What is a maker group?Choppy said:get involved with your local maker group,
Makerssymbolipoint said:What is a maker group?
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 said:...and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field.
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 said: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.
Is that really the best you can say about your work history?ProbablyNotMe said: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 said: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 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.Choppy said: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.
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?ProbablyNotMe said: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.
I did get a job for almost two years as postdoc almost immediately after I graduated, but things went south from there.PeroK said: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.
The years in your PhD are counted as experience. So you should have about 6 years of experience, not 0.ProbablyNotMe said: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.
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 said:The years in your PhD are counted as experience. So you should have about 6 years of experience, not 0.
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.symbolipoint said: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.
@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).russ_watters said:Is that really the best you can say about your work history?
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.StatGuy2000 said:@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.
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?ProbablyNotMe said: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.
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.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...
No, it proves you are a reliable employee....and that proves I am reliable as a researcher...
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....and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?
1) How south? Any chance someone is giving you bad reference, if someone checks upon it?ProbablyNotMe said:I did get a job for almost two years as postdoc almost immediately after I graduated, but things went south from there.
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.ProbablyNotMe said: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.
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?ProbablyNotMe said: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.
Fra said: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
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.ProbablyNotMe said: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 said: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
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.f95toli said: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.
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...Zap said: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?"
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.osilmag said: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.
Try the Semiconductor industry. They assume you're not already an expert and train you.ProbablyNotMe said: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.
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 said:Try the Semiconductor industry. They assume you're not already an expert and train you.
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.ProbablyNotMe said: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.
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.bob012345 said: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.