Finding a Math Job: Preparing Before Graduation

[Locrian]

I tend to resent this whole thing of not being able to speak my mind.

Nobody is telling you that you shouldn't speak your mind. Start a blog. Write an article for a magazine. Shout from your roof.

Speak your mind, but be capable of being appropriate to the time and place.

Answer those questions I listed and let's make sure you're prepared for them. They're the easy ones, but they trip lots of people up.

 

[homeomorphic]

Nobody is telling you that you shouldn't speak your mind. Start a blog. Write an article for a magazine. Shout from your roof.

Speak your mind, but be capable of being appropriate to the time and place.

Well, that's kind of what I was talking about, actually. I'm not saying I have to go around telling everyone everything that's wrong with academia all the time. I was just saying I need to shout from my roof, and maybe people aren't going to like what I say sometimes. But that doesn't have to be part of my job search. On this thread, some people have acted as if somehow this is what's preventing me from getting a job, but it's got nothing to do with it.

Answer those questions I listed and let's make sure you're prepared for them. They're the easy ones, but they trip lots of people up.

Okay, I'll think about it some more.

 

[homeomorphic]

"Why are you changing careers?"

I liked math as an undergraduate and to some extent in graduate school, too, but I found that I wasn't that interested in research-level math. I also realized that I wanted to do something more practical.

"Why aren't you teaching?"

I find teaching stressful, especially when it comes to lower-level math classes. It can be challenging to teach a subject to an audience that doesn't want to be there. Also, I find it draining to prepare for class several times a week with the whole class counting on you. It's also the kind of work that follows you home, and it never really feels like you are really done preparing for a class. You could always spend more time thinking about how to make things better. I'd rather have a job where I'm mostly free to do what I want when I get home.

"Why leave academia?"

I am more interested in putting things into practice in the real world than I am in academic research. I would like to accomplish something more concrete than publishing in math journals.

"Wouldn't you rather be working in the field you studied?"

Any interest I have in math and physics is best left as a hobby for me because I need to have complete freedom to pursue my curiosity wherever it leads, regardless of whether it yields any new ideas or publications. It's unlikely that I would have much to publish because I'm more interested in understanding things that we already know in a more intuitive way than I am in coming up with new results. It's very hard and not very fulfilling to do publishable research if you do not have a burning desire to answer the open questions in the field. Another issue is that to work in the field I studied, I would be required to also work in a different field which I have not studied, namely teaching.

 

[analogdesign]

I think your answers are pretty good except for your answer to "Why aren't you teaching?". I think you should think on that one if plan to apply to an engineering job. What you described as issues you have with teaching are essential aspects of the day-to-day life of a practicing engineer.

Often you have to work with people who are too busy to talk to you. These people could be other engineers, techs, or customers. Everyone is pulled in their own directions and you will have to learn to negotiate with them. How do you convince someone who you don't have any actual power over to do a task that you require in order for you to do your work? This is a hard and stressful problem. Also, you'll be preparing for meetings all the time and at a design review everyone will be counting on you.

And believe me, every engineer on this board will agree with me when I say that engineering is the type of job that follows you home. I have a project due in Sept. and it is already keeping me up some nights wondering how will I ever get it done in time. If you say: "I'd rather have a job where I'm mostly free to do what I want when I get home." most hiring managers will think you aren't engineering material. Every engineer ever feels they are never really done preparing a design or a change order or report whatever.

Some of the things that you don't like about teaching are just aspects of being a professional. That is one of the things that differentiates a professional career. You have to take ownership of your own projects and become self-directed. That means taking your work home with you and doing whatever it takes on occasion to complete your project.

 

[homeomorphic]

I think your answers are pretty good except for your answer to "Why aren't you teaching?". I think you should think on that one if plan to apply to an engineering job. What you described as issues you have with teaching are essential aspects of the day-to-day life of a practicing engineer.

Often you have to work with people who are too busy to talk to you. These people could be other engineers, techs, or customers. Everyone is pulled in their own directions and you will have to learn to negotiate with them. How do you convince someone who you don't have any actual power over to do a task that you require in order for you to do your work? This is a hard and stressful problem. Also, you'll be preparing for meetings all the time and at a design review everyone will be counting on you.

And believe me, every engineer on this board will agree with me when I say that engineering is the type of job that follows you home. I have a project due in Sept. and it is already keeping me up some nights wondering how will I ever get it done in time. If you say: "I'd rather have a job where I'm mostly free to do what I want when I get home." most hiring managers will think you aren't engineering material. Every engineer ever feels they are never really done preparing a design or a change order or report whatever.

Some of the things that you don't like about teaching are just aspects of being a professional. That is one of the things that differentiates a professional career. You have to take ownership of your own projects and become self-directed. That means taking your work home with you and doing whatever it takes on occasion to complete your project.

Hmm. Well, part of me is asking if I really want to be an engineer, then, part of me is thinking, maybe I can't get away from it, no matter what job I get, but part of me is thinking that there's something about teaching that is different in a crucial way. It's hard to pin it down. I think nothing puts you in the spotlight like like teaching. It's not so much fear of public speaking, which I got over. It just has this quality of feeling like there's a gun to my head, which nothing else I've ever done has. My thesis wasn't quite like it, even though the thesis followed me home. The best way to describe my thesis is that it was like having to carry a very heavy weight around wherever I went. But it wasn't the gun-to-my-head feeling that teaching gives me. I could have said that the students gave me poor evaluations and complained about me, but I thought it was better not to reveal that. I could add that the last time I taught, my evaluations were okay.

I think what it is is that with teaching, it's like constantly giving me an extremely unreasonable deadline for a project. Each class feels like a project that, in a reasonable world, I would have 3 weeks to do. I think that might capture what I don't like about it. You just can't expect quality if you make someone teach 3-5 times a week, at least not from me, and it just bothers me that I can't really think things through and do some research on how people respond to each topic, how do the best teachers do it, etc. With years of experience, in the current system, you can keep doing that sort of thing, getting notes from previous years and improving it each time, but it makes for a rough experience for beginners, I think. If it sounds like I'm being a perfectionist about it, it's because I'm terrified of the students judging me and complaining to the department because they really gave me hell, the first few times I taught, and I think I'm scarred for life, after that. There's nothing that scares me like teaching.

Plus, I don't really believe in lecturing predominantly, but I didn't have that much choice, as a grad student. I just thought I shouldn't get all experimental, as a beginning teacher. I experimented with some non-lecturing stuff, but I figured I shouldn't get too fancy with it, with a certain amount of material to cover and not knowing how the students would react, and so on. And I suppose, to be fair to today's lectures, I could say that the students are supposed to do most of the work outside the lecture, so in a way, our educational system isn't actually predominantly lecture-based, anyway (still, the fact is, most people don't have the kind of attention span to get much out of straight lecturing, least of all those college algebra kids).

I don't mind the job following me home to an extent, which is why I said, I'd like to MOSTLY be free to do what I want. I just want some flexibility, rather than something that's a constant nagging thing that's stressing me out for every waking moment. From what I've heard, I think I can get that as an actuary. My understanding is that I would have to work harder during busy seasons and that sort of thing. And then the exam studying, which is a big deal. But that's not a problem, I think. The reason why is that I can slack off on my studying Monday, but that's okay if I make up for it on Tuesday. As long as I'm ready for the exam when it comes. That's another key thing about teaching. You can't miss a beat. The next class is always there.

Whatever job I get, I'll step up to the plate, and do my best at it. If my work follows me home, it follows me home. Can't win 'em all.

It will be better than teaching, though--no doubt about that.

