Anyone read the NYT article on foreign workers and the tech industry?

[kinkmode]

Or you can contact recruiters for technical positions of interest to you. LinkedIn also provides networking opportunities that will be of value to you.

Oh, also, 'technical' recruiters in the area where I live really only deal with IT. A few deal with non-IT stuff, but the ones I've contacted are essentially worthless; they don't know how to sell anything other than a basic engineering degree.

The most common advice I hear from recruiters, informational interviews, etc. is, "Have you thought about being a professor?"

 

[carlgrace]

The age bias is real, and there is a certain logic in why employers may be biased against older workers. I can think of several reasons why employers may be unwilling to hire older workers:

(1) Older workers may expect to receive higher salaries than what many companies are willing to pay.

(2) Older workers may, on average, be more likely to utilize health care than younger workers, and therefore health insurance may be more costly for employers who hire older workers.

(3) There may be a perception that older workers may not have the latest skills available, or may be be "slower" at picking up new skills than younger skills.

(4) Particularly in technical fields, many of the hiring managers may themselves be relatively young, and so they may feel discomfort in hiring older workers.

(5) There may be a perception that since older workers will likely be retiring in a short period of time, it may not be worth it for companies to invest in them.

I'm not justifying age discrimination -- I'm just stating the facts. Therefore older workers will have to put that much more effort in overcoming these barriers.

I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why there is a bias. The problem is that it's a bias and all of them are untrue in general. A lot of these (particularly 2 and 5) also can applied to women. Personally I think the tech companies are making a big collective mistake and leaving a lot of capability on the table. Its similar to the 70s and 80s (and to some extent today) where there was pervasive bias against women. It's counterproductive. The fear they are going to retire is ridiculous in particular (I've heard that from multiple hiring managers). First, most people only stay with a company for a few years anyway, so they are probably going to leave whether they are in their 20s or their 50s, no difference. Second, the tech companies I'm familiar with do VERY little investment in their employees, so what's the problem?

This subject frustrates me. As a society we claim we want to encourage young people to pursue STEM careers, but our actions speak louder than words.

Not to nitpick, but I was involved in buying health insurance when I was in a startup. When you buy it for employees via an aggregator you get a pooled rate, so there is no incremental cost difference in health insurance between a younger or an older worker as that risk is pooled. If there is additional risk it is borne by the aggregator (or the insurance provider) not the company providing the benefit. Sorry if that was off topic.

 

[kinkmode]

This subject frustrates me. As a society we claim we want to encourage young people to pursue STEM careers, but our actions speak louder than words.

I think this is where the lie is. Society doesn't want STEM people. Society wants cheap IT.

 

[StatGuy2000]

A) it would be lying. Besides, I've got a Ph.D., you think that would qualify for a degree in science. And more importantly, B) it was basically the HR lady's ignorant parsing the company wide rule of "We only hire engineering degrees."

You might think that the managers might care more than the HR people, but in that situation, it wasn't true. The above example of the 'not having a science degree' conversation occurred two months into a contract job. It's not as if my resume wasn't making it through the HR filter. What WAS going on was that the situation was misrepresented to me in the interview (you could always get hired here permanently) when the reality of it was that was not an option. The managers of that project were either on vacation, or literally sat around all day doing nothing. Some days they'd say they were coming onsite, and they just wouldn't show. One retired halfway through the project. These are not the kind of people who recognize talent and motivation and are willing to buck the system to get you in. They were the kind of people who do as little work as possible while they rake in their $150-200k salaries.

As to resume drafting and LinkedIn: I do and I do. I'm not just randomly firing resumes out into the void. I'm networking, setting up informational interviews, etc. I'm even getting my foot in the door, as above, however little good that is doing.

I know my worth. I know I can do many jobs. Companies are simply not willing to take a chance on someone without 5 years of INDUSTRY experience where I live. They'd much rather hire someone who has 'experience' and does a mediocre job than someone like me. Any larger technical company would rather hire an engineer from a crappy school, who will do nothing but sit in a cubicle being mediocre, than 'take a chance' on someone who has proven their worth in difficult fields for years. No matter how you recast your experience, at some point in the process, they turn their noses up at you because you don't have INDUSTRY experience.

I have bolded the above statement -- you have stated that companies are not willing to take a chance on someone with a science background (without 5 years of industry experience) where you live.

If that's the case, then the logical conclusion is for you to expand your search outside of your area, including overseas (all over the world). People should go where the jobs are, wherever that may be, whether it is the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Singapore, or wherever else. If you have the skills, then SOMEONE ultimately will want to take you -- just not someone who happens to be in your current location.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think this is where the lie is. Society doesn't want STEM people. Society wants cheap IT.

Every private sector firm wants to maximize their profits to effectively compete. One of the easiest ways to do so is to cut down costs, and what cost is easier to control than wages & benefits? So of course every private sector firm wants cheap workers!

