Engineering Many rejections - Not knowing why

[f95toli]

@f95toli , let's say, hypothetically, that someone managed to find out who you are (whether through LinkedIn, or through mutual acquaintances, or possibly through your academic network, or possibly even through PF here) and was interested in seeking employment opportunities at your organization, and gave you their CV directly to you.

Then it would be possible for a "strange" CV to still reach you without HR automatically rejecting it.

That does not work. I can't "feed" any CVs into the system; it all has to go through the same process meaning our HR will screen all candidates. Also, decisions about who to hire have to be approved by several people.
I can of course suggest to people that they should apply to an open position and if a name pops up on the list of candidates that I recognise that can play a role when we then decide who to invite to the screening interview.
However, someone sending a CV straight to me would probably be a red flag; our HR people would not be happy. Fortunately, that has never really happened (sometimes students who are looking for unpaid internships/work experience over the summer will send me a CV).

It could be that the system might be a bit more formal here in the UK than in the US, at least in big companies/organisations; so this might not be relevant to the OP

 

[symbolipoint]

It could be that the system might be a bit more formal here in the UK than in the US, at least in big companies/organisations; so this might not be relevant to the OP

NOW we can understand something of why you said what you said.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I suspect this depends on the job. When we hire people as researchers we generally look for fairly specific (and sometimes unusual) skills, meaning a CV which hasn't to some extent been tailored to the role we are advertising is extremely unlikely to go down well.
Also, our HR department will always do the initial screening meaning any any incomplete/or "strange" CVs will get rejected by them before they ever reach me.
I guess the "shotgun" approach might work if you are applying to more "standardised" job roles, but probably not for R&D positions.

What does constitute a strange CV to the HR and/or hiring manager for a person with a PhD?

 

[f95toli]

What does constitute a strange CV to the HR and/or hiring manager for a person with a PhD?

Someone who hasn't answered questions about eligibility properly (=do you need a work visa?), someone applying for a job with the "wrong" qualifications (e.g. someone who is just about to graduate with a BSc but is applying for a position as a senior researcher), "weird" CVs that dot not list experience/qualifications anywhere (surprisingly common).
I can probably think about a few more, mostly it is about people who haven't actually answered all mandatory questions properly.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Someone who hasn't answered questions about eligibility properly (=do you need a work visa?), someone applying for a job with the "wrong" qualifications (e.g. someone who is just about to graduate with a BSc but is applying for a position as a senior researcher), "weird" CVs that dot not list experience/qualifications anywhere (surprisingly common).
I can probably think about a few more, mostly it is about people who haven't actually answered all mandatory questions properly.

Nothing here really tells me the shotgun approach is a bad idea. It's not like someone with a BSc could have gotten the senior researcher position if only they had spent two hours crafting their cv a bit better. Instead they would have just wasted two hours of time.

 

[f95toli]

Nothing here really tells me the shotgun approach is a bad idea. It's not like someone with a BSc could have gotten the senior researcher position if only they had spent two hours crafting their cv a bit better. Instead they would have just wasted two hours of time.

I guess that depends on the situation and what yo mean by "shotgun", Many of the mandatory questions do not have a "right" question (if you need a visa we will help you get it if you think you are the best candidate, but you need to answer the question properly) but you do need to spend some time answering them; I don't think that could be easily done by a bot as was suggested above.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Someone who hasn't answered questions about eligibility properly (=do you need a work visa?), someone applying for a job with the "wrong" qualifications (e.g. someone who is just about to graduate with a BSc but is applying for a position as a senior researcher), "weird" CVs that dot not list experience/qualifications anywhere (surprisingly common).
I can probably think about a few more, mostly it is about people who haven't actually answered all mandatory questions properly.

Does years of employments gaps fall into the "strange" category in your experience? Also, I haven't worked in my field for at least 3 years before now, and I am honest about this in my CV. Would my CV be flagged because of these information?

 

[Choppy]

Does years of employments gaps fall into the "strange" category in your experience? Also, I haven't worked in my field for at least 3 years before now, and I am honest about this in my CV. Would my CV be flagged because of these information?

I'd call that a minor flag, not a major one.

By that I mean it's unlikely that in and of itself a 3 year gap would keep you from being short-listed. Life can happen. People take time off from their career for a wide range of reasons, many of which are un-related their ability to perform on the job. You will likely be asked about it though, and potential employers will want to know what you've been doing to keep up with the field.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I'd call that a minor flag, not a major one.

By that I mean it's unlikely that in and of itself a 3 year gap would keep you from being short-listed. Life can happen. People take time off from their career for a wide range of reasons, many of which are un-related their ability to perform on the job. You will likely be asked about it though, and potential employers will want to know what you've been doing to keep up with the field.

