Near the End of A PhD and Have No Job

[ParticleGrl]

Look, when I finished my PhD my job decision came down to two offers. For both companies, the entire formal requirement was a PhD in a technical field.

When was this? Part of the problem I'm having is that I show up to an interview for something like this, and one of the other candidates has more relevant experience. I'll interview for an analytics job and one of the other candidates is a stats phd with years of experience in the analysis packages they use. I'm a physics phd who played with the packages for a short time leading up to the interview.

The problem I'm trying to get at is that there is no job for which the theoretical physicist has a comparative advantage over other technical phds. Yes, physicists can apply for jobs that require "any technical phd" but any technical phd can. There are jobs that WANT electrical engineering phds, there are jobs that WANT mechanical engineering phds, etc. Our only advantage as physicists is breadth, and I can't find a company that cares about it.

We also sell phds to people (or at least mine was sold to me) as a chance to work doing science. If a physics phd doesn't give you good odds of landing a science/engineering job where some of your subject specific knowledge comes in handy, its time to stop encouraging people to get physics phds. If someone had told me the companies that value physics phds are management consulting or finance, I would never have bothered. I would have gotten an intro level engineering job straight out of undergrad.

And I know that both of those companies are hiring fresh PhDs right now.

Which companies? In a thread with job seekers, specifics are appreciated. If you don't want to post them, at least message me the names.

Huh. In the AIP statistics I'm looking at, 79% of new PhDs in "potentially permanent" jobs say their position involves "basic physics principles", and 53% say it involves "advanced physics principles". 96% say that "a physics PhD is an appropriate background for this position".

The survey I was referring to was linked in whatever post I was responding to. If I misread the number, I apologize. Your numbers certainly make one feel better about a physics phd. They seem improbably high, from my own anecdotal experiences watching friend's graduate and struggle to find positions.

Your comparative advantage comes to play when the job requires a broad range of skills that an engineer would not typically have.

So that's what I'm trying to find- what jobs require this broad range of skills? It is the advantage of physics that was sold to me for my entire career, but who actually wants someone with a broad range, instead of a narrow focus on a specific skill?

 

[elkement]

Hi ParticleGrl,

When was this? Part of the problem I'm having is that I show up to an interview for something like this, and one of the other candidates has more relevant experience.

Have you encountered any jobs labelled "trainee"? As I wrote in a previous post in this thread a physics PhD colleague of mine was hired as a trainee in a pharmaceutical company, the requirement was "any degree in sciences or engineering"; he did not have experience in this sector.

Also in management consulting trainee positions or "internal academies" or whatever they call it are quite common.

 

[Mépris]

Also in management consulting trainee positions or "internal academies" or whatever they call it are quite common.

But aren't those jobs for people with bachelor's degrees? I've read people with bachelor's degrees doing similar roles. In a UK-based forum I was on, I heard of grads with science degrees going on to IB jobs.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~physics/?q=node/14

If these guys can do it, everybody else with a physics degree can.

 

[elkement]

But aren't those jobs for people with bachelor's degrees? I've read people with bachelor's degrees doing similar roles. In a UK-based forum I was on, I heard of grads with science degrees going on to IB jobs.

You are right - bachelors can do it. My anecdotal experience re PhD trainees might be influenced by the fact that the bachelor's degree has been introduced recently in my country (Austria) and many companies are still not sure how to evaluate the skills of a bachelor versus the degrees they "know".

I would still be interested in ParticleGrl's experiences with such job openings.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Have you encountered any jobs labelled "trainee"? As I wrote in a previous post in this thread a physics PhD colleague of mine was hired as a trainee in a pharmaceutical company, the requirement was "any degree in sciences or engineering"; he did not have experience in this sector.

At first that was all I was applying to, and I was rarely getting interviews. Several head hunters and my university's career services suggested I was wasting my time, because I'm "overqualified."

 

[JDGates]

When was this?

A time when the job market was certainly better than now, but well off its peak. These jobs still exist, as I said.

The problem I'm trying to get at is that there is no job for which the theoretical physicist has a comparative advantage over other technical phds.

I was referring simply to any science/math/engineering PhD. I recently went to a job candidate seminar where not only did the candidate have a theoretical physics background, but so did my three colleagues who were attending. I got seriously lost when the four of them really got going.

(That seminar, for anyone who cares, did not work in the candidate's favor. Not because of his topic, which was really quite interesting, but because the presentation itself was terrible. Practice, people, practice!)

Which companies? In a thread with job seekers, specifics are appreciated. If you don't want to post them, at least message me the names.

If you've seriously followed through on my posts in this thread, you've found them. Although I no longer work in that initial job, I prefer to maintain some shred of anonymity.

The survey I was referring to was linked in whatever post I was responding to. If I misread the number, I apologize. Your numbers certainly make one feel better about a physics phd. They seem improbably high, from my own anecdotal experiences watching friend's graduate and struggle to find positions.