 

[MarneMath]

I'm going to give you what popped into my mind reading your answers as if you were applying to a statistics field.

I find teaching stressful, especially when it comes to lower-level math classes.

So you think working here won't be stressful? Why? Do you think you won't have to teach someone or a group of people something while employed here ever?

It can be challenging to teach a subject to an audience that doesn't want to be there

. Nearly all of my job is teaching a hostile group why I cannot sign off on their proposal because of bad methods. Do you think it's easy understanding the limits of their data and at the same time trying to find a method that will work or a way to collect more data?

Also, I find it draining to prepare for class several times a week with the whole class counting on you.

As a member of a team, I will count on you to prepare daily for meetings, and briefings that we have. As a junior member of team, you be assigned in ordering daily or week operational reports, and I will depend on you for this information? How will I know you won't burn yourself out?

It's also the kind of work that follows you home, and it never really feels like you are really done preparing for a class. You could always spend more time thinking about how to make things better. I'd rather have a job where I'm mostly free to do what I want when I get home.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I think this doesn't nothing to help you.

Overall, I think this answer alone, would make me shred your paperwork. My impression would be that you are a person is more or less a "professional" student, who does best learning, but not producing and doesn't know why hard work means in the industry. Regardless of the truth value, and as someone not inherently bias against a PhD in mathematics, I would much rather have someone with less credential but gives me more of the "team player" vibe.

Another issue I had was this"

It's very hard and not very fulfilling to do publishable research if you do not have a burning desire to answer the open questions in the field. Another issue is that to work in the field I studied, I would be required to also work in a different field which I have not studied, namely teaching.

How productive will you be as part of my team if you are not fulfilled by your job? This would lead me to ask you why you think field xyz would satisfy you enough for you to stay past 6 months or until you are 'drained' again? Also, as a side note, never say you don't want to learn in a different field as part of your job. As a statistician, I had to learn a lot of biology in order to do my job successfully. Even in the Army as an infantryman, I had to learn how to be a private confidant for sexual assault victims. Learning from a different field that your job interacts with is part of career development for most people.

 

[homeomorphic]

So you think working here won't be stressful? Why?

I'm sure most jobs will be a little stressful, but there's something particularly stressful about teaching. I think we'd all agree that lower stress is preferable to very high stress.

Do you think you won't have to teach someone or a group of people something while employed here ever?

Teaching is fine, provided I have sufficient time to prepare or only have to talk to one or a few people at a time.

. Nearly all of my job is teaching a hostile group why I cannot sign off on their proposal because of bad methods. Do you think it's easy understanding the limits of their data and at the same time trying to find a method that will work or a way to collect more data?

Point taken, but perhaps, it's not entirely a bad thing if I don't get hired because I don't fit the job. Kind of like dating. If I have to do some of that, fine, but if that's "most of the job", I have to agree, I shouldn't be doing the job. If there's nothing where I can avoid that, perhaps I just need to become a wiz at advertising for tutoring and make a living doing that. But I'm not convinced every job is like that. I am getting out of academia, partly because I don't like teaching. If all the other jobs are secretly teaching in disguise, then, yeah, fine, I'll just make a living doing the best kind of teaching (for me, anyway), i.e. tutoring. I can deal with not having a lot of money. Money is preferable, but not essential for me, beyond being able to eat and put a roof over my head, etc.

Also, I find it draining to prepare for class several times a week with the whole class counting on you.
As a member of a team, I will count on you to prepare daily for meetings, and briefings that we have. As a junior member of team, you be assigned in ordering daily or week operational reports, and I will depend on you for this information? How will I know you won't burn yourself out?

Hard to be able to compare. As I've said there's nothing that puts you in the spotlight like teaching. If I get to talk to people who are on my level, that's also a whole different ballgame.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I think this doesn't nothing to help you.

Overall, I think this answer alone, would make me shred your paperwork. My impression would be that you are a person is more or less a "professional" student, who does best learning, but not producing and doesn't know why hard work means in the industry. Regardless of the truth value, and as someone not inherently bias against a PhD in mathematics, I would much rather have someone with less credential but gives me more of the "team player" vibe.

Well, the reason I want it is because I've had the polar opposite of that for the last seven years. So, I do know the meaning of hard work. In fact, I know the meaning of being a workaholic, and I'd like to be able to stop being one.

How productive will you be as part of my team if you are not fulfilled by your job?

Okay, I disagree with the logic here. I was not fulfilled by a different job. If I say I am not fulfilled by X, that says nothing about Y. X could be being a barnyard masturbator (someone who masturbates animals to collect their sperm--apparently, this job exists). I've already explained that I'd be more fulfilled by something a bit more practical.

This would lead me to ask you why you think field xyz would satisfy you enough for you to stay past 6 months or until you are 'drained' again?

Well, it took me 9 years of studying math before I was drained, and it's understood that it's a pretty difficult path that only a few people would make it through.

Also, as a side note, never say you don't want to learn in a different field as part of your job. As a statistician, I had to learn a lot of biology in order to do my job successfully. Even in the Army as an infantryman, I had to learn how to be a private confidant for sexual assault victims. Learning from a different field that your job interacts with is part of career development for most people.

Actually, I love learning different fields, if I like the them. I have very wide interests. It's true that if I was a math professor, I'd get to use (more of) what I studied, but I was trying to point out that, as far as learning how to do other things that I didn't study, I wouldn't get away from that by being a math professor. So, in a way, you're kind of stating my point, which is that math doesn't free me from having to adjust to something that I'm not already prepared for.

 

[jasonRF]

Sorry to jump in the middle of this, but as an engineer who has been in industry for well over a decade the "nothing puts you in the spotlight like teaching" comment is interesting. When an engineer has to give an important presentation to a customer, doing a bad job can result in the customer backing out of the current or future projects (depends on contract details...) which can mean not having enough money to pay everyone's paycheck. So I recommend going into an interview with a better answer than that, and realize that part of what you will be paid for is to handle stress and pressure. The lowest stress/pressure jobs where I work are also the lowest paid - a PhD is WAAAAY overqualified for them - and I suspect that the resulting financial pressure at home that goes along with that is worse than what I have to deal with when I bring my work home.

I wish you the best in your job search.

jason

 

[homeomorphic]

Sorry to jump in the middle of this, but as an engineer who has been in industry for well over a decade the "nothing puts you in the spotlight like teaching" comment is interesting. When an engineer has to give an important presentation to a customer, doing a bad job can result in the customer backing out of the current or future projects (depends on contract details...) which can mean not having enough money to pay everyone's paycheck.

Okay, point taken, but how often do you have to do that?

With teaching, you have to do that several times a week. That's a key point. If you have to do it once a month, that's a whole different ballgame. I actually like giving math talks because it's a one shot deal, usually. Of course, there's no denying that lower pressure talks are more pleasant, but even the one that I gave at the conference was a cool experience. True, there were no huge consequences for not doing well, but it was in front of a very large audience of people I didn't know, so I definitely felt a lot of pressure to not make a fool of myself. So, the frequency of having to be in the spotlight is absolutely key to the reason why I don't like teaching. It's a little subtle.

 

[jasonRF]

I really do understand where you are coming from - if I ever have the opportunity to become a manager I will try to gracefully decline since those jobs have the majority of the "bring home the bacon" responsibility. I seldom have to give the high stress presentations - my bosses do it often.