This is the thing, I haven't done anything in my field. I don't have access to IEEE papers to do any research and publish papers, and second, I couldn't find a job to apply my knowledge and gain experience. What I have been doing instead, was taking programming courses to find an alternative option somewhere down the road, and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field. Now, I am not sure how to recover from this. Can I mention the above explanations, and be OK and considered?

 

[Choppy]

This is the thing, I haven't done anything in my field. I don't have access to IEEE papers to do any research and publish papers, and second, I couldn't find a job to apply my knowledge and gain experience. What I have been doing instead, was taking programming courses to find an alternative option somewhere down the road, and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field. Now, I am not sure how to recover from this. Can I mention the above explanations, and be OK and considered?

I can't tell you what will get you considered and what won't - it depends on the specifics of the position and how many other people are applying for it, and what experience they're brining to the table relative to yourself.

You have to figure out how to market what you've got. For one thing, taking the time to learn programming is not something to "recover from." You're learning a new skill. What can help though is to think about ways that you can demonstrate that skill to potential employers. I'm not a professional programmer, but I would think you could come up with some sort of project portfolio at least.

Similarly, just because you're not working in your field doesn't mean the experience you're developing is necessarily a write-off. Even if you've been an Uber or delivery driver, customer service is a skill.

The other thing is to keep sharpening yourself. Look for opportunities to improve and ways that you can demonstrate that improvement. Volunteer. If you have engineering skills, get involved with your local maker group, start a YouTube channel, tutor students... find something that you enjoy and have a passion for and pursue that.

 

[symbolipoint]

get involved with your local maker group,

What is a maker group?

 

[Choppy]

What is a maker group?

Makers
makerspace
https://makezine.com/
https://maker.pro/

A lot of universities and community groups are starting to provide space, tools and other equipment to their communities for people to work on DIY projects. Some have an entrepreneurial slant toward fostering startups, others are just groups of people who want to learn how to build really cool stuff.

I would think that getting involved or even starting your own group like this would be a great way to build a network outside of university while following your passions.

 

[russ_watters]

...and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field.

The "working sporadically" part is much worse than "not related to my field". Before anything else, an employee needs to be reliable and a continuous/consistent work history is how you prove reliability. My advice here is you need to get a job - any job - and keep it for a long time.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

The "working sporadically" part is much worse than "not related to my field". Before anything else, an employee needs to be reliable and a continuous/consistent work history is how you prove reliability. My advice here is you need to get a job - any job - and keep it for a long time.

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree, and that proves I am reliable as a researcher, and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

 

[russ_watters]

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree, and that proves I am reliable as a researcher, and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

Is that really the best you can say about your work history?

 

[Choppy]

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree, and that proves I am reliable as a researcher, and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

I think the point here is that when your resume (or if it comes up in your interview) seems to indicate that you do any given job for a month or two and then move on, that will come across as a flag. Interviewers will want to know if you have a pattern of not getting along with people or quitting when you come across a challenging situation. Obviously, that's not the only reason for sporadic work, but you'll want to think about how to demonstrate to any potential employer that you're a solid long term investment.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I think the point here is that when your resume (or if it comes up in your interview) seems to indicate that you do any given job for a month or two and then move on, that will come across as a flag. Interviewers will want to know if you have a pattern of not getting along with people or quitting when you come across a challenging situation. Obviously, that's not the only reason for sporadic work, but you'll want to think about how to demonstrate to any potential employer that you're a solid long term investment.

I have never worked for less than a year for a job, and when I left it wasn't my decision. But I don't take any job just to demonstrate I am reliable. They can inquire about my reliability from the references I provide. I prefer to work on my skills instead and develop personal projects to get better chances than stacking the shelves for 8 hours a day and then left with no time and energy at the end of the day to do anything else.

 

[PeroK]

I have never worked for less than a year for a job, and when I left it wasn't my decision. But I don't take any job just to demonstrate I am reliable. They can inquire about my reliability from the references I provide. I prefer to work on my skills instead and develop personal projects to get better chances than stacking the shelves for 8 hours a day and then left with no time and energy at the end of the day to do anything else.

We have 65+ posts and it seems the whole situation remains an enigma. There's some good general advice in this thread, but I can't see any sign of positively identifying what has gone wrong over the past four years (especially the lack of interviews - which is the real puzzle). Why does someone with a PhD in a specialist area who applies to jobs in that area not even get an interview? I see no evidence that anyone has an answer to that. And, perhaps, how can anyone on here answer that?

Moreover, four years is a long time and the reasons why you didn't land a job in your first year after graduation may be truly unfathomable now.