First, my apologies for any harshness in my response to that. I stayed out of this thread once it strayed from "getting a job with a physics degree" to "the system is designed to screw us", but I got nudged over the edge when I started seeing blatantly untrue statements about the employability of physics PhDs (not necessarily from you specifically). Anyway, regarding the surveys, I do suspect there is some self-selection going on. The most obvious hint is that postdocs report lower utilization of their physics knowledge than those in industry...

 

[twofish-quant]

Are specifically wondering about transitioning from computational astrophysics to the biotech industry?

Astrophysics -> biotech

The reason that I'm interested is that I think that monocultures are a bad thing. Finance is one of the few industries (oil and gas/ defense are the other two) that I know that specifically hire astrophysicists, and I'd like to set things up so that some other industries have the infrastructure necessary to get people from Ph.D. to job.

The reason I think it's important to do this is that if finance blows up, I'd like for there to be alternatives. Also, I personally think that society would be better off if we produced 100,000/year physics Ph.d.'s rather than 1000/year, but that involves figuring out what to do with them.

Because there is obviously biophysics. Going from a non-biology related phd like astrophysics to biotech would probably require some type of biology experience.

Which is a problem because people will hire astrophysics Ph.d.'s in finance, oil/gas, and defense without any other training. Requiring more training is risky, because you get yourself deeper in debt. One other issue is that the longer you stay in school the *less* attractive you are to people in the industries I'm familiar with.

Also, finance firms will hire people doing their Ph.D.'s as summer interns. If there really is a demand for physicists in biotech and people are willing to put their money where their mouth is, then the important thing would be to start summer internships, because at the post-doc level it's too late.

All I know is a bunch of higher-up bio-science people I've talked to routinely talk about how important physics-y people are for the future of biology, so I assumed it wouldn't be impossible to transition over.

Is the demand enough so that they are willing to change policy/spend money to make that happen? If it's *really* important, then I can give some constructive suggestions for what they can do, and what the barriers are. For example, if you advertise a post-doc and require three letters of recommendation, you aren't going to get any physicist resumes.

The cheap thing to do is to go to AAS and advertise for summer internships. You will get some resumes, and then you'll have more senior astrophysics people know that there is a demand so that when someone asks them to write a letter of recommendation, they know what to do and say.

 

[TheCool]

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs. Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaining a real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) most young scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have no prospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoral position and move every two years. For many more details consult the Young Scientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly.

A funny but possibly true quote:

"I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs. "

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html


At the postdoctoral stage, fledgling scientists are well into their thirties, some in their early forties. With good luck, the next step will be a tenure-track academic appointment, which, after seven years, may or may not result in a secure job. No wonder fewer and fewer Americans opt for a career in science. Even so, jobs remain scarce.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38006-2004May18.html

 

[twofish-quant]

Generally I get some lip service about how I had impressive qualifications and such, but "just don't fit any of their openings right now". Generally these people will point out that I do have qualifications that do fit with them, just not with anything at the moment.

And part of the trick is to figure out if they are politely saying "go away" or if they really are telling the truth. For me it's about 50-50. It turns out that one person that told me that I didn't "fit" in their company was telling the god's honest truth. I kept in touch, and two years later, I was able to get them some very good sales leads in my new job.

Also, the advice I got from pretty much everyone in Texas is "go to NYC." A few literally told me that they wouldn't hire me because if they did, I'd probably end up in NYC in a year anyway. What happened in more than one case was that they were hiring to replace a physics Ph.D. that had left for Wall Street. So what ended up happening was "convince us that you won't leave us for Wall Street after a year." I didn't get the job, because I couldn't.

This is what I do. You get the general sales pitch, and then you get asked, "so what do you do?" and no matter how you try to sell "physics", they laugh and say "sorry, I don't know how to help you. Apply online." It never, ever, ever works. Ever.

If someone doesn't already realize your value, then 99% of the time it's a waste of your time to convince them. Fortunately, I've never had to sell my Ph.D. because the interviewer invariably had a Ph.D. in something. One reason oil/gas is very physics Ph.D. friendly is that most of the people there have Ph.D.'s in geophysics, petrophysics, geology, or petroleum engineering.

Actually, that's *exactly* how it is designed. It's designed in a way that if you went into grad school, you're completely and totally screwed. This is because you are now too qualified for entry jobs, and have not enough specific experience for the higher levels.

I think it's a matter of "non-design." One reason I've been making a lot of noise is that there is this idea that jobs "magically" appear. In fact there is nothing magic, and unless someone makes some positive effort to "non-screw" people then you'll end up with a system that screws you. If you are at the interview and you are trying to convince the interviewer that Ph.D.'s are cool, you can't do it. Now if their boss has given them a direct order saying "hire a physics Ph.d. or you are fired" then things are different.

I'm not taking this personally, but it's just not helpful.

