<p>D1 is also on a quasi 2 year job, and many people go back to school to get their MBA after 2 years. Her firm just spent 50K/analyst for 8 weeks tranining program. It was expected analysts should pass 6 internal exams, and 2 external required exams. When they were hired they were never told that if they didn’t pass those tests they would be fired. One third of analysts didn’t pass those tests, and they were just told that they could be let go. Luckily, D1 isn’t one of those analysts, but if the firm had told them the stipulation of having a job was to pass those tests, some of those students may have accepted a different offer.</p>
<p>I am often sitting on the other side of hiring/firing people now. I always have the best intention and try to do what’s right for our staff, but at the end of day, if senior management decide to do a 20% cut, there is not much I could do to protect the staff. I tend to try to do the right thing, sometimes in detriment to my career, but in this case, if it means having a job for a year vs no job, I would say take the job.</p>
<p>The responses here are shaking out to be in two very different camps.</p>
<p>The friend of one of my son’s (different son) was offered a job at a well-known Fortune 50 company, straight out of college. It wasn’t exactly what he wanted to do, but it was related, so he accepted. Four weeks later, he got a job offer for the job he really wanted, exactly what he wanted to be doing, also a tip-top company in its field. He received conflicitng advice – “You committed to the first company; you can’t back out now!” as well as “You received the exact offer you were hoping for with the second company; this is the first job of your career; you’d be crazy not to take the job you really want!” I advised him to turn down the first company. He did, and they completely understood why he did it, and he didn’t burn any bridges. </p>
<p>I agree that plans change. One reason for plans changing could be- being offered a desirable position that needs you for a minimum of two years.
So he takes two years to work instead of one- in this economy sounds like a good thing!</p>
<p>The second scenario you posted about the friend is a different situation since he wasn’t dishonest with the recruiter/manager. He took the job and then later a better opportunity came along and he took it. That’s fine.</p>
<p>The problem in your S’s case is that (based purely on the info in your post) your S basically lied to the recruiter/manager by stating he intends to stay at least 2 years when he already knows (in his mind at least) that he’ll leave in a year. If he’s changed his mind on the leaving in a year part it’s a different thing but your post seems to indicate he’s quite certain of leaving.</p>
<p>Even if he discusses this issue further with the recruiter/manager he might find that they’ll give him the offer anyway - they may be convinced he’ll like the job so much he’ll stay or they might come up with an alternative way he can go to grad school and still work for the company. Of course they might also say ‘never mind’.</p>
<p>There’s no way he should take this job without clearing this issue with them first.</p>
<p>With all respect due ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad’s view …</p>
<p>There’s no way he should turn down this job when the only obstacle to him taking it is some preliminary thoughts about Graduate School. Just a couple of questions if I may …
(1) Has he been accepted to Graduate School? No?
(2) Has he even applied to Graduate School? No?
(3) Has he been given any assurances that he’d be accepted to Grad School if he applies? No?
(4) Has he been told that if he applies to Grad School and is accepted, that the admission is good for Fall 2012 only … and cannot be deferred? No?</p>
<p>I’m not seeing “a Fall 2012 commitment to Grad School” in here. Just me probably.</p>
That’s not the way it was stated by the OP which is all we have to go on.</p>
<p>From the OP -
And importantly -
</p>
<p>The S is already questioning the ethics of it as is the OP. They should listen to their instincts.</p>
<p>I guess my real point is that everyone should be up front with each other and when asked a direct question (either the applicant or the employer), it should be answered honestly to the best of their knowledge at the time as opposed to lying. Your S still has time to do this since he can discuss it a bit more with the employer in the event he’s offered a position. There are some unethical employers and some unethical applicants and employees. It’s best to be neither.</p>
<p>Agreeing with the above post by uscd<em>ucla</em> dad. </p>
<p>He could be upfront with the recruiter about his hopes to go to grad school in a year. His lying about it by accepting the job knowing he’s planning not to be there for two years is indication that he knows he won’t probably won’t get the job by being truthful. </p>
<p>Is he the type of person who can comfortably go through life thinking “glad I could pull the wool over their eyes”? And if he is, he’ll still have to list this position on any job applications unless he’s going to continue to lie his way through life. Even if he doesn’t use anyone from there as a reference, a responsible HR is going to check with the company and learn that he didn’t follow through on a gentlemen’s agreement to stick it out for those two years.</p>
<p>In this day and age, so much can happen in 1-2 years. He should acept the job. Who knows, maybe he’ll decide to postpone grad school a year if he loves the job.</p>
