Other Professors, students and careers

[Dr. Courtney]

The job prospects will always be very poor for those who shift the blame to others.

You have been told. Stop making excuses.

 

[symbolipoint]

The job prospects will always be very poor for those who shift the blame to others.

You have been told. Stop making excuses.

This problem is really an ongoing one as new people reach age for making decisions. They need time to mature, to develop, to be exposed to advice and to know who are where all the advice comes from, and to know which to trust. Someone of 18 to 20 years of age might really not know himself, and is not always able to make a most sensible decision. He may be attending a university; he may be getting academic and career counseling; but may still not be ready to make a specific career decision and choices. What HE must do is find a clear more specific goal. With that, he could make better choices for courses to study.

One of the basic problems for some students and that nobody can make the specific choices for them. These students need to make their choices on their own. On occasion, a counselor may give good, clear, well focused advice, and student may understand and make some good choices according to this advice.

How many students decide at age 17, "I want to be a chemical engineer", and go to college and university for this education? And then how many of these students upon graduating with their degree continue to say, "I want to be a chemical engineer"? And then how many of them say two years later, "I am a chemical engineer, and this career fits me well"?

 

[radium]

From what I have seen, the job prospects for physics PhDs are actually great, even for theorists. If you know some programming you are qualified for lots of interesting jobs in data science, etc. and even software engineering jobs. Robotics is another area where a physics degree is helpful because it is important to have physical intuition of what is going on and people in CS don't really have that. Finance is also very easy, if you look at the job requirements, physics PhD is always listed for quant jobs along with math, engineering etc. if you are in something like condensed matter experiment you can go work for Intel or IBM among others. Former physicists seem to find these jobs (even in finance) very interesting and satisfying. On top of it they all pay very well.

The people I know who left physics actually had a pretty easy time getting a job and were regularly contacted by head hunters looking for people with their credentials. I think people tend to think that physics is not useful in the job market since it can be very abstract. But even so, the ideas can easily be applied and it is great to have people who know how to problem solve and are very frustration tolerant.

One caveat is this may be very dependent on pedigree as the examples I know of are from top ten or top twenty programs.

 

[Locrian]

I wonder how professors of some fields that have no demand in the job market deal with this fact with their students, especially if they ask?

Well hopefully what you've gathered from this thread is that professors don't deal with that fact and that there's no consensus over whether they should or how they'd go about it.

Why does everyone think I'm talking about physics in specific?

Because this forum is called PhyscisForums and we've been having this ongoing conversation about exactly how crappy the physics degree is for, well, over twelve years*, and frankly the arguments haven't changed much, even if some of the names attached to them have. Even if that wasn't what you meant, it's the topic you're going to get.

*I think my profile says I joined in 2004, but I feel confident I joined before that.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

One caveat is this may be very dependent on pedigree as the examples I know of are from top ten or top twenty programs.

I think this is real, but pertains more to which network you'll be hired into. Lower ranking institutions with strong engineering departments and ties to industry will still have little trouble sending graduates to industry, as I know is true of my undergraduate (ranked somewhere in the top 50 for the USA). The defense industry and semiconductor industries are big where my undergrad was, so that's where many of the physics grads go.

Fewer of them go to places like Google or Goldman Sachs.

 

[CrysPhys]

The actual situation faced by the OP is even less amenable to predictive modelling. It's not simply a question of, If I get my Degree D (BS, MS, PhD) in Major M (Physics, EE, Chemistry, ...) and graduate in Year Y, what are my chances of getting a job? It's really, If Student S gets a PhD in Major M with a dissertation in Field F from Prof P at University U in Country C and graduates in Year Y, what are his chances of getting a job in Country C or Country C'?

So, if there's a big boost in military R&D in Country C', there will be job openings for citizens of Country C', but not for non-citizens. And, as I wrote in another post, if the OP had been a PhD EE with a dissertation in wireless communications theory from MIT or Stanford, he would likely have been recruited by Qualcomm or Google already.

 

[EngWiPy]

I think luck plays a role. Someone mentioned in another thread that someone with a PhD degree in biology has landed a job in data science. It happened that he/she knew something related to data science directly. I doubt that person was thinking from the beginning of his/her PhD that he/she will be working as a data scientist.