It can be. Sometimes you are screwed, and it helps to know when you really are screwed. It's like the Kobayashi Maru.

I run into this with C++. I know Python very well, as I coded in it my entire grad school career. I've been dabbling a little with C++ as per two-fish's recommendation, but not quite enough to really put C++ on a resume.

You absolutely, positively should put "basic C++" on the resume. It gets you past the HR drones.

It's just stupid to me that they absolutely recognize that i have the required skills they want, but just because I don' have one LITTLE thing (such as coding paradigms, OOP isn't difficult), they literally laugh.

You need to realize that you are talking to a drone. The people that are doing real programming are too expensive to do the first resume screening. So what happens is that you hire someone that knows *NOTHING* about programming and give them a list of keywords. Someone is told to look for object-oriented programming, and if you don't have that keyword in the resume, it gets tossed.

The reason it works this way is that it screws you, but frankly the employer doesn't care if you get screwed. What happens is that the HR drones goes through the stack of 500 resumes, and returns with 50 with the magic keywords. The fact that you got filtered out because you didn't have the magic keyword is of absolutely no concern to anyone involved in the system.

So put in the keyword. If you can do "hello world" and know what a virtual function is, that's "basic C++".

t would take all of a month to catch up to speed, especially if you having coding experience with another language.

Sure. So spend the month before you apply, and then you can put C++ in the resume.

Well, it's good to know some of you exist, but most of interviewers just seem to go down a checklist.

That's because a lot of them are drones that are going down a checklist. They are given a list of questions to ask with the right answers, you memorize the right answers, and that get's you past level one.

The reason that it works this way is that if you post a job, you are going to get hundreds of resumes, so the first thing that has to happen is to quickly and efficiently get rid of those people that have zero chance of getting the job. The company is trying to reduce the number of candidates and if they get rid of qualified people, it doesn't matter.

The way I got through the process was to realize that it is a game, and to out-game the system. Once I thought of it as a game, it got interesting, since I have this weird fondness for mental games and puzzles.

 

[twofish-quant]

The problem I'm trying to get at is that there is no job for which the theoretical physicist has a comparative advantage over other technical phds.

Investment banking quantitative analyst.

Our only advantage as physicists is breadth, and I can't find a company that cares about it.

Goldman-Sachs, Morgan-Stanley, JP Morgan, Merrill-Lynch/BOA, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Credit Suisse, UBS, and a hundred or so hedge funds (Rentec, DBShaw, HBK, Citadel).

Also in oil-gas you have Schlumberger, Halliburton, BP Amoco, Exxon-Mobil and about a hundred or so other companies. Here is a list http://www.spwla.org/technical/software

As far as building H-bombs. That's tricky since the government wants to employ bomb builders directly, and they don't have explicit want-ads. I know some people that I think would know how to get those jobs, but it's weird since none of them will talk a lot about what they do. But I think your best bet would go look at the unclassified research that happens at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, and they'll introduce you to the people that do the secret stuff.

We also sell phds to people (or at least mine was sold to me) as a chance to work doing science.

Economics and finance are classified as social sciences. Also I should have enough money by age 55 so that I can spend the rest of my life doing astrophysics. That will give me maybe 25 years before to figure out stuff before I may find myself asking someone that knows directly.

If a physics phd doesn't give you good odds of landing a science/engineering job where some of your subject specific knowledge comes in handy, its time to stop encouraging people to get physics phds.

I think it's a matter of just being honest about the outcomes and let people make up their own minds. Personally, if someone had told me as an undergraduate or a high school student what I'm saying now, it would have made physics Ph.D.'s *more* attractive.

There's a funny but accurate Youtube video "so you want to be a theoretical astrophysicist." It's funny and accurate because it lists the holy trinity of jobs finance, oil-gas, defense (i.e. building H-bombs). I've done two of the three, it's largely because of Wen Ho-Lee that I decided to avoid the third.

The other thing is that things aren't written in stone.

If someone had told me the companies that value physics phds are management consulting or finance, I would never have bothered. I would have gotten an intro level engineering job straight out of undergrad.

And I would have acted differently. My plan is to make as much money as I can, and then retire to study supernova for the rest of my life.

Which companies? In a thread with job seekers, specifics are appreciated. If you don't want to post them, at least message me the names.

Listed the above. The major job sites are www.dice.com[/url], [url]www.efinancialcareers.com[/url], [url]www.phds.org[/url], [url]www.wilmott.org[/url], [url]www.nuclearphynance.com[/URL]. Sent an e-mail to Dommic Connor at Wilmott and he'll send you a guide to getting jobs in finance.

In most cases, you won't be talking directly to the company but rather to an HH. HH's are used car salesmen. All of them are after money. If they place you, they make $$$$$. Some of them are less scummy at making their paycheck then others, but you know that old cartoon in which someone take a look at you and then they see $$$$ in their eyes?