You just need to think of clean, concise answers to these lines of questioning so that your interviewer moves on to the more useful topics, like what you have to offer, how you are interested in working for their company for reasons x,y,z, etc. I would have loved teaching, but the tenure track was such a long shot that I didn't even bother. My response in interviews was along the lines of, "teaching has its appeal, but I am planning on a carreer where I use my skills to more practical ends." Your response will be different, but having a response is important.

I wish you the best!

jason

 

[eigenperson]

I like teaching, but when I have to talk to people about the challenges, I say something like this:

Teaching well is a bit like doing stand-up comedy, except you have to do a completely new routine every time, you have to do this 3-5 times per week for 13 weeks (10 if you're on the quarter system) in a row, and to make matters worse, only half the audience actually wants to be there.

If that rings true for you, tell the interviewer something like that, and emphasize that you would have been fine with being on stage every once in a while -- maybe even once a week, or with repeating the same performance a few times in a row -- but you were ground down by having to turn in a completely new, fully polished stage performance 3 times a week for 13 weeks in a row.

 

[AlephZero]

With teaching, you have to do that several times a week. That's a key point. If you have to do it once a month, that's a whole different ballgame.

That sounds like teaching is a soft option compared with engineering. In industry, for practical purposes you are "selling" yourself 100% your working time.

Assuming you can stop the class from rioting, they don't have much influence on your career prospects. The brightest kids will probably get A grades whether you actually teach them anything or not.

In industry, even at an "ordinary" in-house meeting where there are no customers, your peer group and their managers are judging you, all the time. If you are so badly prepared you are wasting everybody's time, you won't have the option of just "surviving" to the end of your time-slot. More likely you will be told to sit down and shut up - and don't expect anybody to forget that fact quickly.

The same goes for reports that have to be signed off (which is likely to pretty much all of them, when you start). If you end up as the guy holding up the rest of the project, the team leader isn't going to lose much sleep over just giving your task(s) to other people to redo. And don't imagine that everybody on the team (and on other teams around the company) won't get to know about it.

Do that a few times, and you have a reputation to live with...

And on top of that, if you are working for a "high tech" company, sooner or later you get to be the guy with your neck on the line when you said a test costing say $100,000 was going to work, and it doesn't. Sure, they don't take the $100,000 out of your salary, but there are other not-too-subtle ways of reminding you who wasted the money (plus the extra time it takes to redo it right).

 

[micromass]

I don't like the direction this thread is going to. People are starting to act like teaching is some easy job, while engineering is the toughest job of the world (obviously this is a hyperbole, but some people sure act this way here!)

I don't think this thread is the best place to decide which job is the toughest or hardest job. So let's stop these kind of silly comparisons of jobs please.

 

[Physics_UG]

That sounds like teaching is a soft option compared with engineering. In industry, for practical purposes you are "selling" yourself 100% your working time.

Assuming you can stop the class from rioting, they don't have much influence on your career prospects. The brightest kids will probably get A grades whether you actually teach them anything or not.

In industry, even at an "ordinary" in-house meeting where there are no customers, your peer group and their managers are judging you, all the time. If you are so badly prepared you are wasting everybody's time, you won't have the option of just "surviving" to the end of your time-slot. More likely you will be told to sit down and shut up - and don't expect anybody to forget that fact quickly.

The same goes for reports that have to be signed off (which is likely to pretty much all of them, when you start). If you end up as the guy holding up the rest of the project, the team leader isn't going to lose much sleep over just giving your task(s) to other people to redo. And don't imagine that everybody on the team (and on other teams around the company) won't get to know about it.

Do that a few times, and you have a reputation to live with...

And on top of that, if you are working for a "high tech" company, sooner or later you get to be the guy with your neck on the line when you said a test costing say $100,000 was going to work, and it doesn't. Sure, they don't take the $100,000 out of your salary, but there are other not-too-subtle ways of reminding you who wasted the money (plus the extra time it takes to redo it right).

I'm guessing you've never taught a university class before.

 

[micromass]

I'm guessing you've never taught a university class before.

I said it before, but please stop comparing the toughness of various careers. New posts on this subject will be deleted.

 

[MarneMath]

I'm not trying to say that if you dislike teaching that you'll dislike being an engineer. I was merely letting you know what impressions you answers gave me. Therefore, I think you should rethink your answers and try to be positive. It's very off putting to hear anything negative from someone you are interviewing. We're all human, and if you ever make it to an interview room, it would behoove to to spin your bad experiences in a positive light or withhold yourself from saying negative comments. Heck, it's perfectly ok to tell a white lie.

If someone asked me why I didn't want to teach, I would simply reply with, "While I found the work of teaching young minds rewarding, I learned over time that I would prefer to use the analytic skills I learned at graduate school to help solve tough problems in field xyz and bring forth results."

Remember, every question someone ask you is a chance to sell yourself. If you focus too much on just answering the question and not selling yourself, you're doing it wrong.

Anyway, I'm still surprised you haven't gotten any interviews at all. I think your strategy of job hunting is clearly flawed. You don't have to meet every requirement for a job listing, and applying for only jobs online is generally a bad idea. I remember seeing a job listing online asking for a programmer for 5 years experience with android os in 2010. At the time, the OS hasn't even been out for 5 years. To further illustrate the point, a few months after I left my old job, I looked at usajobs at the posting they had for it, and turns out I don't qualify for it :D!

 

[homeomorphic]

Okay, I hope Micromass can hold back because I not comparing toughness of different careers.

That sounds like teaching is a soft option compared with engineering. In industry, for practical purposes you are "selling" yourself 100% your working time.

That's got to be a bit of an exaggeration. If the industry can't take advantage of a good mind with less than stellar sales ability, they must be doing something wrong.

In industry, even at an "ordinary" in-house meeting where there are no customers, your peer group and their managers are judging you, all the time. If you are so badly prepared you are wasting everybody's time, you won't have the option of just "surviving" to the end of your time-slot. More likely you will be told to sit down and shut up - and don't expect anybody to forget that fact quickly.

Ah, peer group. Totally different scenario. Students are not peers. You have a grad student approaching the frontiers of knowledge talking to math-phobic trigonometry students. That's not even close to a peer-to-peer situation. It's taken me years of tutoring to even BEGIN to understand the bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds. I was hardly ever badly prepared for teaching, as far as just being able to present the raw information (well, maybe the delivery could have been better, but the contents were there). That wasn't why the students were upset with me. They were upset with me because I had such a poor understanding of THEM. Talking to peers doesn't scare me.

 

[homeomorphic]

We're all human, and if you ever make it to an interview room, it would behoove to to spin your bad experiences in a positive light or withhold yourself from saying negative comments. Heck, it's perfectly ok to tell a white lie.

See, that's where I have a lot of trouble. I'm a pretty honest person. The idea that I have to hide things and not just be myself is disheartening to me. I can put a spin on it, but I don't want to lie. If I just say, "academia is awesome, but industry is even better," I don't think that's going to make sense to anyone, anyway.

The fact that I left, by itself, is a bit of a give-away, in terms of indicating that I wasn't happy with it. I don't know why anyone would leave it after putting so much work into it if they didn't think it kind of sucked. I can't hide that, anyway.

Anyway, I'm still surprised you haven't gotten any interviews at all. I think your strategy of job hunting is clearly flawed. You don't have to meet every requirement for a job listing, and applying for only jobs online is generally a bad idea.

As far as only applying for jobs online, it's not so much an idea as it is the default of wanting to do SOMETHING. I'm not very good at other ways of doing it, and the job market in the particular town I live is not good for the kind of jobs I'm looking for, to put it mildly. I've had some opportunities come up from networking, but they didn't lead to anything. I'm not very good at it. I can try to apply for jobs where I don't meet the requirements, but it has to be only a minor violation or else I think I'm wasting my time. I went to a couple job fairs, but those tend not to be that productive. They usually just tell me to go to their website and apply.

