Are you talking about if he re-applies? I don't see how being employed for over a year (which OP would be) by matriculation would be considered a really short time. Especially if the lab isn't explicitly looking for a 2 year commitment.
No...I was saying that [hypothetical interview] situation couldn't happen because the OP has already been through interviews. It was used to illustrate that omitting pertinent details, while not the same thing as explicit dishonesty, can still be unethical. Turns out it's not relevant to this thread (The post I pulled that from was in a discussion about whether or not you should lie to secure a better-paying job during your gap year), but I posted it
before the OP mentioned this:
Thanks for all the information. I do see all of your opinions about being honest, but I guess I'll give you the whole story. I tried applying twice already. First time nothing, and the 2nd I got one interview and waitlisted. My GPA is really bad (3.1), even though I came from a top 10 school. I think in my mind the waitlist really isn't going to happen, and for the postbac program, If I got this research job, I would hold off going, because I am really interested in research (I have done some in and post college) and would love this opportunity. Also, this same thing happened last year, where I mentioned I was appyling, and they said no, but I didn't get in, so I could have been working in a fullfilling job a long time ago. ...
Initially it sounded like even if the OP didn't get in off the waitlist, he/she would be leaving the research position within a few months for a post-bacc program. This obviously isn't the case, so there's actually nothing to see here.
(Using the OP's info that he's worked in research in the past)
Me: While I was not directly familiar with my current lab's research field before joining, I did have previous experience during college working with X and after college working with Y which meant I didn't have as steep of a learning curve. I was able to show how I was already knowledgeable with equipment A that they were using and therefore was able to hit the ground running. In addition, during my time working with X, I learned how to do Z models and was able to apply this to B to approach the problem from a new direction. I was also able to troubleshoot and optimize assay C with the help of past collaborators. I feel that even though my time was limited, because of my skills and knowledge I was able to contribute more and be more effective than other techs in the time I was there.
If all of this were true, of course it would be a great, not to mention honest, answer. It turns out not to matter, because if the OP gets this job he/she will likely work there for more than 2 months.
I didn't bring it up to give tutelage on how to ace an interview. I brought it up because around here it isn't taken for granted that lying is unethical, and people make a sport out of blurring the lines between "lying" and "omitting the truth." You've told me before how you feel about this and I'm still content to say we disagree. I don't feel the need to discuss it further or defend my position (which is, "If I feel like I'm being dishonest, either directly or by omission, I don't do it"), because a) it's based on
my gut and
my experience, not others', b) it speaks for itself, and c) I'm not particularly interested in whether the forum agrees, disagrees, or qualifies my moral compass.
Not to mention it's no longer a relevant discussion, stipulating the facts in the OP's reply.
ETA: If the discussion goes that way, I'm with Tildy:
The OP indicated that the employer, like virtually all employers, was interested in the applicants future school/work plans. Even if the question is phrased in a way so that the answer could be given evasively (as the OP was considering doing and asking about), I would consider that deceptive and don't think I'm unique in that.