However for me even dealing with the scummy HH's was something of an ego boost. After getting the cold shoulder, it's perversely refreshing to meet someone that thinks enough of you to be willing to lie and cheat you.

[QUOTE]So that's what I'm trying to find- what jobs require this broad range of skills? It is the advantage of physics that was sold to me for my entire career, but who actually wants someone with a broad range, instead of a narrow focus on a specific skill?[/QUOTE]

*grin*

Although one thing that worries me a lot about this thread is that there seems to be a lot of generalities going on. I get worried when someone says that "some unnamed companies may be hiring Ph.D.'s" rather than saying "go to this website, talk to these people, here is where you might get hired." I think this is the first post in which someone has mentioned the name of a specific company that hires relatively large numbers of Ph.D.'s.

Also you can get around the anonymity issue. I can say that I'm employed by some financial firm, and list a number of firms that are similar to mine. If it is the case that only one company in an industry is hiring, then you have problems.

I think it is true that theoretical Ph.D.'s tend to get hired in a relatively few set of industries, and I don't think this is a good thing.

 

[twofish-quant]

If these guys can do it, everybody else with a physics degree can.

Not everyone. If you think investment banks are fundamentally evil, then this disqualifies you. If you have no knowledge in finance, that's a handicap (albeit a rather minor one). If you have no *interest* in finance, that's the kiss of death. Same for programming. It's not fatal if you have very, very basic C++. However, if you have no *interest* in C++, this is going to kill you.

There's also the "you have to move to NYC/London/HK/Singapore" condition. The thing about finance cities is that they are "type A" cities. NYC is a city filled with hyper-ambitious people all out to make it big, and everyone is out to make a buck. Some people hate it. I fell in love with the city.

 

[Mépris]

Not everyone. If you think investment banks are fundamentally evil, then this disqualifies you. If you have no knowledge in finance, that's a handicap (albeit a rather minor one). If you have no *interest* in finance, that's the kiss of death. Same for programming. It's not fatal if you have very, very basic C++. However, if you have no *interest* in C++, this is going to kill you.

And who's fault is that? :)

I said everyone with a Physics degree *can*, not want.

There's also the "you have to move to NYC/London/HK/Singapore" condition. The thing about finance cities is that they are "type A" cities. NYC is a city filled with hyper-ambitious people all out to make it big, and everyone is out to make a buck. Some people hate it. I fell in love with the city.

Sounds cool. :):)

How do you do that if you're a foreigner?

 

[jk]

And who's fault is that? :)
How do you do that if you're a foreigner?

The banks don't care as long as you have the legal right to work in the country.

 

[mark55]

Wow, my thread blew up while I was away!



Generally I get some lip service about how I had impressive qualifications and such, but "just don't fit any of their openings right now". Generally these people will point out that I do have qualifications that do fit with them, just not with anything at the moment.



This is what I do. You get the general sales pitch, and then you get asked, "so what do you do?" and no matter how you try to sell "physics", they laugh and say "sorry, I don't know how to help you. Apply online." It never, ever, ever works. Ever.



Yes, but my network is poor, as I have said. Most of the time when I send emails to random people, I get ignored.



Actually, that's *exactly* how it is designed. It's designed in a way that if you went into grad school, you're completely and totally screwed. This is because you are now too qualified for entry jobs, and have not enough specific experience for the higher levels.

As an example, I applied to many, many entry level jobs that merely required bachelor's degrees in various technical fields. I usually got rejected immediately and when I asked why, the few responses I got back were "PhDs aren't entry level". When you look at the higher levels, they typically demand you know something that either requires Yankee White security clearance or 5 years doing something very specific to that company or industry. You have no chance.

The system is absolutely designed to screw PhDs.



Not to be rude, because I know you're trying to help, but I don't know how many times I can say I go to conferences all the time. It doesn't help. You always just hear "go to the website" or the contacts will offer to pass ur resume around if they like u, and you don't hear back. I'm not taking this personally, but it's just not helpful.



This attitude is devastating, especially as it's coming from someone who used to do interviews. It's absolutely maddening that something that is even recognized as "learn able in a month" is considered beyond our grasp.

I run into this with C++. I know Python very well, as I coded in it my entire grad school career. I've been dabbling a little with C++ as per two-fish's recommendation, but not quite enough to really put C++ on a resume. I absolutely have talked with people that say "heh, you haven't done OOP? we'll get back to you." It's just stupid to me that they absolutely recognize that i have the required skills they want, but just because I don' have one LITTLE thing (such as coding paradigms, OOP isn't difficult), they literally laugh.



But this is horse manure. It would take all of a month to catch up to speed, especially if you having coding experience with another language.