It's only been a few months since I finished my dissertation, and I started working on things right away, like reading about different jobs, but I didn't start applying to stuff until December. Hasn't been that long.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If the industry can't take advantage of a good mind with less than stellar sales ability, they must be doing something wrong.

There is a very famous saying: "Nothing happens until something gets sold." In business, everything is about sales, and marketing is first and foremost about selling ideas, not products. Deciding you want to be in the business world and not being interested in sales is like wanting to play baseball but not being interested in the little white ball.

The very first idea you have to sell is that it's better for Company XYZ to have you in a nice, air-conditioned office than in a hot warehouse moving boxes from one part to another - or working for another company entirely.

It's taken me years of tutoring to even BEGIN to understand the bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds

I'll give you your first lesson in sales now. In all probability, the person that decides whether to hire you or not probably has a "non-mathematical mind". If you dial back the contempt a few notches, you will go farther.

 

[eigenperson]

What is happening now is a special case of a more general phenomenon that you will encounter when you do get an interview. That phenomenon is as follows. At some point the interviewer will ask you something like "What are you looking for in a job?" If your answer contains phrases like "I'm looking for a job that doesn't involve doing X," then regardless of what X is, the interviewer will say "Well, actually, in this job, we do have to do X."

This isn't because they enjoy watching the interviewee get flustered. It's because if you say "I don't want to lift heavy objects" they immediately think, "Well, we obviously don't do that much, but there was that one time a year ago when I had to put the widgets on top of the thingimabob... if this guy had been in my position, would he have had a panic attack? He clearly cares a lot about not lifting heavy objects if he brought it up in the job interview."

So, don't say "I don't want to do this" in the job interview, or on the cover letter, or elsewhere.

The fact is, at many companies, you will not be asked to do any sales work. But you still might have to! What if the client is invited to come visit the office and just happens to pop into your cube? What if you are out to lunch with the boss and his friend at Company X sees you and your boss invites her to join you? If you make the interviewer think you aren't suited for sales, he or she will instantly think about that kind of scenario.

 

[homeomorphic]

There is a very famous saying: "Nothing happens until something gets sold." In business, everything is about sales, and marketing is first and foremost about selling ideas, not products. Deciding you want to be in the business world and not being interested in sales is like wanting to play baseball but not being interested in the little white ball.

The very first idea you have to sell is that it's better for Company XYZ to have you in a nice, air-conditioned office than in a hot warehouse moving boxes from one part to another - or working for another company entirely.

I didn't say NO sales ability, I said less than stellar.

I'll give you your first lesson in sales now. In all probability, the person that decides whether to hire you or not probably has a "non-mathematical mind". If you dial back the contempt a few notches, you will go farther.

There's really not any contempt, you just put it there. I was merely stating it's hard for me to fathom, which is just a cold, hard fact. Plus, I'm not sure I'll be talking to the person who hires me about math. I mean, I think non-mathematical minds are not that different when the subject is not math, which is obviously the context in which I have trouble understanding them.

 

[homeomorphic]

What is happening now is a special case of a more general phenomenon that you will encounter when you do get an interview. That phenomenon is as follows. At some point the interviewer will ask you something like "What are you looking for in a job?" If your answer contains phrases like "I'm looking for a job that doesn't involve doing X," then regardless of what X is, the interviewer will say "Well, actually, in this job, we do have to do X."

This assumes I am willing to take a job involving X. It's more a question of not too much of X, for most things. If it involves too much of X, it may very well be the case that it wouldn't even be a good idea for me to take the job. Of course, it is better to be a position where I get to decide, rather than them. However, I might not find out that it involves too much X until it is too late. So, it's probably better to not mention it, but I don't think that's completely one-sided, either. As I said, I'm willing to put a spin on my answers, but not to lie, even if it's a white lie. Maybe half-lie at most.

 

[eigenperson]

Plus, I'm not sure I'll be talking to the person who hires me about math.

Actually, I would suggest that you come up with brief descriptions of what kind of research you did that are suitable for job interviews, because people will ask. When they do, that gives you the opportunity to impress them with the fact that you can distill 4 years or more of advanced mathematical research into a 30-second-or-less sound bite that they can understand.

Of course, this is easy for me to say as a combinatorialist -- I could describe whatever problem I'm working on at the moment to the person in the next seat on the plane if I had to. You will have to work a bit harder, so prepare your blurb in advance. Remember, they're not really asking you to tell them what your thesis, specifically, was about, but rather to give them a flavor of what a topologist does all day, so if you have to tell them someone else's problem, or even a problem that was solved 100 years ago, that's fine. Heck, if you want, tell them about the Euler characteristic, or donuts and coffee cups. Just be sure to preface it with "Here's an example of the kind of thing I worked on" so you aren't lying.

 

[TMFKAN64]

In my long career in engineering, I think there are two important lessons that it took me a very long time to learn:
1) Sales and marketing rule the world. Those guys make the money, but as an engineer, you just spend it. You are necessary, but so are the janitors.
2) The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

 

[homeomorphic]

The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

Difficult isn't really the right word for me. Anyone who knows me would seriously probably be on the floor laughing about me being considered difficult. There are certain ways in which I can be difficult, but on the whole, no. Maybe not outgoing, not personable, and a little stubborn on the odd occasion, but not difficult.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Maybe not outgoing, not personable, and a little stubborn on the odd occasion, but not difficult.

Don't underestimate the importance of outgoing and personable though. These also win over "brilliant".

You have to fit into the group. No one wants to hire a square peg, brilliant or otherwise, if you need to fill a round hole.

 

[homeomorphic]

Don't underestimate the importance of outgoing and personable though. These also win over "brilliant".

You have to fit into the group. No one wants to hire a square peg, brilliant or otherwise, if you need to fill a round hole.

Absolutely. That's one of the challenges I face. I'm working on it, but at the end of the day, if I can only improve so much because it's just not my strong suit, I just have to make the best of what I have. I got close to being suicidal about it as a teenager because I foresaw all the difficulties that were ahead, which actually did come true to a large extent, but what I learned back then is that I just have to do what I can, but if I can only do so much, I just can't let it get to me. I have to say look at all the bad stuff that happens and say, "so what?"

Not be complacent, but never the less try to be happy with whatever happens because some challenges might just be too hard for me, even if I try my best. My thesis was so traumatic it made me lose my grip on that, but I think I'm getting it back.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In my long career in engineering, I think there are two important lessons that it took me a very long time to learn:
1) Sales and marketing rule the world. Those guys make the money, but as an engineer, you just spend it. You are necessary, but so are the janitors.
2) The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

As far as point (1) is concerned, this may be true in engineering but in the pharma/biotech industry where I've worked in, professional sales/marketing people were the very first people to end up being laid off whenever there was any form of corporate restructuring.

Agree completely with point (2) in virtually any industry.

 

[Lavabug]

In my long career in engineering, I think there are two important lessons that it took me a very long time to learn:
1) Sales and marketing rule the world. Those guys make the money, but as an engineer, you just spend it. You are necessary, but so are the janitors.
2) The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

My brother is an engineer at a big teleco company. He hires people and agrees with this statement, but he also says that the 'easiest' person to hire (ie the people who pass the silly behavioral questions with flying colors) is not necessarily the best one for the company, especially when they lack technical expertise. He says there are at least a dozen people in his dept. costing the company a ton of money while being less productive than the lowest of the entry levels.

