kanato said:
My PhD was in theoretical condensed matter, with a focus on methods for strongly correlated systems. I've done a lot of density functional theory calculations, some work with Green's function methods, and a lot of programming. Some projects were pen-and-paper, deriving an effective Hamiltonian or analyzing functionals used in DFT. Some projects were calculating thermodynamic properties of materials. Some projects were done using Monte Carlo methods, both quantum and classical. Several projects involved programming in a variety of languages, including C++ and Fortran.
That's typical of the background of people that get hired by investment banks. A lot of the code that needs to be "babysat" is monte carlo. A typical problem is that you have a basket of a horrendous number of instruments, and you want to write a monte carlo simulation of that.
So are you advocating having one or a few generic resumes targeted at specific job types and send out those to as many people as possible?
Yes. If you know the details of the specific job that you are targeting then you can tailor the resume, but usually you don't. I have two resumes that I use. One is the one I send to financial firms in which I emphasize the physics Ph.D. The other one is for generic programming jobs outside of finance, in which the Ph.D. is mentioned but not heavily, and I talk more about my coding experience. For each job, I might change a sentence or two.
I guess this is confusing for me because I keep hearing from career counselors and the like that resumes should be targeted to job listings.
If you know something specific about the job, then yes, but you usually don't. For example, if you happen to know that the company is very interested in monte carlo simulations, then you can talk more about that. The trouble is that you usually don't have that information. The job listings themselves are useless, because they have no information other than "we have a job."
This is one reason that people from certain schools do better at getting jobs. If you go to a school where you have lots of working Ph.D.'s and they tell you that putting monte carlo code onto GPU's happens to be "hot" right now, that's very valuable information, since you can figure out a way of working the term GPU into your resume.
The reasoning behind that makes sense, but it's quite time consuming, and just slightly more fun then removing my toenails with a pair of pliers.
Been there. One important trick that helped me a lot was to not think of the resume as an autobiography. If you think of the resume as an autobiography, then it's really psychologically difficult to write it. Think of a resume as a 30-second commercial or movie trailer.
The other important useful bit of information is that there really isn't that much point in getting a perfect resume. Once you get the interview, then no one cares about the resume, so if you are getting interviews then the resume is "good enough."
The big determining factor is the number of resumes that you can spam. If working on resumes makes you send out fewer its a bad trade off. Also, a good resume should get you rejected for some jobs. If there is no chance that you are going to get hired, then it's good that you end the process early rather than waste anyone's time.
Furthermore, most of the career counselors I talk to have gone from academics into career counseling, so I have some doubts about the relevance of their experience, but on the other hand clearly they've talked to a lot of people about this stuff and have been doing it a while.
The problem with a lot of career counselors is that they are used to dealing with MBA's and that's a *very* different job market than Ph.D.'s. Also with one exception (and you can contact her at Martingale International) headhunters and career counselors are not physicists or mathematicians that this can create problems.
One of those is that our group just can't communicate our job requirements to the people that make the first pass on resumes. HR and HH are nice people, but I'm just not going to be able to explain to them the mathematics of Banach spaces, because they really aren't interested in Banach spaces. So what ends up happening is that they get instructions it look for certain things, and if they are looking for "Banach space" and you write Lebesgue space, they aren't going to know that the two are related.