I don't think so, unless you have serious natural ability - c++ is a tough language to get good at. You can learn to do basic stuff in a month - but I don't think many people can be any good at it (especially given the poor code quality I see from people who have used it for some time!). All my IT friends say it has a fearsome reputation in their circles and my fluency would stand me in good stead because not many people are good at this language due to its difficulty.

python uses OOP anyway (amongst other programming methodologies), so you don't need to know anything about c++ to understand OOP and have experience of using it. So you could learn it without touching c++?

A friend of mine had trouble breaking out of academia into software - writing his own software that is used by a local social group really helped him get a job because he could show this software off and say its good enough quality that people are using it. So that's an option (if you want to break into programming).

 

[jk]

I don't think so, unless you have serious natural ability - c++ is a tough language to get good at. You can learn to do basic stuff in a month - but I don't think many people can be any good at it (especially given the poor code quality I see from people who have used it for some time!). All my IT friends say it has a fearsome reputation in their circles and my fluency would stand me in good stead because not many people are good at this language due to its difficulty.

python uses OOP anyway (amongst other programming methodologies), so you don't need to know anything about c++ to understand OOP and have experience of using it. So you could learn it without touching c++?

A friend of mine had trouble breaking out of academia into software - writing his own software that is used by a local social group really helped him get a job because he could show this software off and say its good enough quality that people are using it. So that's an option (if you want to break into programming).

I agree with this. There is a sort of arrogance that says that you can learn a programming language in a few weeks. While this is true, learning a programming language (i.e the syntax) is not the same as learning to become a good programmer. From my experience, it usually takes about 2 years of working as a programmer to become decent at it. Even then, I would consider that as Junior to Intermediate for resume filtering purposes until I meet the person and have had a chance to interview him/her. I used to do interviews for a financial company and I found this to be true for most people.

Programming in the environments I have worked at involves not only being able to write code that compiles and runs but a myriad of other skills that take time and experience to learn: design patterns, debugging skills, performance and scalability considerations, knowledge of the common data structures and algorithms along with their applicability to different situations, knowledge of different vendors'/open source products, understanding of threading and parallel processing concepts and idioms, SDLC, documentation, some project management, presentation skills...there is a whole host of knowledge that goes into becoming a good programmer. 30 days with "C++ for Dummies" will not give you that experience and knowledge.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't think so, unless you have serious natural ability - c++ is a tough language to get good at.

For a lot of jobs, you don't have to be good. You just merely have to be not incompetent. C++ is a very rich and deep language. I've been programming in it for 20 years, and I'm still learning lots of new stuff, and I don't consider myself an expert in it.

But you have to work with what you have. If you don't know Armenian, then you aren't going to be writing novels in a month. In a month I think you *can* get yourself to the point were you can ask for directions and survive. Same with C++, you aren't going to be an expert in a month, but most Ph.D.'s can get to the point were they can be useful with it.

All my IT friends say it has a fearsome reputation in their circles and my fluency would stand me in good stead because not many people are good at this language due to its difficulty.

The difficulty in C++ is that it's multi-paradigm. You can program C++ that looks like C. You can program C++ that looks like lisp. You can program C++ that looks like java. You can program C++ that looks like Fortran.

The reason that C++ is so widely used is that it's the Swiss army knife of languages. If you have a situation in which you have to mix Java and Fortran programming styles, there aren't any other options.

So don't try being an expert in C++. If you are a Ph.D., you figure out enough of C++ so that you can program code that looks like fortran.

python uses OOP anyway (amongst other programming methodologies), so you don't need to know anything about c++ to understand OOP and have experience of using it. So you could learn it without touching c++?

You could but what's the point?

Except that this kills you if you are looking for jobs that have systems that are written in C++.

A friend of mine had trouble breaking out of academia into software - writing his own software that is used by a local social group really helped him get a job because he could show this software off and say its good enough quality that people are using it. So that's an option (if you want to break into programming).

This gets to the attitude thing. If you can only program basic C++, this doesn't kill you. The important thing is not how much you know, but how much you are willing and able to learn, so programming some real world software helps a lot. Also you'll learn about the politics of software.

 

[twofish-quant]

You need experience to get a job, and a job to get experience. Chicken meet egg.

While this is true, learning a programming language (i.e the syntax) is not the same as learning to become a good programmer. From my experience, it usually takes about 2 years of working as a programmer to become decent at it.

Once you are a skilled programmer at one language, you can move to another programming language very quickly. If you can write decent fortran 77 code, then switching so that you can write decent C++ code isn't that hard.

There is a whole host of knowledge that goes into becoming a good programmer. 30 days with "C++ for Dummies" will not give you that experience and knowledge.

It won't but that's not the point.

Also one reason that theoretical physicists are hired is that they often have experience in a different area. Numerical programming is a separate subfield and the skills are different. A month of self-teaching won't make you an expert C++ programmer, but it will get you enough so that you can use your numerical programming experience in a C++ environment.

 

[twofish-quant]

And who's fault is that? :)

I said everyone with a Physics degree *can*, not want.