So the value system for hiring based mostly on 'people skills' and 'politics' at his job is inherently flawed and not something good for business in the long run. I presume this problem plagues most of the private sector and is the main reason PhD's have such a hard time transitioning into industry.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's really not any contempt, you just put it there.

OK, but why did I put it there? And why do you think the person who makes the hiring decision won't put it there either? You were the one who said their minds worked bizarrely, not me. Right?

 

[homeomorphic]

OK, but why did I put it there?

I admit it's not a far-fetched interpretation, but neither is it a correct one. I guess you have to anticipate people making assumptions.

And why do you think the person who makes the hiring decision won't put it there either?

Why would I be saying that to the person who makes the hiring decision? Some issue like this could come up. But I can't predict every little assumption everyone is going to make. Sometimes, I'm going to have to live with being misjudged.

You were the one who said their minds worked bizarrely, not me. Right?

So what? I was just trying to convey the idea that it's hard for me to understand how they work. I am not judging them for that. That's what you put there. I'm normally very patient and understanding with my students, although sometimes I come across someone who takes me out of my comfort zone that I have built up in their lack of math skills, and I can't help but be a little shocked. Even then, I keep my shock to myself, and it's not like I don't like them because of it.

 

[tyjae]

My brother is an engineer at a big teleco company. He hires people and agrees with this statement, but he also says that the 'easiest' person to hire (ie the people who pass the silly behavioral questions with flying colors) is not necessarily the best one for the company, especially when they lack technical expertise. He says there are at least a dozen people in his dept. costing the company a ton of money while being less productive than the lowest of the entry levels.

So the value system for hiring based mostly on 'people skills' and 'politics' at his job is inherently flawed and not something good for business in the long run. I presume this problem plagues most of the private sector and is the main reason PhD's have such a hard time transitioning into industry.

TMFKAN64 is right on for the most part but i disagree with your assessment that "behavioral" interviews produce less effective employees . As an engineer you have to step back and have faith that "Marketing" guys know more about making money than you. The behavioral interviews are VERY necessary IMO as they access your approach to solving problems and not your technical abilities. What makes you think a PHD proves you will be productive? if any thing it proves you would be less. Private sector views academia as slow and ineffective. The private sector wants results not PHDs. As far as "People Skills" and "Politics" its very simple it makes MONEY period point blank end of discussion.

I'm in Manufacturing field if i can form bonds with cable splicers,linemen, or engineers at the utilities companies we sell MORE products to them and if they are national rather than regional we gain more customers

 

[Lavabug]

TMFKAN64 is right on for the most part but i disagree with your assessment that "behavioral" interviews produce less effective employees .

Did I say that? I said ONLY people who are good at the behavioral aspect and have no technical expertise. And it's not my really my own assessment, rather that of someone who actually works in the field at a high level. Hiring mistakes like these are hurting his business, not making it better.

What makes you think a PHD proves you will be productive? if any thing it proves you would be less. Private sector views academia as slow and ineffective. The private sector wants results not PHDs.

And what makes you think a highly trained PhD cannot produce results? Perhaps faster ones and ones that are more quantitatively sound? This is a fallacy that seems all too common, unfortunately.

There are numerous examples here (kinkmode is the most immediate one that comes to mind) of people with PhD's who are exceptionally more qualified for many jobs than many of the senior personnel at companies, yet they were turned down, most likely because in some environments being more educated is seen as a hamperment instead of an asset, erroneously. (ie: read some of kinkmode's posts about his time at a nuclear power plant, where he was barred from advancing. There, many senior personnel were incapable of doing macro's in excel or engaged in dangerous practices on the job when they should really know better. I am hoping they were not engineers.).

As far as "People Skills" and "Politics" its very simple it makes MONEY period point blank end of discussion.

Nice interpersonal skills and conversational flexibility there.

I don't want to go into the details of a meeting my brother had to partake in recently for privacy reasons, but it exposed one person who made it through the ranks that they had literally no idea what they were talking about (technicality wise) and their assessments were completely demolished by the more technically savvy. Had the person's suggestions gone through, it would've cost the company a lot of money since it had a negligible chance of return on investment. Sounds a lot like a thesis evaluation panel to me, where world experts are flown into pick apart your arguments in vivo.

At the end of the day, it's my engineering bro with 2 decades in the field's assessment and not mine. FWIW, he said he would hire me if it weren't for the risk of nepotism accusations, because he claims I -a milk on his lips Physics graduate- am better qualified than many of the people he has to hire from the pool that made it through the HR filters, and it wasn't an attempt to flatter me. I can only imagine how much more productive I would be if I had the programming and experimental experience of a Physics PhD under my belt.

 

[tyjae]

And what makes you think a highly trained PhD cannot produce results? Perhaps faster ones and ones that are more quantitatively sound? This is a fallacy that seems all too common, unfortunately.

It's based on perception not fact. I don't know why it's there but it is. The engineers in private sector view academic professors or PHDed folks as not up being great at solving problems. I'm not saying i agree. There are technical fellowships that require PHDs but they aren't given to people who don't have real world experience. From my point of view, i love that there are MBAs and marketing guys who play a role in what we produce. They keep customer expectations in check a lot of times. As engineers, we sometimes get into the "Laputans" mind set of looking at things.

 

[Lavabug]

It's based on perception not fact I don't know why it's there but it is. The engineers in private sector view academic professors or PHDed folks as not up being great at solving problems. I'm not saying i agree.

I hope you don't. I know it's the perception, and it is unfortunate both for PhD's who want a job in industry and for industries that are missing out on very productive hires because of their narrow-sighted judgement.

Maybe we'll see a population inversion in the future and this will cease to be a problem for PhD's in 10 years time. Today, it looks like the MS/MA is becoming the new high school diploma for technical industries...

 

[TMFKAN64]

Did I say that? I said ONLY people who are good at the behavioral aspect and have no technical expertise. And it's not my really my own assessment, rather that of someone who actually works in the field at a high level. Hiring mistakes like these are hurting his business, not making it better.

Going back to my post, I will point out that I said "Good enough, and easy to work with" (with new emphasis). No one argues that if you are hiring technical people, technical expertise is important. A successful hire is going to have both technical proficiency *and* an ability to work as part of a team.

The point that I was trying to make is that I think that a lot of engineers and scientists suffer from the "build a better mousetrap" syndrome... that the technical side of things is the end-all and be-all of existence. This isn't surprising... it's why we are engineers and scientists in the first place. But it's only part of the equation... and not necessarily even the most important part.

 

[Locrian]

I liked math as an undergraduate and to some extent in graduate school, too, but I found that I wasn't that interested in research-level math. I also realized that I wanted to do something more practical.

That's a great answer. Make sure you can say it clearly and smoothly and with a smile. I like this because it doesn't talk down about what you've done, but it does talk up what you'd like to do. It's also good because you're turning the question back to what actually matters - the job. Your past is just a bump to get past.

If they keep probing you about what you did, have some things you're proud of ready. Obviously math didn't work out in the end, but surely you did some things you'd enjoy telling them about. Don't go into gory details - if you said something like "One week I made a connection between these two differing areas that really helped me with something I was working on that made me proud", it goes a long way. Again, you want to move the discussion forward, but if they ask you about the past, be positive.

I find teaching stressful, especially when it comes to lower-level math classes. It can be challenging to teach a subject to an audience that doesn't want to be there. Also, I find it draining to prepare for class several times a week with the whole class counting on you. It's also the kind of work that follows you home, and it never really feels like you are really done preparing for a class. You could always spend more time thinking about how to make things better. I'd rather have a job where I'm mostly free to do what I want when I get home.