If you want to work in your specialist field then I believe you need to apply to positions that are most suited and follow through and understand why you are not being considered. And then decide whether the problems are fixable. For example, we don't now whether your applications have been rejected by the initial HR review or the specialist teams that you would be working for.

I did quite a bit of IT recruitment and I have to say that we interviewed anyone who looked likely. We were not overwhelmed by possible candidates and I find it unimaginable that you haven't had many interviews. I can think of no plausible reason for this. You need to find out where the application process is failing - although I fear that now it is the four-year gap.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

We have 65+ posts and it seems the whole situation remains an enigma. There's some good general advice in this thread, but I can't see any sign of positively identifying what has gone wrong over the past four years (especially the lack of interviews - which is the real puzzle). Why does someone with a PhD in a specialist area who applies to jobs in that area not even get an interview? I see no evidence that anyone has an answer to that. And, perhaps, how can anyone on here answer that?

Moreover, four years is a long time and the reasons why you didn't land a job in your first year after graduation may be truly unfathomable now.

If you want to work in your specialist field then I believe you need to apply to positions that are most suited and follow through and understand why you are not being considered. And then decide whether the problems are fixable. For example, we don't now whether your applications have been rejected by the initial HR review or the specialist teams that you would be working for.

I did quite a bit of IT recruitment and I have to say that we interviewed anyone who looked likely. We were not overwhelmed by possible candidates and I find it unimaginable that you haven't had many interviews. I can think of no plausible reason for this. You need to find out where the application process is failing - although I fear that now it is the four-year gap.

I did get a job for almost two years as postdoc almost immediately after I graduated, but things went south from there.

I believe my resumes are rejected by the HR directly, because I don't get enough interviews compared to the number of applications, but I am not sure if the HR consults the hiring managers before moving forward with the screening.

I try to follow with the HR after I am being interviewed, but all I get (if any) is general feedback. After the interview in the US, I tried to follow with the recruiter after I was rejected, but I got no response at all.

That's what I am thinking, the gap is now snowballing. Recruiters/hiring mangers see the gaps and think "OK this guy is not employable/looks suspicious. Next". As someone else mentioned, it's easier to get a job while having a job. It's appealing to recruiters/hiring managers to be employed.

 

[Dale]

With no experience I feel companies don't give my PhD a significant weight. I was told by a recruiter once we don't look for PhD but for experience.

The years in your PhD are counted as experience. So you should have about 6 years of experience, not 0.

 

[symbolipoint]

The years in your PhD are counted as experience. So you should have about 6 years of experience, not 0.

I have forgotten some of the pieces in this topic or thread, but in case original poster tries to get any job outside of his field, he has 0 years of experience in place of the phD years of experience. But within his field, one could only guess how Human Resource departments would treat this.

 

[Dale]

I have forgotten some of the pieces in this topic or thread, but in case original poster tries to get any job outside of his field, he has 0 years of experience in place of the phD years of experience. But within his field, one could only guess how Human Resource departments would treat this.

As a former hiring manager in a technology company we consider a PhD to be experience. And after hiring our HR department uses the PhD time in the years of experience for pay increases.

We don’t try to make a judgement like that, we just consider it as experience. If we consider the PhD irrelevant then we just don’t hire them. If we hire them then it is assumed to be relevant and counts as experience.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Is that really the best you can say about your work history?

@russ_watters , I think what you and the other posters -- particularly those who do not come from a recent immigrant background -- do not understand or appreciate is that the OP is an immigrant to Canada (ostensibly from somewhere outside of Europe), which in itself is a barrier to employment in STEM fields, or any higher-paying "prestige" fields (especially if the OP lives in the province of Quebec, where I have heard anecdotal reports of far greater prejudice directed at immigrant groups there, particularly if immigrants are from Africa or the Middle East).

In such a circumstance, it is far from unusual for even relatively well-educated people to struggle finding employment.

 

[russ_watters]

@russ_watters , I think what you and the other posters -- particularly those who do not come from a recent immigrant background -- do not understand or appreciate is that the OP is an immigrant to Canada (ostensibly from somewhere outside of Europe), which in itself is a barrier to employment in STEM fields, or any higher-paying "prestige" fields (especially if the OP lives in the province of Quebec, where I have heard anecdotal reports of far greater prejudice directed at immigrant groups there, particularly if immigrants are from Africa or the Middle East).

In such a circumstance, it is far from unusual for even relatively well-educated people to struggle finding employment.

Fair enough. I don't really know how that affects employment prospects, particularly in Canada, but I would imagine; 1) such discrimination is illegal and 2) there are immigrants who have jobs in Quebec, even from Africa/ME. How prevalent such discrimination is even illegally (or even legally if there is a legitimate skills gap) I don't know. That wasn't really my point though. I wasn't being incredulous as to why the OP was unable to find an in-field job in 3+ years, I was expressing concern that he hasn't shown interest in holding any job consistently for 3+ years.