Fault doesn't matter, and it can be harder to change one's fundamental beliefs and personality than to change one's skills. For me it took me a while (several years in fact) to fall in love with finance and the NYC lifestyle.

I know people that have physics/math degrees that just will not fit in an investment banking environment because of personality or attitude reasons.

How do you do that if you're a foreigner?

Get a Ph.D. and while you are in school start looking for jobs. It's hard, maybe impossible, to look for work from another country, and one thing about universities is that it gets foreigners into the country so that they can see what jobs are available.

 

[mark55]

You could but what's the point?

Except that this kills you if you are looking for jobs that have systems that are written in C++.

I thought the poster said he was not getting jobs because he did not know OOP, but did know python. What I meant was you don't then need to learn c++, if you know python already - learn OOP there and you know how to do it. Now if the job wants c++ AND OOP that's a different matter.

 

[mark55]

You need experience to get a job, and a job to get experience. Chicken meet egg.
Once you are a skilled programmer at one language, you can move to another programming language very quickly. If you can write decent fortran 77 code, then switching so that you can write decent C++ code isn't that hard.

I'd disagree I think because generally c++ is using programming techniques not used in FORTRAN - most code (at least that I come across) in FORTRAN is procedural and most code in c++ has some aspect of OOP in it. So sure you can write procedural code in c++, but I have rarely come across code in c++ that is not using OOP ideas. So there is something new to be learned to make the switch.

When I first used python I ended up just writing c++ code in python syntax, it took a while (and begging my boss to pay for me to attend a course) before I realized there is a lot of stuff in python I can learn about which does not exist in c++. And learning about that new stuff is pretty useful to write better code in python. So I could write code in python that would work quickly enough, but I would not say I was much more than a python beginner being able to do that, even though I had already many years experience in c++ and consider that I know my way around it very well.

I suppose in the end its what the employer wants - maybe some only care you can cobble some code together that will just about work (and that can even be ok for certain applications - e.g. analysing data for your job and only you or a few others are using it), but others might care you really know your way around and write very nice code (e.g. has to be sold to lots of people so it cannot have even obscure bugs that cause occasional problems because you want to get a good reputation with your customers for the products you sell, needs to be easy to maintain for many years in the future by people that come along after you leave for new jobs etc).

 

[twofish-quant]

I'd disagree I think because generally c++ is using programming techniques not used in FORTRAN - most code (at least that I come across) in FORTRAN is procedural and most code in c++ has some aspect of OOP in it. So sure you can write procedural code in c++, but I have rarely come across code in c++ that is not using OOP ideas.

Remember that the focus of this discussion is "What do I as a Ph.D. have to do in order to get a job?" and the focus of what I'm trying to do is "what you have to do so that I'm not forced to toss your resume immediately."

The way that a lot of physicists "adapt" to C++ is that you have this huge nasty system that is written in C++ and there is a piece in which the Fortran-trained physicist/programmer is told to "do your magic here." In order to get to that level of programming skill will take you one to two months. It will take you a year to be a proficient programmer in C++, and maybe a decade to be a C++ guru.

However, you don't have a decade, so what I'm trying to do is to tell you what is the bare minimum you have to learn so that I can do something with your resume. If you are a skilled fortran programmer, and you know just enough C++ so that I can tell you "please fill in the blank here", then that's enough for you to get hired. Once you get hired, then you can learn the rest on the job.

Note here that for this to work, it has to be a job in which your fortran skills are considered useful. This is *NOT* true with most programming jobs, but it happens to be true in jobs that require lots of PDE crunching. If you have no idea what template metaprogramming is but you do know what the Courant and Von Neumann stability conditions are, this is useful for what I'm doing. If you have no idea what a virtual function is, I can't do anything with your resume.

When I first used python I ended up just writing c++ code in python syntax, it took a while (and begging my boss to pay for me to attend a course) before I realized there is a lot of stuff in python I can learn about which does not exist in c++.

And there is a lot of cool numerical stuff that you can do in C++ that you can't do in fortran. Once you get hardcore into numerical C++ programming you will get into the mysteries of template metaprogramming, and look at Boost::Math.

But it helps to learn the cool new stuff if someone is paying you to do it.

you want to get a good reputation with your customers for the products you sell, needs to be easy to maintain for many years in the future by people that come along after you leave for new jobs etc).

One reason that fortran experience is useful is that the type of bugs that you find in numerical code are things that physics Ph.D.'s have spend years tracking down. Also it turns out that maintainability isn't the most important thing for financial code. Not losing a billion dollars and getting your company in Bloomberg in a bad way is.

 

[whyee]

Personally, I find that optimism doesn't work that well.

Cynicism and a taste for the absurd works better for me. Also, I found that looking for work left me profoundly angry, and a lot of the "how not to go too crazy" was to deal with the anger. It turns out that for me, anger was useful. The thing that I had to worry about most was getting so depressed that I couldn't get out of bed, but the nice thing about getting angry was that getting angry gets you out of bed.

