The plot thickens. After some more internal protests in the University Studies Department I received an email from the new Mentor Coordinator requesting me to meet with her to discuss the reason for my rejection. Being the curious sort I decided to oblige. I thought it was my crappy essay or a scathing review from the faculty partner I am working with.
It was a clarical error (every time I say or think that I hear Londo's voice saying it for some reason).
Hiring Graduate Mentors this year is problematic, and not just because of the internal strife. Departments who have some faculty teaching University Studies courses want to have their own graduate students mentor. While this is generally a good thing, in my opinion, it restricts the openings for the rest of us.
"They" (who "they" are is not defined) also mandated a balance between new mentors and retuning. I also I understand the reasoning behind it, but why would you want to fire your already trained, qualified, and experienced staff if you wern't trying to kill the cultural memory of the previous administration?
The hiring committee had me in the hire pile. There were too many papers in the returning mentor pile to meet this new vs old quota. My old boss and the Mentors on the committee were then invited to leave. New criteria was invented, without us knowing, to whittle down the stack of returning. For one graduate mentor sitting across the table for me, she was not asked to return because "they" decided she would not behave in a mature way because faculty heard her speak out in our mentor room.
I was axed because one of these invented criteria was to ax mentors who were part of the program for three or more years. I was identified as such. When she reviewed my file she discovered that I was a mentor for a year, off for a year, then on for a year. Only two years. As reconciliation I was put to the top of the waiting list.