If you look at the history of large scale migrations from the 19th century onwards, you will find that a significant proportion involve the importation of cheap labour. For example, the migration of Indian labourers in the British colonies of East Africa (now Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda); the Chinese migration to Malaysia & Singapore; large scale immigration from southern and eastern Europe to the US during the late 19th and early 20th century; the Irish migration to Canada, US, the UK and Australia during the 19th century during the potato famine, etc.

 

[kinkmode]

Yes, I should tell my girlfriend to quit her job where she is currently making very good money and will soon be making very very good money. All so I can pursue the lowly life of an academic and put her in the same position I am in.

If life were only so easy. I realize that a large part of my current situation is the fact that I am constrained to a metropolitan area of ~4 million people. At the same time, I am somewhat flummoxed by how difficult it has been for anyone to take me seriously. Particularly seeing firsthand how... mediocre many are in their jobs.

 

[kinkmode]

Every private sector firm wants to maximize their profits to effectively compete. One of the easiest ways to do so is to cut down costs, and what cost is easier to control than wages & benefits? So of course every private sector firm wants cheap workers!

No doubt. I think it's selling the youth of our country a bill of goods to say they should enter STEM fields. It's IT, and more to the point, it's cheap IT. So have fun with that in the latter half of your career.

 

[StatGuy2000]

No doubt. I think it's selling the youth of our country a bill of goods to say they should enter STEM fields. It's IT, and more to the point, it's cheap IT. So have fun with that in the latter half of your career.

As opposed to what else? Do you really think that the youth in the US who are studying a non-STEM field are in any way better off than those who do?

Ideally, the US should be investing far more (either through direct subsidies or through other means) to encourage the development of new businesses who can thus hire more people. Absent that, I would encourage the youth in the US to do what others have -- leave! If you can't find a job in your particular town/city/state, leave that state for another state. If you can't find a job within the US, then leave the US!

We live in a globalized work environment, and so Americans shouldn't be so stuck on staying in the US.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yes, I should tell my girlfriend to quit her job where she is currently making very good money and will soon be making very very good money. All so I can pursue the lowly life of an academic and put her in the same position I am in.

If life were only so easy. I realize that a large part of my current situation is the fact that I am constrained to a metropolitan area of ~4 million people. At the same time, I am somewhat flummoxed by how difficult it has been for anyone to take me seriously. Particularly seeing firsthand how... mediocre many are in their jobs.

If you can't find a job in industry in your particular location, then you will have no choice but to eventually leave to find it elsewhere -- there's no other way around it. That's the price you pay for studying physics, as opposed to engineering.

The harsh truth (as no doubt other posters can attest) is that a physics degree has not been in much demand outside of a few select areas outside of academia (oil & gas, defence, finance) since at least the 1960s, with the notable exception of those PhDs who specialized in experimental condensed matter physics (who often end up working for firms like Intel) or medical physics. And from what I have read, those select sectors tend to be highly clustered in specific geographic areas -- New York or the Northeast for finance, Texas for oil & gas.

So it may be the case that, at least temporarily, you may have to carry on long-distance relationship with your girlfriend if you ultimately want to find employment in industry. Or you may have to seek work in a non-STEM field or otherwise retrain yourself in another field, such as seeking a second degree in engineering or training yourself in statistics/data mining.

 

[ModusPwnd]

If you can't find a job within the US, then leave the US!

Thats not really useful advise. How many countries have you immigrated too? Countries are not in the habit of importing the unemployed. The whole "vote with your feet" idea minimizes cultural and family ties and it also minimizes the difficulty and expense of constantly uprooting. Moving out of the bay area because you can't afford it is one thing, telling people they should try for jobs in singapore is kind of ridiculous. Only a minority of people and lifestyles will ever do such a thing. It is no solution at all for the bulk of people looking for work.

 

[kinkmode]

As opposed to what else? Do you really think that the youth in the US who are studying a non-STEM field are in any way better off than those who do?

Frankly, they'd be better off being state troopers, plumbers, getting an MBA, etc. I'm sure I would have been better off being a state trooper. I'd be halfway to retirement. Instead I'm going on 35 with very little in the way of savings or career prospects.

My point is that I think companies in the US are overlooking a (very) small, but very high quality work force because this workforce doesn't fit into their conception of 'good candidates'. Why are we taking some of the best and brightest of our students, the ones who go to the top colleges and then to the top graduate programs (because society says that's a good thing) only to not utilize their talents when they leave academia?

I have some feelings about why. You can see it here, even on this forum. Bias against Ph.D.s, bias against those who have spent more than four years in academia, the whole 'real world' skills argument. Nobody denies that experience is a good thing, but come on. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen an engineer with years of 'real world' experience pooh-pooh someone like myself, and then make a complete fool of himself when he can't do the simplest of tasks, I wouldn't have to work. It's a dumb attitude and as a result, businesses aren't taking advantage of a great resource.