 

[CrysPhys]

I think luck plays a role. Someone mentioned in another thread that someone with a PhD degree in biology has landed a job in data science. It happened that he/she knew something related to data science directly. I doubt that person was thinking from the beginning of his/her PhD that he/she will be working as a data scientist.

Yes, luck always is a factor. But luck isn't sufficient by itself. You need to be flexible and adaptable and to leverage your strengths for opportunities that present themselves (or better yet, seek out a broader range of opportunities). If I recall the post correctly, her program involved a lot of data analysis, she took the initiative to approach a manager in the data science field, and made a strong positive impression to land the job. Not sure that a career in data science would be included in predictive models for forecasting job opportunities for bio PhDs. And another example, out of many, in which a subsequent career is not directly tied to a PhD dissertation.

 

[EngWiPy]

To be honest, I view this connection thing as a form of begging; I need to connect with someone I don't know, and I need to impress him/her to consider me for the job! So, just a 15 minutes impression will determine if I'll be considered or not (I have a feeling this weighs more than the qualifications). I asked somewhere else how connections works here in Canada and US, because in my original country (which is a third world country), these connections are used as a means of corruption, and it's one reason why I left, because I needed to basically beg some powerful people to get a job (even as a lecturer at a university), and I would owe him that for the rest of my life! Maybe the way it works here is a little different (in the form of recommendation or something), but still it doesn't give equal and fair opportunity for all. It boils down to how many connections you have, and if it happened that you are not sociable (like myself), then you are basically doomed, regardless of your qualifications!

 

[CrysPhys]

To be honest, I view this connection thing as a form of begging; I need to connect with someone I don't know, and I need to impress him/her to consider me for the job! So, just a 15 minutes impression will determine if I'll be considered or not (I have a feeling this weighs more than the qualifications). I asked somewhere else how connections works here in Canada and US, because in my original country (which is a third world country), these connections are used as a means of corruption, and it's one reason why I left, because I needed to basically beg some powerful people to get a job (even as a lecturer at a university), and I would owe him that for the rest of my life! Maybe the way it works here is a little different (in the form of recommendation or something), but still it doesn't give equal and fair opportunity for all. It boils down to how many connections you have, and if it happened that you are not sociable (like myself), then you are basically doomed, regardless of your qualifications!

You're on the right track: identifying the variables that affect your outcome (finding a job). The mistake you continue to make is trying to find a single variable that is determinative. What you are facing is a global optimization problem of a multi-variable system. Furthermore, the variables are time-dependent.

Making connections in general is not a form of begging; it's a way of seeking help to accomplish a task. If you work in industry, you will in general need to learn how to network (make connections) to get your technical task done as well. Very few positions entail working in isolation; in general, you will be a member of a team.

A common problem faced on hi-tech teams is how to deal with an individual who is technically brilliant, but is extraordinarily difficult to work with. If his technical expertise is truly an outlier, then the manager will usually keep him on, but create some buffer to keep his toxic personality from poisoning the team and killing the whole project. But if his technical expertise is only somewhat above the norm, then the manager may choose to replace him with someone a little less technically qualified, but easier to work with: in the end, the project team will accomplish its task more efficiently, since the project is not constantly delayed by fights with a difficult individual.

So an interview evaluates not only your technical qualifications, but also intangibles, such as personality. Some companies actually conduct a formal "behavioral interview", as well as a "technical interview". Ideally, a candidate needs to score well on both. But since ideal candidates rarely exist, then managers need to apply weighting factors to the scores.

 

[EngWiPy]

The whole selection process is flawed, but the point here is why should I impress a manager before an official interview to be considered (I might not even like him/her but I still need to impress him/her)? Making connections with peers to solve a technical problem is different, because the connection is usually mutually equivalent.

I don't mind being interviewed officially and evaluated and later been told that I didn't pass. Many people probably have more experience than me, although I think experience isn't everything (another flaw), but I don't get interviews and evaluated in the first place; neither technically or behaviorally.

 

[symbolipoint]

S_David, about post #41,

The way you describe yourself and how you interact or not, with people, you are a task-focused person. When you have a job to do, you pick your objectives and you work at them. Your not being social nor have impulse for small-talk maybe makes YOU feel like something is missing, but in regard to doing smart work, it is not important; and you can communicate with personnel involved in whatever way is needed.