Reminds me of a quote I heard (had to do a search to find the exact quote and source): "That of course is the advantage of being a pessimist; a pessimist gets nothing but pleasant surprises, an optimist nothing but unpleasant," which is from Fer-de-Lance by Nero Wolfe.

 

[stevencruiser]

Where there is a will,there is a way.Be optimistic and fight with the difficulties.

 

[mal4mac]

Just keep on applying! And don't dismiss Academia... I'd expect you to have a chance to get "Research Software Engineer" kind of jobs in Academia with just python. It would help if you could put a compiled language on that CV. Have you never taken a course in C, Pascal or the like? Academia will rate your PhD far more highly than industry if you are competing for jobs that only require a BSc. If you are applying in the UK, check out:

http://www.jobs.ac.uk

... just type python and see what happens. I'm not sure if there is a similar site for other countries, maybe others can chip in with suggestions.

Also, why not apply for a teaching training course, at least as a backup plan! Again, I'm not too sure about the situation elsewhere, but in the UK you could do a PGCE and get a grant for doing that. If you don't fancy coping with unmotivated schoolkids forever there's always the chance of eventually "teaching the teachers" by moving to a teacher training college lecturing post... and a PhD + PGCE will certainly help for that move...

 

[mal4mac]

If you are a skilled fortran programmer, and you know just enough C++ so that I can tell you "please fill in the blank here", then that's enough for you to get hired. Once you get hired, then you can learn the rest on the job.

Note here that for this to work, it has to be a job in which your fortran skills are considered useful. This is *NOT* true with most programming jobs, but it happens to be true in jobs that require lots of PDE crunching.

Nah... you can get any kind of job with Fortran experience, at least I did. I did heavyweight PDE crunching in Algol and Fortran and next job went on to develop human computer interfaces/expert systems in Basic (of all things :) The interviewing prof. was a physicist who had gone the same route ... all you need to do is to be very confident at interview and convince the prof that you are good at picking up new things, like him...

 

[Locrian]

Nah... you can get any kind of job with Fortran experience, at least I did.

Really? You got any kind of job?

Or did you get two jobs?

 

[twofish-quant]

Where there is a will,there is a way.

Sometimes there isn't. One thing that you have to do from time to time is to give up and try something else.

Be optimistic and fight with the difficulties.

Optimism can be a bad thing. Look up Stockdale paradox.

 

[mal4mac]

Really? You got any kind of job?

Or did you get two jobs?

More like seven jobs, all using different languages in different application areas, some internal transfers - but still makes the point, *any* programming skills are readily transferable to other languages and areas.

Maybe not *any* job, but t-q was implying that Fortran skills were a narrower qualification than they are in actuality. Maybe because he has had only one job? He said: "it has to be a job in which your fortran skills are considered useful. This is *NOT* true with most programming jobs, but it happens to be true in jobs that require lots of PDE crunching."

I think *IT IS TRUE* with most programming jobs. For instance, you can transfer to Basic or C in fairly short order. In one transfer, I was employed to write Object Pascal programs with only Fortran/Basic/C (no OOP) experience.

If you have the skills to write heavyweight PDE programs, you have skills that can be transferred to writing many kinds of program. As Zapperz stressed, you might have to, also, do a lot of learning on the job. Learning OOP properly from scratch was a big job! But my Fortran skills got me in the door...

 

[ParticleGrl]

Maybe not *any* job, but t-q was implying that Fortran skills were a narrower qualification than they are in actuality.

In my experience in the US, you won't even get an interview with most programming jobs unless you specifically list the language they are looking for on your resume. In that sense- Fortran is quite a bit narrower than most languages. HR isn't going to say "well, if he can do numerical programming in fortran..." they are going to say "i was told to pass up only those resumes that say java."

 

[mal4mac]

In my experience in the US, you won't even get an interview with most programming jobs unless you specifically list the language they are looking for on your resume. In that sense- Fortran is quite a bit narrower than most languages. HR isn't going to say "well, if he can do numerical programming in fortran..." they are going to say "i was told to pass up only those resumes that say java."

It's a similar situation for many non-academic appointments in the UK. It comes from HR departments not being flexible enough. But good professors know that bright students can easily pick up, say, Basic if they know Fortran, and they can easily develop interfaces if they can program PDEs.

I'm not sure how universities work in the states, maybe the HR filter is more "up front" than in the UK. But, surely, professors looking to (say) program PDEs in C++ would stress to HR departments that numerical Fortran programmers are acceptable! (Or is there such a glut of unemployed C++ programmers this year that Fortran programmers are heading for skid row? Is it really that bad out there?)

"Working in a bar" doesn't look great on the CV - good for keeping people skills polished, but some evidence of continuing brain work would be useful! Why not do some open source development? Or volunteer - charities may be looking for people to develop databases or websites... Keep the brain working and add some languages to the CV...