<p>My DH hires recent college grads for a national program that requires a two year commitment and only lasts for two years. That is the nature of the job. Although there is nothing to be done if an applicant says they are going to stay for two years and leaves after one, but DH would know, as would other members of their “class” that the person had NO intention of staying as applying for grad school would have been underway at the same time they accepted the job. In the four years he has been the director of the program, only one person left after a year and while it didn’t hurt that person’s career, it left a very bad impression. </p>
<p>One of the reasons my D turned down TFA was because they required a two year commitment as well. The program she accepted would like a two year commitment, but it is a little less strict about people who leave after one year. Especially if it simply because they are not good teachers. </p>
<p>I guess I am nuts, but I would encourage my kid to be honest.</p>
<p>OP, I don’t see anything the least bit “complicated” about this. Does he have integrity or doesn’t he? The answer to that very simple question will dictate what he does.</p>
<p>So what happens if you take the job and don’t like your environment or your boss and walk out the first week? I’ve done that. No way, would I be able to guarantee that I would stay 1 month let alone 2 years.</p>
<p>DrGoogle,
The situation you suggest is very different from the one that faces the OP’s son. He is entering it KNOWING that he’s intending to leave earlier than the two year commitment. That’s not the same as going in and finding out later that you aren’t happy. He’s basically guaranteeing that he would NOT stay, which is different from not being able to gurantee that you would.</p>
<p>My kid recently accepted a position teaching math in a brand new private school that is operating on a shoe string. The dean cannot provide the teachers with health insurance. My kid told him right off the bat, before signing a contract, that she will have to leave at the end of the school year unless he can get more students and tuition by next fall (she’s 24 1/2 so she has one more year on our insurance). She made sure that the dean knew so that if he would rather hire someone who didn’t need insurance he’d be free to do so. </p>
<p>Honesty and integrity still matter in this world.</p>
<p>I guess, it still depends on the job without pulling the blanket “honesty and integrity” bit. He is not even accepted in graduate school. If this job make him ill, does he still have to do it? Will the employer be able to fire him the first month? Is there any guarantee that it won’t happen? Accepting any job contains risk on both sides.
Our high school replaced the physics teacher every year in the last 4 years.</p>
<p>When people ask me, “will there be cuts in our department?” I don’t say yes even if I knew it to be the case. When we do finally make the decision, we escort people out on that day. The reason we do that is to protect the company. Does it mean I have no integrity or not doing the right thing?</p>
<p>I would never ask an applicant if he/she could commit to any length of employment. It would be like asking someone if he/she would cheat on you. Just because someone says no, and may have the best intention, it could still happen. I would rather do my own due diligence to make sure someone is a good fit, instead of asking a question which could make someone a liar, and then blame that person of having no integrity.</p>
<p>DrGoogle - In my mind, there is a difference between discovering that you weren’t suited for a job and accepting a position that desires a two year commitment knowing you don’t intend to fulfill that commitment. </p>
<p>Day of graduation, DD got a call on her cell phone from a firm in NYC where she really wanted to be hired. She was scheduled to start training for a teaching position the following Monday (a job that she did not want nearly as much as she wanted the position in NYC). After a lot of tears, she called the firm and said she didn’t feel right about backing out from her commitment. </p>
<p>Was she foolish? Probably, by most people’s standards, but I have never been prouder of her.</p>
<p>Dr google -
I think you’re missing the point - it’s not about whether one side or the other changes their mind - it’s about knowing full well that there’s every intention to quit in a year yet when asked the direct question by the employer about staying 2 years he said ‘yes’ knowing full well it wasn’t the truth. There’s a big difference between this and quitting after a month or year because the job isn’t working out for one reason or another even though at the beginning there was an intent to stay.</p>
<p>Oldfort -
Same thing - in your example as an employer you’re responding to a change, just like an employee might if they decide to leave later. That’s normal business and expected. The more similar scenario to the one the S is in would be that as an employer, if you knew full well the job was only for 1 year and the applicant asked you directly if the position would likely be at least 2 years because they’d need to turn down other good opportunities to take this one and then you lied to the applicant and said ‘yes’, it’ll likely be at least 2 years, then you hire the person and then fire them at a year as you had planned all along. I’m sure you can see how the former, i.e. responding to change, is ethical and the latter, i.e. directly lying to the applicant, is unethical.</p>
<p>Tomorrow I’m off to preach on the prescribed lectionary texts for the date: the Old Testament text is the 10 Commandments (“thou shalt not bear false witness”) and the Gospel, which deals with whether we are living for ourselves or for God and what is right… </p>
<p>A great theologian once said pastors should preach with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other… maybe these days it should be our laptops!</p>