The two types of people (maybe more) which you impress are these:

• Teacher or Professor whose course you attend, especially if more than one course - Also if you did well in one of his laboratory classes or did some research under his direction, then he is acquainted with you, your personality, your work quality, and he can make some kind of assessment of you.
• Supervisor of Your Employment - As long as you work for him/her some significant amount of time, this person (if you trust him/her) knows about you as a worker and is also acquainted at least some bit with your personality, and this person can assess how you are and may be able to write a brief letter about this for you/for some other employer or some institution.

 

[CrysPhys]

The whole selection process is flawed, but the point here is why should I impress a manager before an official interview to be considered (I might not even like him/her but I still need to impress him/her)? Making connections with peers to solve a technical problem is different, because the connection is usually mutually equivalent.

I don't mind being interviewed officially and evaluated and later been told that I didn't pass. Many people probably have more experience than me, although I think experience isn't everything (another flaw), but I don't get interviews and evaluated in the first place; neither technically or behaviorally.

<<Emphasis Added>>

Because the alternative is to passively submit your resume to HR in response to a job post, have your resume enter a queue with (likely) hundreds of other resumes, and have your resume undergo a slow, tedious, flawed selection process [including having your resume simply getting lost in the pile]. One effective way to bypass the queue is to have your resume directed to the hiring manager through a network of personal connections. The more the connections are favorably impressed by you, the more likely they are to help you, including referring you to another connection that may bring you closer to the hiring manager. If you find this personal approach distasteful, then your alternative is to keep passively submitting resumes to HR; but that approach hasn't been successful, which is why you keep posting for advice.

In industry, to succeed, you need to make connections not only with peers, but also with higher-level managers and lower-level support staff.

 

[CrysPhys]

S_David, about post #41,

The way you describe yourself and how you interact or not, with people, you are a task-focused person. When you have a job to do, you pick your objectives and you work at them. Your not being social nor have impulse for small-talk maybe makes YOU feel like something is missing, but in regard to doing smart work, it is not important; and you can communicate with personnel involved in whatever way is needed. ...

(a) In industry, your management picks your objectives.

(b) As I mentioned above, in industry, you rarely work in isolation, you work as a member of a team. So being able to work effectively with people is important.

(c) You need to communicate with personnel effectively. What is effective depends on the audience. You need to tailor the mode of communication to the audience of interest.

 

[symbolipoint]

(a) In industry, your management picks your objectives.

(b) As I mentioned above, in industry, you rarely work in isolation, you work as a member of a team. So being able to work effectively with people is important.

(c) You need to communicate with personnel effectively. What is effective depends on the audience. You need to tailor the mode of communication to the audience of interest.

(a) Management picks some of your objectives and person doing work picks other objectives. Management picks the goals. Goals and objectives are different things.

(b) and (c) go together. Some personnel work mostly in isolation but need at times to talk to other people or technical advice and periodically must communicate with the principals.

 

[Choppy]

To be honest, I view this connection thing as a form of begging; I need to connect with someone I don't know, and I need to impress him/her to consider me for the job! So, just a 15 minutes impression will determine if I'll be considered or not (I have a feeling this weighs more than the qualifications). I asked somewhere else how connections works here in Canada and US, because in my original country (which is a third world country), these connections are used as a means of corruption, and it's one reason why I left, because I needed to basically beg some powerful people to get a job (even as a lecturer at a university), and I would owe him that for the rest of my life! Maybe the way it works here is a little different (in the form of recommendation or something), but still it doesn't give equal and fair opportunity for all. It boils down to how many connections you have, and if it happened that you are not sociable (like myself), then you are basically doomed, regardless of your qualifications!

I think you're running with an incorrect understanding of networking here.

What you're describing is nepotism. While it does exist to some degree, that's not how the networking and hiring process works in most cases. People aren't going to hire you over another candidate just because you had a 15 minute conversation with someone who works for their company. However, the content of such conversations can often make a critical difference in the hiring process. Examples of how they can help:
- they can let you know about positions in the field to apply for in the first place
- they can give you information about which positions are best suited to your skill set
- they can let you know what kinds of qualities the hiring committee is looking for in a particular search
- they can give you information about what it's like to work for that company, which in turn makes you better able to determine if the job is the right one for you
- they demonstrate initiative
- they provide tangible evidence that you've investigated details of the position
- meeting someone informally first, before a more formal interview can make you more confident
- etc.

