Let's take the assumption that a major VP must do some entertaining to maintain a company presence, etc. It might be relevant to the job skills and effort to interview the spouse to see if she can assist the VP in performing his duties.
IF it's part of his duties, then it's on him to deliver. How he does that (wife, companion, sister, event planner, or - hey there - all by himself) shouldn't be on the table. If you're interviewing at that level one would think you'd figured it out somehow or other.
If the VP's wife cannot entertain (god forbid she have her own career) he should know that and be able to deal with it, by know good places to take business associates and/or having a good relationship with a catering and/or event planning company. GET OUT OF THE DARK AGES OR ANGRY WOMEN WILL COME SUE YOUR ASS!
This is supposably a good way to size your bra: [link]
I haven't tried it yet--am about to give it a shot.
I'm pretty appalled at the logic behind this.
As an alumna, I'm even more appalled.
Vanderbilt's record was 6-7 last year and they were only 2-6 in conference. So perhaps the head coach is bloviating and recruiting on bullshit standards.
Frankly, I'd rather have an AD who knew what he was doing on the field and not how to charm off of it.
Here's some better news:
[link]
DOMA ruled unconstitutional.
Not defending him.
as point of explanation: he wants AD to be able to recruit and he thinks the best way to assess their abilities to recruit promising high school students is who their wives are.
Ugh. Way to wake up--an email going over my head, asking "do you know what the answer to this is yet?" (for a question asked last week), and the person-over-me responding "This is the first I've heard about it!" ...because my boss, the person between us, apparently hadn't sent it on. Not sure how to deal with the over-my-head person without looking horribly bitchy. "Sorry, I had sent that to MY boss, but she hadn't sent it to the person YOU cc'd yet...because my boss sucks..."