Not being able to find a job in 3+ years isn't a great look, but I suspect due to COVID there's a lot of hiring managers erasing the past 18 months from memory when it comes to unemployment. But only having jobs "sporadically" is an actual bad look. Anyway, I'll give a more specific reply:

I have never worked for less than a year for a job, and when I left it wasn't my decision. But I don't take any job just to demonstrate I am reliable. They can inquire about my reliability from the references I provide. I prefer to work on my skills instead and develop personal projects to get better chances than stacking the shelves for 8 hours a day and then left with no time and energy at the end of the day to do anything else.

As enigmatic of a reply as that is, it doesn't quite address the direct concern (why, exactly, is your employment history "sporadic"?). Regardless, on Page 1 you said you were rejected from an internship for being over-qualified academically and not having enough practical experience, and your solution to this problem is to get more academic skills. I know the set of feedback is limited, but don't you see you are doing exactly the opposite of what the feedback would imply you should?

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree...

Yes. As a job it may be basically worthless but it is almost certainly better than trying to explain why you have chosen to only work sporadically.

...and that proves I am reliable as a researcher...

No, it proves you are a reliable employee.

...and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

What I said above aside, you targeted the lowest quality job you could think of as a basis for comparison. That's not what I mean, though if taken literally to the extreme it could imply that. I mean taking the best job you could get in a short time/effort (because who would purposely go after the worst job they could think of?). Contract work? Random office job doing data entry or programming/analysis? I have a hard time believing you couldn't get and hold a job with >0 value.

 

[Fra]

Some reflections fwiw

I did get a job for almost two years as postdoc almost immediately after I graduated, but things went south from there.

1) How south? Any chance someone is giving you bad reference, if someone checks upon it?

That's what I am thinking, the gap is now snowballing. Recruiters/hiring mangers see the gaps and think "OK this guy is not employable/looks suspicious. Next". As someone else mentioned, it's easier to get a job while having a job.

2) About gaps in the resume. In order to not give people the idea that there is something sus there, try to fill out the gaps with something, like a startup business project, research project, additional educations or courses or whatever or other things and flesh it out. It will at least show that the gaps in traditional employments does not imply doing nothing, and you could well have been very busy and ambitous still. And if if your happen to have a bad herring in the resume, you could consider removing it from the list.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

I have never worked for less than a year for a job, and when I left it wasn't my decision. But I don't take any job just to demonstrate I am reliable. They can inquire about my reliability from the references I provide. I prefer to work on my skills instead and develop personal projects to get better chances than stacking the shelves for 8 hours a day and then left with no time and energy at the end of the day to do anything else.

Is there a chance that you may unconsiously be communicating an attitude that you are a skilled researcher and that what you REALLY want is to do your research but that you are looking for a temporary job, until you get a better opportunity?

As many jobs takes years of experience to learn industry/business/company specific things that are of non-academic nature because some things are even proprietary corporate information. This means that one would not even think of employing anyone that is "likely" to quit the job upon the next opportunity.

I have experience with applicants from researchers (in RELEVANT fields, well qualified) looking for a job in a tech business where it was clear that he was looking for a industri/business job, BECAUSE he didn't get the 50%reserach/50%teaching position he really wanted. This person, even well qualified, would STILL need years of training in product specifics, and would likely not stay that long anyone, so the appliation never reached the table, as i sorted it out directly.

/Fredrik

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Is there a chance that you may unconsiously be communicating an attitude that you are a skilled researcher and that what you REALLY want is to do your research but that you are looking for a temporary job, until you get a better opportunity?

As many jobs takes years of experience to learn industry/business/company specific things that are of non-academic nature because some things are even proprietary corporate information. This means that one would not even think of employing anyone that is "likely" to quit the job upon the next opportunity.

I have experience with applicants from researchers (in RELEVANT fields, well qualified) looking for a job in a tech business where it was clear that he was looking for a industri/business job, BECAUSE he didn't get the 50%reserach/50%teaching position he really wanted. This person, even well qualified, would STILL need years of training in product specifics, and would likely not stay that long anyone, so the appliation never reached the table, as i sorted it out directly.