With respect to that last part about being "doomed" if you are not sociable - that's just not true. Obviously some people have to work harder at this kind of thing than others, but one's degree of social skills can be improved just like any other set of skills - by working on them.

 

[Choppy]

The whole selection process is flawed,

I agree completely. It's not perfect. There is no perfect way to determine the best candidate for a position.

but I don't get interviews and evaluated in the first place; neither technically or behaviorally.

Interviews are often the best tools that we have for candidate selection when you have more candidates than you have positions. I suppose there are alternatives, but they are not without their cons.

 

[EngWiPy]

I was reading about something called the dual vocational education and training system in Germany and Switzerland, and it seems that it's a good model for training and selecting employees. Companies have paid apprenticeship programs that teach people technical skills that they can use immediately after they finish, and from those trainees, the company can select some to work with them. These countries have addressed the experience dilemma that most countries suffer from including Canada and US. We have to adapt to the broken system we have, but I think these issues need to be addressed at the same time.

 

[symbolipoint]

I was reading about something called the dual vocational education and training system in Germany and Switzerland, and it seems that it's a good model for training and selecting employees. Companies have paid apprenticeship programs that teach people technical skills that they can use immediately after they finish, and from those trainees, the company can select some to work with them. These countries have addressed the experience dilemma that most countries suffer from including Canada and US. We have to adapt to the broken system we have, but I think these issues need to be addressed at the same time.

Good Thinking. Any training related to a job for which one is interviewed for, makes the candidate a better one than without that training. Companies prefer to find candidates with the specific skills and experience that fit the position. Some companies will give the necessary training, and some will not.

 

[CrysPhys]

...
With respect to that last part about being "doomed" if you are not sociable - that's just not true. Obviously some people have to work harder at this kind of thing than others, but one's degree of social skills can be improved just like any other set of skills - by working on them.

Absolutely. But the key first step is to acknowledge that social skills are important and that deficiencies need to be addressed.

An alternative is be be a top-flight technical expert in a hi-tech field with high demand and short supply of candidates.

 

[Choppy]

I was reading about something called the dual vocational education and training system in Germany and Switzerland, and it seems that it's a good model for training and selecting employees. Companies have paid apprenticeship programs that teach people technical skills that they can use immediately after they finish, and from those trainees, the company can select some to work with them. These countries have addressed the experience dilemma that most countries suffer from including Canada and US. We have to adapt to the broken system we have, but I think these issues need to be addressed at the same time.

EDIT: sorry I think the initial post came across as a little more snarky than intended.

Canada has had programs like this for years. I believe the same is true in the US.

The trades have apprenticeships programs where people earn as they work.

At the undergraduate university level, co-op programs, allow students to gain paid work experience in their field to compliment their studies. A lot can depend on the co-op model the school uses though. In some cases the employer-university relationship is pretty solid and students more or less have something just as a result of enrolling. In other programs, they have to find the work themselves. Unfortunately I think it's becoming more popular not to pay co-op students for their time. In my opinion this is a backward way of thinking. If the program is set up properly, the student will provide a net benefit to the employer and therefore needs to be reimbursed.

This happens even in my own field of medical physics. Graduates obtain residencies where they gain clinical experience and develop a clinical skill set while working under the supervision of qualified medical physicists.

 

[EngWiPy]

I mentioned this before in another thread, but I will mention it again: I watched once a documentary about the job market, and in it, it was mentioned that there was a study conducted that showed that for every $1 spent on training an employee, the employer gains on average $1.75 in return. The employer never loses in training employees in the long run. The problem is in the mindset of the industry. No on is willing to invest because they want to maximize interests as much as possible. This isn't true in Switzerland, for example; employers are willing to invest.

I'm not sure what co-op programs exactly are, but it seems they are limited to already enrolled students, the same as internships (I'm not sure if they are different). I, for example, cannot do these training.

Although there is an emphasis on being social, I think it's overrated. Being able to communicate, on the hand, is important.

 

[CrysPhys]

...
Although there is an emphasis on being social, I think it's overrated. Being able to communicate, on the hand, is important.

But being social is a mode of communication. To reiterate a point I previously made, the key to effective communication is to know your audience and to tailor the mode of communication to that audience. Writing an IEEE journal article to communicate technical achievements to an audience of your peers won't cut it for selling yourself to an audience of hiring managers (and an audience of connections who can help you reach those hiring managers).