. The 'recruiter', however, was charged with handling the "sorry, thanks for your time" -- and despite the fact that I passed on all my notes, complete with some tailored suggestions for each candidate regarding areas they came up a bit short and for the internal applicants, specific suggestions for programs, projects, and tasks that they ought to talk to their current manager about involvement for career growth -- all the rejectees got generic pro forma rejections (I found out talking with one of the internal applicants). Nothing from my suggestions made it to them.

Consequently, I went around the recruiter and sent my suggestions directly to the applicants. And, of course, I got dinged in my OWN annual review this past year for failing to adhere to company hiring policy (Stupidly on my part, I had taken the recruiter to task for not passing on my recommendations directly and informed her that I had done it myself).

I understand that there are fairly significant compliance issues around hiring, especially when it comes to internal applicants. However, I'm not an idiot and it's not as if I was suggesting breast augmentation or something.

From the applicant perspective, I think it's important to let them know some specific reasons they weren't chosen - and if they weren't close, to tell them that. From an employer perspective, companies make such a big deal about succession planning, the cost of up and running for external hires, etc on paper that it's just sheer madness that quality employees who lack experience or expertise in a few areas aren't given that information for purposes of their own career growth.

But since lying is a skill that's taught in law school ...

No - law school admission offices (which also charge you to apply) determine whether you already developed your ability to lie during college. They look for things like holding a position in student government and whether you were a politics major. Undergraduate pre-law courses are also a plus, as they designed to weed out those with the veracity gene.

Law school builds on this foundation by spending three years helping you say outrageous things with a straight face in public.

From the applicant perspective, I think it's important to let them know some specific reasons they weren't chosen - and if they weren't close, to tell them that.

No kidding. I still harbor a slight grudge over interviewing with AP in Little Rock in '01 & Nashville in '02 & never hearing a word from them. (OTOH, the Thai place I went to with my interviewers in Nashville offered free refills of Thai iced tea, so the drive up was well worth it ...)

Goddammmit -- sorry to hear that; there but for the grace of fate go most of us, I suspect.

Thanks. I'm trying to be philosophical about it - I've sort of felt like I've been dodging the ax for the better part of a decade as a relatively highly paid employee of an organization that was losing money, but it's tough to dodge when they decide to shut the entire place down. There's a decent severance package and I'm applying for anything and everything within 50 miles that's even tangentially related to my degree, so I'll probably be okay.

I don't want to get too specific because I post under my real name and I know employers google prospective employees, so I'll just say that last week I was very strongly led to believe I was about to get an offer from a different company, then out of the blue, at the last second, was told the position had been filled. Argh.

That said, the letter's amusing, and as someone who's about to get laid off and has been jerked around pretty badly by potential employers over the past couple weeks, it struck a bit of a nerve with me.

I'm in a similar boat. I had an interview last Wednesday, which I thought went well, and I've yet to hear back. I realize that it's been less than a week, but that seems like a really long time when in this situation. The interview involved taking a test exactly like the one described in 74-77, by the way, which I gladly took, and am happy to report that I nailed it.

it's not as if I was suggesting breast augmentation or something.

Isn't it ironic that you would get in a lot off trouble for the one suggestion that would probably have the most positive impact on career advancement ? Or maybe not

Last summer an attorney who was a friend of a friend heard that I was looking for a job and wanted to speak with me. After we met, he decided that I was a good guy and he would help me in my job search. A few weeks later there was an opening at his law firm and so he recommended me to one of the firm’s hiring partners. A couple days after that I did a phone interview with the hiring partner and it went well and I was told I would receive a call-back in the coming weeks. At my call-back I interviewed with 3 partners and everyone seemed to like me but they decided to go with someone with someone else because that person had “more experience.” I was initially upset about it because I felt like if the experience demonstrated on my resume was insufficient then why bring me in and waste my time. Anyway, in the same e-mail where I did not get the initial job the hiring partner also told me they would like me to interview with their other NY office.

Since I was unemployed at the time, I quickly agreed. The second office was smaller and so I only interviewed with 1 partner who proceeded to tell me how much she loved the associate who gave my initial recommendation and that she thought my resume/qualifications were outstanding for the duration of the interview. She also said that the only thing that gave her reason for pause was that I did not have my bar results yet and so she was leery of a situation where she extends an offer, it turns out I failed the bar and I then have to juggle work/studying for the bar. A few days pass and I speak to the associate who initially recommended me and he tells me how she raved to him about the interview so I start to feel good about my chances. Over the course of the next 4-6 weeks I would send multiple e-mails and phone calls to this partner/firm without ever receiving so much as a “I know you reached out to me, I’m busy will get back to you when I can” regarding my employment status. Almost a year later and I still haven’t even received as much as a form rejection letter. Thankfully, I’ve found steady employment since, but that experience still pisses me off. Whenever I run into the associate who initially recommended me he still apologizes for the whole thing.

TL;DR: People with hiring power and the job search/recruitment process are generally terrible.