/Fredrik

What's wrong with applicants who want a job in the industry because they couldn't get into the academia? What should they do in your opinion? I did 2 years postdoc, but had I given proper advice by my PhD supervisor who didn't care at all in all aspects of my career during and after my PhD, I would have taken internships in companies while I was doing my PhD, and went to the industry directly, and got a decent and stable job. I didn't know better then. But of course I don't say or hint this during interviews. I express my interest in the job and company, and many jobs I applied for were research in nature. Many PhDs went to the industry after years of academic research because, simply put, the number of academic positions is limited compared to the number of PhD graduates. I know someone who did postdocs not for 2 but for 5 years, and has a strong publication record, yet he eventually switched to the industry because academia was a dead end for him.

 

[Fra]

What's wrong with applicants who want a job in the industry because they couldn't get into the academia? What should they do in your opinion? I did 2 years postdoc, but had I given proper advice by my PhD supervisor who didn't care at all in all aspects of my career during and after my PhD, I would have taken internships in companies while I was doing my PhD, and went to the industry directly, and got a decent and stable job. I didn't know better then. But of course I don't say or hint this during interviews. I express my interest in the job and company, and many jobs I applied for were research in nature. Many PhDs went to the industry after years of academic research because, simply put, the number of academic positions is limited compared to the number of PhD graduates. I know someone who did postdocs not for 2 but for 5 years, and has a strong publication record, yet he eventually switched to the industry because academia was a dead end for him.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting a job in industry of course! And while I can symphatize with struggling between personal interests and getting food on the table. Alot of ppl struggles with this I think.

My only point trying to guess what would be issues as per your description is that: MAYBE disappointment and the view that the industry is a non-preferred option for you "shines through", even if you do not actually say it. People that do hiring do a lot of reading in between the lines, and it's not just what you say but how you put it, and wether it seems to make sense or of the totaly picuture getting communicated is still that "here is someone that wants to do research in academia, but says he wants to work for us. Most companies also consider the first years of a new employed as a cost, so hiring someone that is likely to drop out before the red figures turn green is a bad strategy. If this is the case perhaps the rhetorics in the applications can be adjusted?

Did you ask someone for advice, to read your applications and tell you what impression they get (not knowing you)? It's always hard to judge yourself.

/Fredrik

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting a job in industry of course! And while I can symphatize with struggling between personal interests and getting food on the table. Alot of ppl struggles with this I think.

My only point trying to guess what would be issues as per your description is that: MAYBE disappointment and the view that the industry is a non-preferred option for you "shines through", even if you do not actually say it. People that do hiring do a lot of reading in between the lines, and it's not just what you say but how you put it, and wether it seems to make sense or of the totaly picuture getting communicated is still that "here is someone that wants to do research in academia, but says he wants to work for us. Most companies also consider the first years of a new employed as a cost, so hiring someone that is likely to drop out before the red figures turn green is a bad strategy. If this is the case perhaps the rhetorics in the applications can be adjusted?

Did you ask someone for advice, to read your applications and tell you what impression they get (not knowing you)? It's always hard to judge yourself.

/Fredrik

I don't think I have any indications in my resume that I would join the academia, other than my postdoc position. That's why I said, if I knew better, I wouldn't have done it. Even without internships, companies hire fresh PhD graduates. Yes, my postdoc has something to do with it, I suspect, but it's not the only reason, because others did postdocs and got hired. I must be doing something wrong, but I don't know what it is, and there is no one to point that out to me in an honest feedback. And thus this thread.

 

[ohwilleke]

Have you considered working for a non-profit like Engineers Without Borders to develop references who have seen your work and to show that you are "fresh" and engaged in the profession. With the passage of time you may be getting a lemon effect with everyone assuming that you're still looking because someone else decided they didn't want you when it was really just bad luck.

Another thought would be to look for positions in a different geographical area where the market is hotter, or the competition isn't as great.

 

[Zap]

I suspect this depends on the job. When we hire people as researchers we generally look for fairly specific (and sometimes unusual) skills, meaning a CV which hasn't to some extent been tailored to the role we are advertising is extremely unlikely to go down well.
Also, our HR department will always do the initial screening meaning any any incomplete/or "strange" CVs will get rejected by them before they ever reach me.
I guess the "shotgun" approach might work if you are applying to more "standardised" job roles, but probably not for R&D positions.

Why would a CV be "strange" while using the shotgun method? You put all the skills you have to offer on your CV, and you target it for whatever type of job you want to get. And then you mass apply 100 per day. How does that make the CV "strange?" It would contain your competencies and what you're looking for. If that didn't cut it, I doubt anything additional would.

If you have a very specific position that you want to apply for, meaning that you are only wanting to apply to one or two job posts, then the shotgun method doesn't make any sense. But applying to just a handful of jobs doesn't make any sense to me, either.

[post edited by the Mentors]

 

[f95toli]

Why would a CV be "strange" while using the shotgun method? You put all the skills you have to offer on your CV, and you target it for whatever type of job you want to get. And then you mass apply 100 per day. How does that make the CV "strange?"