 

[Astro_Dude]

Update -

I was fortunate enough that I was able to find some temporary work between my graduation and the end of the year to keep my *** afloat. I applied for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of jobs, and never got anything past phone interviews.

In the end, I got a job (non-permanent) doing much the same work I did as a grad. It pays ok, and I'm at least enjoying the environment. I have to count whatever blessings I have though I guess until I can manage something better.

The fact is, industry has no interest in me, and I'm going to try to learn a compiling language while I'm here. It's the only real way to get more interesting to them. Also, maybe there will be a change in Washington to actually make hiring in industry actually happen again.

I want to thank everyone for their support here through this dark time. I am at least going to survive for a *little* while...

-AD

I'm not sure how universities work in the states, maybe the HR filter is more "up front" than in the UK. But, surely, professors looking to (say) program PDEs in C++ would stress to HR departments that numerical Fortran programmers are acceptable! (Or is there such a glut of unemployed C++ programmers this year that Fortran programmers are heading for skid row? Is it really that bad out there?)

Here's how it works.

HR: Well, you're clearly smart enough to handle this position, tell us why you want to change fields. Ok, *other questions*. Sounds good, I'll pass this along to the next person, you should hear back in about two weeks.

OPTION A:
*it was a lie, not passed along*

OPTION B:
*passed along*
"Hiring Manager" : Oh, well, screw this person, they can't hit the ground running immediately. NEXT

------

There's a huge glut of programmers. You have to be extraordinary if that is your only skill. The thing we *do* have an advantage on is we can do the scientific programming that a lot of industry needs. That is, a lot of CSCI majors apparently don't have the math skills physics majors do, and certainly don't have the physics understanding we do. So it will help if you want to go into coding a missile or something.

 

[jk]

In my experience in the US, you won't even get an interview with most programming jobs unless you specifically list the language they are looking for on your resume. In that sense- Fortran is quite a bit narrower than most languages. HR isn't going to say "well, if he can do numerical programming in fortran..." they are going to say "i was told to pass up only those resumes that say java."

While this is true in a lot of cases, it also depends on the company and their needs. I once got a job because the hiring manager was convinced that I could learn the skills necessary to be a developer even though my work history did not include development.
Another example: I just got a gig working with the Ruby programming language - I know zero Ruby at the moment. The hiring manager was convinced by my history, references and whiteboard interview that I can be productive in Ruby fairly quickly

 

[Astronuc]

I'd disagree I think because generally c++ is using programming techniques not used in FORTRAN - most code (at least that I come across) in FORTRAN is procedural and most code in c++ has some aspect of OOP in it. So sure you can write procedural code in c++, but I have rarely come across code in c++ that is not using OOP ideas. So there is something new to be learned to make the switch.

Fortran was adapted to OOP in 1990.
http://www.clear.rice.edu/mech517/F90_docs/EC_oop_f90.pdf
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/21636/1/97-0004.pdf

There is some evidence to suggest that OOP Fortran is more efficient than C++.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Fortran was adapted to OOP in 1990.
http://www.clear.rice.edu/mech517/F9...EC_oop_f90.pdf
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/97-0004.pdf

One caveat- most of the people I know using fortran code (which is academic HEP) are using it for legacy reasons, so its big chunks of fortran 77, not fortran 90. So its not just that they are coding fortran, they are coding on obsolete fortran.

 

[bpatrick]

I know this might not be of any help to you, since I pretty much browsed the thread, but I have a few friends who have had horrible luck coming out of their PhDs trying to get jobs in applied math, astrophysics, and theoretical physics.

Becca ended up taking a year off and spending 80+ hours a week learning stats/finance stuff and passing 3 actuarial exams in her first year post PhD (PDE theory was her dissertation subject). She's now doing well as an actuary somewhere near Orlando.

After a year looking for work/post-docs (after a PhD in *i think* theoretical high energy particle physics) and no luck, Saad spent a few months learning MCAT material, took those, joined the army, went through OCS then into their medical program. He's almost done with his MD, and liking the field, the atmosphere, the fact that he got loads of his undergrad debt covered, and med school comped.

Umm, Josh (PhD in astrophysics sometime back around 2007 and not being able to find a job ... he was mainly looking for something in defense/government since he's a Bethesda native), got a job as a teller at a bank in Baltimore about 6 months post-PhD and has very quickly moved up over the years. I think they made him shift supervisor after 2-3 months, then assistant manager within the first year. He's now some regional loan manager / pseudo-quant. I think he's liking it and doesn't really mind that he had to start at "the bottom" right after he was done with his doctorate.

just some random stories of 3 of my friends/acquaintances and how they've dealt with not finding jobs in their fields post-PhD. Good luck though with getting something in your field, you still have time, but there are definitely options.