This is a disaster and you should take responses such as analogdesign's seriously. You should try creating a response to this question again, but make the following changes:

• Remove all negative statements, such as it being too stressful
• Shorten it to two or three sentences
• Use the last sentence to turn attention back to the job

Here's how I would honestly answer this question: "I actually love engaging directly with people and teaching them something new. As strange as this sounds, that is not the majority of the work a teacher does. If I had the chance someday to help someone new at this company learn the ropes, I'd enjoy that, and I wouldn't have to grade any papers!"

That's just an example - rule #1 is to not say anything that's untrue. Maybe it will help you build a response.

I am more interested in putting things into practice in the real world than I am in academic research. I would like to accomplish something more concrete than publishing in math journals.

This is pretty good. Understand that people may make snarky comments about the work - it doesn't always feel like the work you're doing is concrete, even in jobs where it should be. Still, anything is concrete compared to publishing topology related papers in journals, so I guess it works.

Any interest I have in math and physics is best left as a hobby for me because I need to have complete freedom to pursue my curiosity wherever it leads, regardless of whether it yields any new ideas or publications. It's unlikely that I would have much to publish because I'm more interested in understanding things that we already know in a more intuitive way than I am in coming up with new results. It's very hard and not very fulfilling to do publishable research if you do not have a burning desire to answer the open questions in the field. Another issue is that to work in the field I studied, I would be required to also work in a different field which I have not studied, namely teaching.

Blah. Too long. Too wandering. Look, there are topics where some exposition is warranted. This isn't one of them. The reality is that your reasons for not working in that field don't actually matter. They don't even matter to the interviewer.

What really matters are questions like "Does this person really want to work at this company?" Or, "Is this person going to leave as soon as a job in academia opens up?"

Try this again but make the following changes:

• Reduce it to two to three sentences
• Try to bring the focus back to the job
• Make it clear that you are not working in academia, period (without even saying why)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I encourage you to see the interview as a test, with right and wrong answers. Any answer that is misleading or a lie is automatically wrong. However, most answers that are true are also wrong, too. You want the answer that is both true and right.

 

[Mark44]

It's taken me years of tutoring to even BEGIN to understand the bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds

I'll give you your first lesson in sales now. In all probability, the person that decides whether to hire you or not probably has a "non-mathematical mind". If you dial back the contempt a few notches, you will go farther.

There's really not any contempt, you just put it there. I was merely stating it's hard for me to fathom, which is just a cold, hard fact. Plus, I'm not sure I'll be talking to the person who hires me about math. I mean, I think non-mathematical minds are not that different when the subject is not math, which is obviously the context in which I have trouble understanding them.

I have to agree with Vanadium - "bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds" is at the very least extremely patronizing if not actually dripping with contempt.

 

[AlephZero]

Any interest I have in math and physics is best left as a hobby for me because I need to have complete freedom to pursue my curiosity wherever it leads, regardless of whether it yields any new ideas or publications. It's unlikely that I would have much to publish because I'm more interested in understanding things that we already know in a more intuitive way than I am in coming up with new results.

I would say that's not just "Too long, Too wandering" but sending out completely the wrong message.

You are not going to be employed to "understand things in a more intuitive way", or "pursue your curiosity wherever it leads". In an entry level job you are employed to do what you are told to do - preferably done on time, and done right.

We once hired a guy who pretty much fitted the description of your quote - he must have been smart enough that we didn't pick it up in the interview. Most days, he came up with good ideas for two or three new PhD-level research projects. The only problems were

(1) He never actually accomplished anything, except coming up with lots of good research ideas.
(2) Most days, he took several hours of working time away from people who did accomplish things, explaining and asking questions about his latest idea.

Thankfully, he got bored and left before we fired him.

 

[homeomorphic]

Here's how I would honestly answer this question: "I actually love engaging directly with people and teaching them something new. As strange as this sounds, that is not the majority of the work a teacher does. If I had the chance someday to help someone new at this company learn the ropes, I'd enjoy that, and I wouldn't have to grade any papers!"

That's just an example - rule #1 is to not say anything that's untrue. Maybe it will help you build a response.

Well, I guess I'm kind of stumped on how to answer the teaching one, since the real answer is just that I don't like it. I like tutoring. Teaching, I just plain don't like and don't think I'm good at. It doesn't make sense for me to be doing something I'm not good at for a living.

I have to agree with Vanadium - "bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds" is at the very least extremely patronizing if not actually dripping with contempt.

You can think that all you want, but the fact remains that there was no actual feeling of contempt behind it. Puzzlement. Not contempt. You have to realize this seems innocuous to an insane degree to me. It's really hard for me to predict that people's reactions to me. It's just walking on eggshells all the time. No, I can't see all these coming. I'm sorry. People are going to have to just think I'm a jerk sometimes, if they are so over-sensitive because I guess I'm just not that discerning when it comes to this stuff. I mean, from my point of view, this seems extreme to take every comment I make so seriously. It's not even that I think that they are stupid. It's just that there current skill level is like puzzle to me. That's all it is. They might even be secretly good at math, for all I know. Doesn't mean it's not hard to understand their difficulties.

Indeed, in practice, it is only rather rarely that I make a remark that people take the wrong way. Doesn't everyone do that sometimes?

Most of my students that I tutor think highly of me and only on one occasion can I recall that one of them felt put down when I, out of concern for her, informed her that she seemed to be missing some of the prerequisite knowledge for the class (perhaps, there were a few who kept silent about it, but I highly doubt it was much more than that one). I tried to reassure her that I was not judging her, just trying to let her know what was normally expected, coming into the class, and maybe it worked, I don't know.

The only real contempt I have for the students (the ones I had to teach, not tutor) is for their readiness to complain to the department and make my life difficult, even though I was trying my best. They were just plain mean to me. Not without reason, but really a bit on the cruel side. If you want to see what REAL contempt looks like, look at my first teaching evaluations. That's contempt.

 

[homeomorphic]

Blah. Too long. Too wandering. Look, there are topics where some exposition is warranted. This isn't one of them. The reality is that your reasons for not working in that field don't actually matter. They don't even matter to the interviewer.

What really matters are questions like "Does this person really want to work at this company?" Or, "Is this person going to leave as soon as a job in academia opens up?"

Try this again but make the following changes:
Reduce it to two to three sentences
Try to bring the focus back to the job
Make it clear that you are not working in academia, period (without even saying why)

Well, I'll have to think about it. I suppose part of my reasoning is that it seemed more convincing to give a reason for leaving academia.

You are not going to be employed to "understand things in a more intuitive way", or "pursue your curiosity wherever it leads".

Yeah, but you have to understand that I am saying that very specifically in the context of math and physics. That's not really how I think of working in industry. I'm thinking of it more as a way to make a living, rather than an outlet for my intellectual curiosity, alone, so it's not the same as math and physics were. I could see some issues if there was too much stuff that I didn't understand for myself, but it's my suspicion that, even if that isn't "what I'm employed to do", I can still have what I want in that regard. If I have to, I'll just work that much harder to gain the understanding that I'd like and still have time to get the job done. It's also hard to pin down exactly what is going to get on my nerves in this regard. I think I'm somewhat flexible here, especially, given that, as I said, I'm thinking of it more as a job.

In an entry level job you are employed to do what you are told to do - preferably done on time, and done right.