Whether or not it is "strange" doesn't depend on the method. However, a CV which e.g. starts with a paragraph describing why the applicant is really, really interested in antenna design might get filtered out (whoever is looking at is will stop reading) if the job ad is for a role in condensed matter physics (real world example...). Another example might be someone starting their CV with a description of where they grew up...

Even if you are using the "shotgun" method the CV needs to be relevant for the job role; and I think there is a risk that your CV ends up being too bland if you are trying to use the same CV/skills for very different roles.
An obvious way around this is to have a few different CVs and then choose the one that fits the best to that particular role.

Remember that the people who are doing hiring might have to look through many tens or hundreds of CVs before they decide who to interview; your CV is very, very important and ideally you should have some "keywords" that are directly relevant to the role at the start of your CV; do NOT assume that someone will carefully read your whole CV unless you give them a good reason to.

 

[Zap]

If you're trying to apply to hyper specialized roles like antenna design, you can't use the shotgun method, because you won't be able to find 100 antenna design job posts to apply to.

OP mentioned an interest in data science. Data analytics, data science, business analytics, IT, etc, or the broad field of IT/data analytics/development are perfect for the shotgun method, because they all list similar skills and you can easily find 100 job posts per day to apply to. Something like PhD in antenna design wouldn't work. You would find like 5 job posts per month to even respond to. That's way too specialized for OP, anyway. He/she is just trying to break out of university.

I would suggest OP to look into consulting firms. They will take people from random backgrounds. The ability to learn new things is a vital skill for a new consultant. Sometimes, you don't need any skills, just the ability to learn the skills they want you to learn quickly.

My friend went through a paid data engineering training that was paid for by a consulting firm, and now he works as a data engineer making around 60k. They will abuse you at first, and you won't be making six figures, but it's a break into the industry.

 

[osilmag]

ProbablyNotMe, in your interviews what type of salary did you expect, if they asked that question? It might be the economy or the areas where you are applying do not want to pay for your skill set.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

ProbablyNotMe, in your interviews what type of salary did you expect, if they asked that question? It might be the economy or the areas where you are applying do not want to pay for your skill set.

The majority of my applications are not acknowledged in the first place, and the majority of the handful phone screening interviews I did didn't ask that question. But when I prepare for the interviews, I would search the range of salaries for the positions I am applying for in the area where I am applying, and chose a range at the lower end of the broader range. I don't think this is the issue though. My issues I believe are lack industry experience, limited connections, I have had trouble convincing recruiters and hiring managers of my skills when my resume go through, and now my employment gaps.

 

[bob012345]

The majority of my applications are not acknowledged in the first place, and the majority of the handful phone screening interviews I did didn't ask that question. But when I prepare for the interviews, I would search the range of salaries for the positions I am applying for in the area where I am applying, and chose a range at the lower end of the broader range. I don't think this is the issue though. My issues I believe are lack industry experience, limited connections, I have had trouble convincing recruiters and hiring managers of my skills when my resume go through, and now my employment gaps.

Try the Semiconductor industry. They assume you're not already an expert and train you.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Try the Semiconductor industry. They assume you're not already an expert and train you.

Why would they train me in something I have no prior experience? I couldn't get internships in my PhD field, although I think it was mainly because I applied to internships after I finished my postdoctoral research position. I wasn't aware of this at the time, and didn't get any guidance from my PhD supervisor regarding this.

 

[bob012345]

Why would they train me in something I have no prior experience? I couldn't get internships in my PhD field, although I think it was mainly because I applied to internships after I finished my postdoctoral research position. I wasn't aware of this at the time, and didn't get any guidance from my PhD supervisor regarding this.

Because almost nobody has prior experience coming fresh out of college to jump right in and do the specific jobs at a semiconductor company. They have a technical background but usually no specifics. Rarely do companies hire new PhD's solely or mainly because of their direct research. They hire them because they earned a PhD in some relevant field. If you are thinking you must get a job directly related to your research project you are limiting yourself.

Semiconductor companies hire people from all backgrounds such as physics, chemistry and engineering. Nobody graduates with all the specific knowledge to do the different jobs. Everybody get trained by the group that hires them to do specific jobs.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Because almost nobody has prior experience coming fresh out of college to jump right in and do the specific jobs at a semiconductor company. They have a technical background but usually no specifics. Rarely do companies hire new PhD's solely or mainly because of their direct research. They hire them because they earned a PhD in some relevant field. If you are thinking you must get a job directly related to your research project you are limiting yourself.

Semiconductor companies hire people from all backgrounds such as physics, chemistry and engineering. Nobody graduates with all the specific knowledge to do the different jobs. Everybody get trained by the group that hires them to do specific jobs.