Never mind that a lot of people are intimidated by someone with a Ph.D. and don't understand what a good high quality professional scientist with a Ph.D. can do in a number of situations. Sure, Ph.D.s aren't all created equal; that's why you have to do some interviews to weed out the ones that don't meet your criteria, like inability to work with others. Instead, businesses like to use the one example of a socially inept Ph.D. to rule out ALL Ph.D.s. Yet they don't apply that same logic to the one (or more) socially inept computer programmers, HR people, managers, engineers, etc. They like to use the hypothetical situation of the hired Ph.D. who leaves when he/she finds a better job, yet they don't respond the same when pretty much everyone else they hire does the same exact thing.

 

[kinkmode]

So it may be the case that, at least temporarily, you may have to carry on long-distance relationship with your girlfriend if you ultimately want to find employment in industry. Or you may have to seek work in a non-STEM field or otherwise retrain yourself in another field, such as seeking a second degree in engineering or training yourself in statistics/data mining.

Seriously, thanks for the advice. We've done the long distance thing for many years and finally brought an end to it.

I've sought employment in many non-STEM jobs. I can do stats/data mining. THE COMPANIES DON'T CARE.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Thats not really useful advise. How many countries have you immigrated too? Countries are not in the habit of importing the unemployed. The whole "vote with your feet" idea minimizes cultural and family ties and it also minimizes the difficulty and expense of constantly uprooting. Moving out of the bay area because you can't afford it is one thing, telling people they should try for jobs in singapore is kind of ridiculous. Only a minority of people and lifestyles will ever do such a thing. It is no solution at all for the bulk of people looking for work.

Well, without revealing too much personal information, I am an immigrant, born in Asia and moving first to the US and then relocating to Canada as a young child. So by that definition, I've immigrated to 2 countries. But that's beside the point.

The reason I suggested leaving the US is that the type of people who post in Physics Forums are generally people who are well-educated, specifically those educated in the STEM fields, like physics. These represent a minority of people, to be sure, but a minority who are probably better able to be mobile than others. So if you cannot find employment in the location you live, then the logical choice is to move to where the jobs are, whether within the US or possibly outside the US.

Besides, there are people throughout the world who make the choice to uproot themselves and immigrate to the US, in spite of cultural and family ties that would keep them in their respective countries of origin (many Canadians throughout the years have migrated to the US for work, for example). So what's so special about Americans that they cannot do the same?

 

[ModusPwnd]

It has nothing to do with Americans being special. Why are you nation bashing? This is irrelevant. Some Americans can and do move out of country for work. Most don't. There are not many places in the world looking for out of work physics grads. There is more opportunity in the US for out of work physics grads than there is in most countries. This leads to your other point which I think is valid, a physics degree is not in demand and one shouldn't expect to be in demand because they have a physics degree. In addition to employers underestimating a physics grads ability, perhaps the grads are overestimating their own ability.

 

[ParticleGrl]

They'd much rather hire someone who has 'experience' and does a mediocre job than someone like me. Any larger technical company would rather hire an engineer from a crappy school, who will do nothing but sit in a cubicle being mediocre, than 'take a chance'

Absolutely this- and the reason is that there is a pretty large supply of potential engineers. They don't have to take a risk because they can find someone they know will fill the job out. Even worse- tons of engineers don't seem to understand at all what physics is. The company I work for was recently consulting with an engineering firm and several of their managers I talked to were convinced that all of physics is curved-spacetime and black holes,etc.

The key to my job hunt was to give up all together on science/engineering type work and instead focus on places where actual shortages exist. Right now, there is a pretty strong demand for statistics/data-mining type work.

This subject frustrates me. As a society we claim we want to encourage young people to pursue STEM careers, but our actions speak louder than words.

Absolutely. We bemoan the unwillingness of people to pursue science degrees, but no one points out that its an awful economic decision likely to leave you on the wrong side of 30 with no savings trying to reinvent yourself so you can get a job.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Frankly, they'd be better off being state troopers, plumbers, getting an MBA, etc.

You may be right about being a plumber, but you are definitely wrong about getting an MBA (on its own, an MBA isn't worth s**t). As for being a state trooper, that may depend on the individual states; isn't it true that many state troopers have been laid off due to funding constraints?

 

[kinkmode]

You may be right about being a plumber, but you are definitely wrong about getting an MBA (on its own, an MBA isn't worth s**t). As for being a state trooper, that may depend on the individual states; isn't it true that many state troopers have been laid off due to funding constraints?

I'm not sure. I would imagine with 12-13 years in the system, you'd probably not get laid off. A lot of scientists at my level (postdoc, early career) get laid off too when budgets get cut. A big difference between a state trooper and a scientist is that the trooper would have 13 years in the system, where as the scientist doesn't have much to show for it at all. And the trooper can then look around for positions as a city cop, county sheriff, correctional officer, parole officer, private security, campus security, etc.

And believe me, I have nothing against engineers, state schools, and other things you might think I'm 'arrogant' about. I do have a big problem with really, truly incompetent people talking down to me, which I have encountered quite a bit in the private sector. There are a lot of good people out there, but unfortunately there are lot of bad ones too. Like my ex-supervisor who couldn't email me to tell me my contract was over because he didn't know my last name, all four letters of it.