That's fine with me. Anything sounds pretty exciting to me, as long as it's not math research at this point. So, for the next couple years, I think I'm good. Heck, if you paid me to memorize equations by rote and plug numbers straight into them without questioning, after that PhD, I'd be happy to oblige. I'd just be so thrilled that I'm not writing my dissertation. Beyond a couple years, though, I have to think carefully about whether I can go the long haul. I'm really starting to think this actuary thing could be a good gig for me. Just enough to keep me from being bored, but simple enough not to wear me out, plus the way the job seems to be structured, making great money.

We once hired a guy who pretty much fitted the description of your quote - he must have been smart enough that we didn't pick it up in the interview. Most days, he came up with good ideas for two or three new PhD-level research projects. The only problems were

(1) He never actually accomplished anything, except coming up with lots of good research ideas.
(2) Most days, he took several hours of working time away from people who did accomplish things, explaining and asking questions about his latest idea.

Thankfully, he got bored and left before we fired him.

Yeah, I don't have lots of good research ideas. I'm sure I can get results. As I said, I'm not going into it with the same idea that I had going into academia at all. It's a fresh start, for me.

The thing about engineering is that it's hard to picture what the actual job is like because, even though I studied EE a lot more than CS, there seems to be a bigger gap between engineering school and actual practice. In the context of programming, I really don't see myself having any of these kinds of issues at all because I know what it's like to write code. The understanding I like to have would all be in place already. All that remains is to apply it. That goes for anything. If I already understand it, I'm good. So for example, probably something like 50% of the undergraduate EE curriculum is already taken care of in that regard. Already got the understanding. No one can take it away. So, I'd be good to go. I don't need to understand it better than I do, already. I'm happy to apply what I know. That's a very different thing from some crazy subject like the topology of 4-manifolds. I already understand electrical circuits or Maxwell's equations and a lot of stuff. My work is done there and that's the point. And if it's not done, it's not that hard. It's not the Poincare conjecture. No need to probe deeper, no need to prove everything rigorously. Already understand or can understand.

 

[jesse73]

Yeah, but you have to understand that I am saying that very specifically in the context of math and physics. That's not really how I think of working in industry. I'm thinking of it more as a way to make a living, rather than an outlet for my intellectual curiosity, alone, so it's not the same as math and physics were. I could see some issues if there was too much stuff that I didn't understand for myself, but it's my suspicion that, even if that isn't "what I'm employed to do", I can still have what I want in that regard. If I have to, I'll just work that much harder to gain the understanding that I'd like and still have time to get the job done. It's also hard to pin down exactly what is going to get on my nerves in this regard. I think I'm somewhat flexible here, especially, given that, as I said, I'm thinking of it more as a job.

I think he understood the context but your answer sounds like you "just want to make a living" which is fine but not really the answer they are looking for. I would just avoid the topic.

 

[homeomorphic]

I think he understood the context but your answer sounds like you "just want to make a living" which is fine but not really the answer they are looking for.

Looks to me like he missed the context because he thinks I'm like the guy he hired (I find the thought that I would be like that mildly amusing--can't picture it).

I would just avoid the topic.

Well, I am going to have to rethink it, but maybe I could add that I actually WANT to apply the stuff I ALREADY understand, rather than having to understand more and more stuff.

 

[Mark44]

Tip: when you quote someone, include who said it, like this:
quote=Bob Blah, blah, blah. /quote

I have to agree with Vanadium - "bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds" is at the very least extremely patronizing if not actually dripping with contempt.

You can think that all you want, but the fact remains that there was no actual feeling of contempt behind it.

Whether there was or wasn't a feeling of contempt, it still comes across that way. If you come across an obese person, and you say -- "You're really fat." -- you might rationalize this as a neutral observer merely stating a fact, but it would come across as very insulting.

Puzzlement. Not contempt.
You have to realize this seems innocuous to an insane degree to me. It's really hard for me to predict that people's reactions to me. It's just walking on eggshells all the time. No, I can't see all these coming. I'm sorry. People are going to have to just think I'm a jerk sometimes, if they are so over-sensitive because I guess I'm just not that discerning when it comes to this stuff.

Which will make it that much more difficult to get a job that involves working with other people.

I mean, from my point of view, this seems extreme to take every comment I make so seriously. It's not even that I think that they are stupid. It's just that there current skill level is like puzzle to me. That's all it is. They might even be secretly good at math, for all I know. Doesn't mean it's not hard to understand their difficulties.

Indeed, in practice, it is only rather rarely that I make a remark that people take the wrong way. Doesn't everyone do that sometimes?

Several times in this long thread I've noticed that people respond to something you've said, and your reply to them is something like, "I'm not really like that. It's only rarely that ..."

Most of my students that I tutor think highly of me and only on one occasion can I recall that one of them felt put down when I, out of concern for her, informed her that she seemed to be missing some of the prerequisite knowledge for the class (perhaps, there were a few who kept silent about it, but I highly doubt it was much more than that one). I tried to reassure her that I was not judging her, just trying to let her know what was normally expected, coming into the class, and maybe it worked, I don't know.

The only real contempt I have for the students (the ones I had to teach, not tutor) is for their readiness to complain to the department and make my life difficult, even though I was trying my best. They were just plain mean to me. Not without reason, but really a bit on the cruel side.

"Not without reason" makes me suspicious. I taught math for 21+ years, one year as a college TA, two years in a very small high school, and eighteen years in a community college, teaching the first two years of college math. My classes were generally five days a week, three quarters per year plus a couple of classes in summer school. In most of those classes students had the opportunity to provide feedback of my teaching. I have to wonder what you were doing to get your students so angry that they would complain to the department head or whatever.

If you want to see what REAL contempt looks like, look at my first teaching evaluations. That's contempt.

Or maybe, what goes around, comes around.

 

[homeomorphic]

Several times in this long thread I've noticed that people respond to something you've said, and your reply to them is something like, "I'm not really like that. It's only rarely that ..."

Maybe it's something about the thread that is making me come under fire. I'm not used to this. I'm generally known as one of the nicest guys around.

Not without reason" makes me suspicious. I taught math for 21+ years, one year as a college TA, two years in a very small high school, and eighteen years in a community college, teaching the first two years of college math. My classes were generally five days a week, three quarters per year plus a couple of classes in summer school. In most of those classes students had the opportunity to provide feedback of my teaching. I have to wonder what you were doing to get your students so angry that they would complain to the department head or whatever.

Hint: it took them like 1-2 weeks. One time, my recitation students complained on the first day. I'm just that uncharismatic, boring, and not understandable when I lecture. If you want something more specific, they said I was nervous, didn't finish my sentences, didn't explain things well. Not one person said that I was arrogant or put them down or any such nonsense because that didn't happen. I just didn't know what I was doing.

Or maybe, what goes around, comes around.

I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't know how to teach them and that's all there was to it. In the second class I taught, someone even said "he's a nice guy and it's not his fault, but..."

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hint: it took them like 1-2 weeks. One time, my recitation students complained on the first day. I'm just that uncharismatic, boring, and not understandable when I lecture. If you want something more specific, they said I was nervous, didn't finish my sentences, didn't explain things well. Not one person said that I was arrogant or put them down or any such nonsense because that didn't happen. I just didn't know what I was doing.



I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't know how to teach them and that's all there was to it. In the second class I taught, someone even said "he's a nice guy and it's not his fault, but..."

I have a question for you; what is the tone of your voice when you speak publically? Do you have a tendency to speak in a monotone? Do you sound tired or weary? Do you have a nasal voice or a quiet voice? Because the complaint of being "uncharismatic, boring, not understandable" could have a lot to do with how you speak publically. And this is going to be a problem for you in the working world, because at some point or another you will have to give presentations to working groups explaining your work and you need to keep them engaged. Some people have a natural tendency in the tone of their voice to sound exciting or charismatic, while others do not.