I would adapt more quickly in telecomm companies with minimal training than with semiconductor companies that require hardware design. I would say that for many positions in giant telecomm companies, I would start almost immediately if given the chance. Nevertheless, I didn't get any positive responses from them, and I received feedbacks saying I don't have direct experience in what they need, like that I don't have enough experience in C++, or that I didn't work directly with X technology, although a week reading would be enough to grasp it for me. That's why I said why would semiconductor companies train me. It goes against my experience in that companies have no interest in training new employees, not because I am applying only to positions where I can hit the ground running.

 

[StatGuy2000]

@ProbablyNotMe , you stated that you are currently based in Canada. If you don't mind my asking, what province are you currently living in?

I ask this because the job market can differ substantially depending on the province you live, or the particular city or town within the province you live in.

For example, the job market in or near Toronto, Ontario is very different from the job market in say, Winnipeg, Manitoba or Montreal, Quebec.

 

[bob012345]

I would adapt more quickly in telecomm companies with minimal training than with semiconductor companies that require hardware design. I would say that for many positions in giant telecomm companies, I would start almost immediately if given the chance. Nevertheless, I didn't get any positive responses from them, and I received feedbacks saying I don't have direct experience in what they need, like that I don't have enough experience in C++, or that I didn't work directly with X technology, although a week reading would be enough to grasp it for me. That's why I said why would semiconductor companies train me. It goes against my experience in that companies have no interest in training new employees, not because I am applying only to positions where I can hit the ground running.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what training means...I don't mean sending you to school to learn chemistry if you are an electrical engineer. I mean you do need to have relevant expertise.

However, it could be that since you did a postdoc they do not see you as a fresh out of school student they want hire and train but as an experienced worker with none of the right experience. Perhaps you should try joining a research group in academia. Only this time you interview them try to get in one that is doing interesting and practical work. Latch onto some professor with deep ties to industry. Then jumping from there to industry might be easier.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

@ProbablyNotMe , you stated that you are currently based in Canada. If you don't mind my asking, what province are you currently living in?

I ask this because the job market can differ substantially depending on the province you live, or the particular city or town within the province you live in.

For example, the job market in or near Toronto, Ontario is very different from the job market in say, Winnipeg, Manitoba or Montreal, Quebec.

All I can say is that I have been applying all over Canada, and if I am asked if I am willing to relocate in an application I always answer 'Yes'. I am not limiting myself to where I live.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Perhaps we have different ideas about what training means...I don't mean sending you to school to learn chemistry if you are an electrical engineer. I mean you do need to have relevant expertise.

However, it could be that since you did a postdoc they do not see you as a fresh out of school student they want hire and train but as an experienced worker with none of the right experience. Perhaps you should try joining a research group in academia. Only this time you interview them try to get in one that is doing interesting and practical work. Latch onto some professor with deep ties to industry. Then jumping from there to industry might be easier.

Electrical Engineering has numerous specialties. I took a couple of courses in electronics in my undergraduate studies, and that's it. That's why I don't think I would be trained in a semiconductor company: I don't have enough background to be trained.

I have been trying with my PhD and postdoctoral supervisors, but both seem to know little in the industry (they don't prefer to work with the industry in their research). I am trying to secure another postdoc position now, to refresh my skills and update my knowledge, but so far had no luck. I am afraid, even for a postdoc, my CV doesn't look good with 3 years of employment gaps, and 4 years not working in my field, not to mention finishing my PhD more than 5 years ago! I am realizing now that I made the mistake of focusing my applications within Canada. I have better chances elsewhere (US and UE) in normal situations.

 

[bob012345]

Ok, I'm pulling out the big guns...:)

Since you appear to fall through all the cracks there is nothing else to do but figure out what critical problem you are most passionate about and create some kind of solution in the form of a business model. In other words start a company and change the world. Create your own reality. You may be doomed to be a billionaire.

I'm not being flippant. That may be your calling since you don't appear to 'fit' in the system.

 

[StatGuy2000]

All I can say is that I have been applying all over Canada, and if I am asked if I am willing to relocate in an application I always answer 'Yes'. I am not limiting myself to where I live.

Fair enough. But keep in mind that employers in Canada tend to prefer to hire "locally". In other words, job candidates geographically closest to them will necessarily be among the "top tier" candidates.

So in other words, if there are many jobs in a given area (e.g. Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, etc.), it pays to already be living there or within driving distance to those locations.

Also, you never did explicitly state this, but without getting too specific -- what is your ethnic background? As I've pointed out before, here in Canada, immigrants from the Middle East/North Africa and African countries have the greatest difficulties in securing employment.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Electrical Engineering has numerous specialties. I took a couple of courses in electronics in my undergraduate studies, and that's it. That's why I don't think I would be trained in a semiconductor company: I don't have enough background to be trained.