I was initially upset about it because I felt like if the experience demonstrated on my resume was insufficient then why bring me in and waste my time.

I don't get that either. When I first came out of college I landed a few interviews and it really seemed more like they wanted to get to know me, what my goals were, if I was ambitious, if I was an easygoing guy that could get along with others - that sort of thing. The qualifications already spoke for themselves.

I have begun looking for new jobs lately, and interviewed recently for a job by someone with far less experience than me (she told me she had been there a year after graduating from law school). I didn't hear for two months, until finally I got a letter saying I didn't have the qualifications. You knew my qualifications, why did you bring me in?

Thats why I prefer privately owned companies to public companies. So much about public company policy is about liability and protecting from lawsuits. Smaller privately owned companies tend to be less targeted, so less anal about stupid ####.

not in my experience. i was going to supply a long anecdote about some recent stuff going down in my own workplace, but now i think i better just leave it at that. small business owners are extremely nervous about exposure to things like wrongful termination lawsuits. extremely nervous.

I'm in a similar boat. I had an interview last Wednesday, which I thought went well, and I've yet to hear back.

i was going to try to be humorous here, but ... i don't know how black your sense of humor is.

i have interviewed about a dozen applicants for the opening in my dept., and have encouraged all of them to follow up with a phone call within the week. i know it puts a burden on them in the sense that they have to pluck up their courage and call me with the real possibility of hearing bad news, but i need to know their level of commitment. especially since some of the applicants i've interviewed did not look very serious at all. the last three guys i interviewed did not show up in a suit and tie. not even just shirt and tie. and one of them was actually wearing a straw hat -- kind of a huck finn number -- which he did not remove for the entire interview. my boss is kind of a stickler for business dress. its lucky he wasn't in the office when this guy showed up, he would have just kicked him out.

maybe i'm out of touch. i haven't actually applied for a job in years (knock wood). does today's generation of job applicants feel it necessary to put on a suit and tie (or something dressy/business equivalent you are a woman) for an interview?

let me put it this way. my top candidate was the best dressed applicant by far. her resume was excellent too, but it didn't hurt that it was apparent to me that she took the interview very seriously.

Well I did wear a suit and tie for the interview, and I followed up with an email later in the day. I plan to do some further following up tomorrow if necessary.

does today's generation of job applicants feel it necessary to put on a suit and tie (or something dressy/business equivalent you are a woman) for an interview?

Good question. This came up about a week ago when a friend at my former newspaper (here in Montgomery) told me that a guy from my newspaper before that (in Arkansas) had interviewed for the Auburn beat & didn't even bother to tuck in his shirt. Good grief. I mean, I stand on ceremony & formality probably less than just about anyone here ... but still.

There's always something. You're not following up, you're being a pest, if you write formally, they want colloquially, you're under-dressed, you're overdressed, you're too funny, you're too stiff, you're over-qualified, you're underqualified, you don't know the right people, you've worked too many jobs, you're worked too few, you're too early, you're too late, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Powerball seems a more sane pursuit. At least you know your odds there.

I was initially upset about it because I felt like if the experience demonstrated on my resume was insufficient then why bring me in and waste my time.

Well, if you were a recommended candidate, you may have been a "courtesy" interview, where they had no real intention of hiring you, but simply brought you in as a courtesy to whatever executive recommended you. Alternatively, you may have been an good candidate from an experience perspective but the hiring decision maker simply found another candidate who's background and experience was a better fit for the job he was filling. That happened recently to me where I had a guy in that I really liked. His experience was good, but he had a few holes... nothing he couldn't pick up in a few months on the job though. Then another candidate came in with a background perfectly tailored to what we needed. She got the job, but I don't think we wasted the other guy's time. He was a legit candidate who could have wound up with the job if the other candidate had done worse in her interviews.

Honestly, I'm kinda surprised you got any explanation at all for why you didn't get the job.

Honestly, I'm kinda surprised you got any explanation at all for why you didn't get the job.

I am also surprised you were treated like a human being.

I'm not being sarcastic.

i have interviewed about a dozen applicants for the opening in my dept., and have encouraged all of them to follow up with a phone call within the week.

That's great. I wish I had that kind of responsiveness from the people I've applied with.

I interviewed with a company a couple of months ago, one of those where you spend the afternoon in a series of half-hour meetings with various people from the department. After a couple of weeks, I hadn't heard anything, so I sent the hiring manager an email just asking where they were in the hiring process. I never heard a word from him, but two days later, I got a call from an HR person - in the corporate headquarters 500 miles away, mind you - saying she had heard from this hiring manager that I had asked about the position, and that they had already decided to hire someone else. Why the guy was too chicken to even send me an email is beyond me.

As anyone who has been job-hunting in the past few years knows, the hiring process is downright heinous. It's this weird combination of people who don't give a crap about you, but are still too timid to be honest with you. It gets to the point where just getting a call from someone to say you didn't get the job feels like a victory.