The good news is that these things can be mitigated or corrected through practice. Ask someone (a friend, fellow grad student, someone you know, etc.) to hear you present on a topic, any topic (even reading out of a book) and ask for honest feedback and constructive criticism. Then consider taking a public speaking course or join Toastmasters and work on your public speaking skills. Working on such skills can do wonders in both boosting your confidence when giving speeches and making yourself more presentable in a work setting.

 

[Mark44]

homeomorphic, please use the Quote button so that whom you're replying to is identified. It looks like you are using just [ quote ] and [ /quote ] tags. To put a name with what you're quoting, add "=<user_name>" right after the word quote in the first tag, with no spaces between "quote", "=", and <user_name>. With over 900 posts to your credit in this forum, I'm surprised that you don't seem to know how to do this.

... I have to wonder what you were doing to get your students so angry that they would complain to the department head or whatever.

Hint: it took them like 1-2 weeks. One time, my recitation students complained on the first day. I'm just that uncharismatic, boring, and not understandable when I lecture. If you want something more specific, they said I was nervous, didn't finish my sentences, didn't explain things well. Not one person said that I was arrogant or put them down or any such nonsense because that didn't happen. I just didn't know what I was doing.

When you mentioned the student complaints earlier, you didn't provide any details about the nature of the complaints, saying only that they were full of contempt, and "not without reason." I could only conjecture about what the reason possibly could be.

From your description, your experience at teaching was certainly disastrous. Aside from having mastery of the subject, a teacher has to be something of an actor giving a performance. You need to speak in a voice that can be heard, with sentences that can be clearly understood. Being nervous at first is understandable, but practice can help to overcome nervousness. I can see that students would pick up on your not being able to explain a concept or equation in different words, or leaving a sentence unfinished. If this happened only rarely, I doubt that students would notice, but if it happened a lot, I'm not surprised that they would comment on it.

Was this the only experience you had at teaching? I would assume that you were in your doctoral program for 5 years at the very least, and probably longer. Often students in these programs are offered TA positions where they teach a class, and earn a stipend to help offset the cost of the degree. When I was getting my master's, I had a TA for the three quarters of my second year, and taught classes in two of those quarters. I had something of an advantage in having already taught in a high school for two years, so standing at the front of a class wasn't alien to me.

 

[Locrian]

Well, I'll have to think about it.

Why? What exactly needs thinking over?

These are (a few of) the easy questions used to cull the unprepared. You don’t need a day or even an hour to think of a reply. It should take you a few minutes to knock out a solid answer, post and move on.

PhD candidates' ability to turn the tiniest tasks into research projects is a weakness, not a strength.

 

[homeomorphic]

I have a question for you; what is the tone of your voice when you speak publically? Do you have a tendency to speak in a monotone? Do you sound tired or weary? Do you have a nasal voice or a quiet voice?

Not nasal or quiet, but the rest might apply.

Because the complaint of being "uncharismatic, boring, not understandable" could have a lot to do with how you speak publically.

That wasn't from the students directly. That's just my own self-deprecation.

The good news is that these things can be mitigated or corrected through practice. Ask someone (a friend, fellow grad student, someone you know, etc.) to hear you present on a topic, any topic (even reading out of a book) and ask for honest feedback and constructive criticism. Then consider taking a public speaking course or join Toastmasters and work on your public speaking skills. Working on such skills can do wonders in both boosting your confidence when giving speeches and making yourself more presentable in a work setting.

Well, at least I don't really get nervous anymore, so that's one thing I gained from teaching and giving talks. There's a lot of stuff for me to work on. Kind of overwhelming.

When you mentioned the student complaints earlier, you didn't provide any details about the nature of the complaints, saying only that they were full of contempt, and "not without reason." I could only conjecture about what the reason possibly could be.

Conjecture away, but whatever it is, I can almost guarantee it's wrong. I told you the concrete things they said in their complaints, at least from what I remember. I was never angry or yelled at them or anything. At least as far as I could tell, there wasn't anything that I did wrong, except not know what to do. The complaints to the department were not full of contempt. That was the complaints on the student evaluations. I have been a student, too. There was a math teacher I had who people didn't like too much in high school. I think he wasn't a bad guy. He might have gotten angry a few times or something. He just came across as kind of lame and nerdy or something and people judged him for it (that, and perhaps not being the best teacher). It's not like you have to commit a high crime for them to judge you.

From your description, your experience at teaching was certainly disastrous. Aside from having mastery of the subject, a teacher has to be something of an actor giving a performance. You need to speak in a voice that can be heard, with sentences that can be clearly understood. Being nervous at first is understandable, but practice can help to overcome nervousness. I can see that students would pick up on your not being able to explain a concept or equation in different words, or leaving a sentence unfinished. If this happened only rarely, I doubt that students would notice, but if it happened a lot, I'm not surprised that they would comment on it.

I don't have a problem with what the students did, except, first of all, they should have complained to me first, not the department, and secondly, all the insults on the evaluations were inappropriate and nonconstructive by any standards. My voice could be heard, but was a little flat and monotone, and that's one reason why they didn't like me.

Was this the only experience you had at teaching?

Two classes in a masters program. One summer class later in the PhD program. And recitations.

I would assume that you were in your doctoral program for 5 years at the very least, and probably longer.

Seven.

Often students in these programs are offered TA positions where they teach a class, and earn a stipend to help offset the cost of the degree. When I was getting my master's, I had a TA for the three quarters of my second year, and taught classes in two of those quarters. I had something of an advantage in having already taught in a high school for two years, so standing at the front of a class wasn't alien to me.

Some people in the program taught every semester. I only taught one summer. Partly by choice because I wanted to do different things sometimes, but they wouldn't let me teach anything besides recitations. The time I taught my own class it actually went reasonably well. What didn't go well was the insane amount of work I put into do that. No matter how hard I tried, I still suffered from a lack of charisma and my evaluations didn't get much better than lukewarm.

Why? What exactly needs thinking over?

Clearly, this is more difficult for me than it is for you. I'm kind of just procrastinating on it, I guess. The actual thinking might not take that long. The teaching one is really pretty difficult, though.

These are (a few of) the easy questions used to cull the unprepared. You don’t need a day or even an hour to think of a reply. It should take you a few minutes to knock out a solid answer, post and move on.

Well, a job is not on the line right now, and I can take advantage of that, so I did.

PhD candidates' ability to turn the tiniest tasks into research projects is a weakness, not a strength.

This is a procrastination thing, not a research thing. Also, there's other stuff in my life besides this thread. Right now, for example, I still haven't had breakfast, so I'm going to go do that.

 

[psparky]

I just skimmed through this thread and I can't help but ask myself...what SKILLS do you possesses besides your Math degree? Then I was thinking, an employer might just ask the same question. I'm not implying you don't have skils, just stating that revealing your overall skills may help with this thread.

Are you handy with fixing cars?
Home construction/remodeling?
How about fixing/trouble shooting computers?
Any good with art work?
People skills...are people drawn to you?
Performed any surgeries?...lol, kidding.
Speak more than one language?
etc...etc...etc...

If I were an employer, I would ask these questions. The things I mention above tend to help people in the workplace. And if the answer was no to all of them...I would say...ok...what do you do?

Also, you may want to consider some CHANGE...you seem very stuck in your ways. Almost everyone needs some sort of CHANGE to help them succeed in life. Especially when unemployed.