I have been trying with my PhD and postdoctoral supervisors, but both seem to know little in the industry (they don't prefer to work with the industry in their research). I am trying to secure another postdoc position now, to refresh my skills and update my knowledge, but so far had no luck. I am afraid, even for a postdoc, my CV doesn't look good with 3 years of employment gaps, and 4 years not working in my field, not to mention finishing my PhD more than 5 years ago! I am realizing now that I made the mistake of focusing my applications within Canada. I have better chances elsewhere (US and UE) in normal situations.

Getting another postdoc at this stage is frankly a waste of time, as these focus on academic positions which are few and far between (within Canada and elsewhere in the world). If your goal is to seek a private sector job, you need skills that the private sector needs. And depending on your specialty in electrical engineering, those opportunities may or may not be readily available.

As I've asked before, where in Canada do you live? And what kinds of jobs (STEM or technical) are most abundant in your city/town that you live? My suggestion would be to do the following:

1 (a) Take a "survival job" i.e. jobs that don't require your education. That could be anything -- Uber or Lyft driver, construction worker, bartender, retail, etc. Anything that will pay for food, rent/housing costs, and the bills.

or

1 (b) Apply for welfare (e.g. Ontario Works) so that you have something to survive.

2. While you are pursuing your "survival job" or being on welfare, look at what education or training is required for the technical or STEM job that is most available, and then pursue that.

3. Apply to those technical positions.

4. Network, network, network!

5. Repeat steps 2-5.

 

[Vanadium 50]

jobs in a given area (e.g. Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, etc.)

Is Berlin er...Kitchener not considered within driving distance of Toronto? I'd guess it's 90 minutes between University of Toronto and Perimeter, which is not so nice, but Kitchener to the western suburbs of Toronto seems more reasonable. Somewhere like Hamilton looks to be equally (in)convenient to both. I've certainly passed it enough!

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Getting another postdoc at this stage is frankly a waste of time, as these focus on academic positions which are few and far between (within Canada and elsewhere in the world). If your goal is to seek a private sector job, you need skills that the private sector needs. And depending on your specialty in electrical engineering, those opportunities may or may not be readily available.

As I've asked before, where in Canada do you live? And what kinds of jobs (STEM or technical) are most abundant in your city/town that you live? My suggestion would be to do the following:

1 (a) Take a "survival job" i.e. jobs that don't require your education. That could be anything -- Uber or Lyft driver, construction worker, bartender, retail, etc. Anything that will pay for food, rent/housing costs, and the bills.

or

1 (b) Apply for welfare (e.g. Ontario Works) so that you have something to survive.

2. While you are pursuing your "survival job" or being on welfare, look at what education or training is required for the technical or STEM job that is most available, and then pursue that.

3. Apply to those technical positions.

4. Network, network, network!

5. Repeat steps 2-5.

While I was working my last job, which I would say it was a "survival job", I was taking online courses on software development. After 8-hour shifts working on something else that need mental effort is challenging. I was waking up 3 am in the morning so I can work with focus before I start my job, since my job needed little mental effort. Towards the end of my job, which I didn't know the contract wouldn't be extended except in the last 10 days of my contract, I started to do personal projects using what I learned. I built 3 relatively large projects, and put the source codes on GitHub. I have been applying for jobs in software development in my city and in Canada as a whole for the last 9 months, with no luck. I received a couple of phone interviews, but no one expressed interest beyond that. What I am trying to say, taking a survival job, while learning a new thing is challenging, and will again take time and effort, and I would probably end in the same situation applying for months with no responses. I am discouraged to repeat the same experience.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I have a question: I am sending emails to my PhD supervisor explaining my situation to get some guidance and help from him, but he stopped responding, after he kept telling me just keep applying and don't give up. My knowledge in my field is now is outdated after 3 years of not working in the field. Is this a normal behavior from PhD supervisors not giving even suggestions to their previous PhD students? Obviously I cannot force him to help me or even to respond, but I believe he could help me. He has previous PhD and master students in the industry. He didn't help at all during my PhD thesis, and also after I finished to get my first job. Now I am worried he won't give me good recommendation because he stopped responding, and he is one of two references I have in my field!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Some questions to ask:

1. How much time do you think your advisor should devote, per month, to all of his former students?
2. What is your fair share of this?
3. How much time do you think you are asking of him?
4. In the last three months, you've gotten a lot of advice here, but haven't seemed to have acted on it. Is it possible your professor has made the same observation?
5. Does your professor have any reason to consider you a Help Vampire?