Things I've learned as a recent grad

[jesse73]

I've asked detailed questions to candidates that we were looking for for our detector projects, especially on their knowledge of ultra-high vacuum systems, thin film fabrications, thin film diagnostics, etc... etc. And trust me, I can spot someone faking their ability VERY quickly!

Adding on analogdesigns comment.

To play devils advocate on experienced professionals being better at lie detection.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection

 

[jesse73]

Sometimes this intuition fails. I had a high-performing co-worker recently applied for a job doing board design at Microsoft. The interviewer thought he was lying about his contribution but it was true! The guy did a whole ATCA communication node interfacing with a high-speed imager by himself! The interviewer was convinced the candidate was taking credit for a group project.

I imagine 9 times out of 10 the interviewer is right though.

Sounds like he didnt potray his answers confidently. Engineers and physicist arent known to be the most confident people so I would say "9 times out of 10" is likely an overestimate.

 

[analogdesign]

Adding on analogdesigns comment.

To play devils advocate on experienced professionals being better at lie detection.


http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2006/10/just-how-good-are-police-officers-at.html

This is very interesting but not entirely applicable. I don't claim to be superhuman and I'm not able to detect many lies based on facts. However, if you're lying about capabilities I am able to dig in and expose that lie since I happen to be a subject matter expert.

I can't tell if the applicant is lying about where they were last weekend or if they robbed 7-11 but I can tell whether or not they took a lead role in an Ethernet PHY implementation.

 

[analogdesign]

Sounds like he didnt potray his answers confidently. Engineers and physicist arent known to be the most confident people so I would say "9 times out of 10" is likely an overestimate.

You could be right. This guy was very capable but a bit shy and perhaps not as confident as he should have been.

That said, communication and confidence are important real-world skills for engineers. I wish more engineers had guidance in these areas.

 

[jesse73]

You could be right. This guy was very capable but a bit shy and perhaps not as confident as he should have been.

That said, communication and confidence are important real-world skills for engineers. I wish more engineers had guidance in these areas.

Problem is that the interviewers didnt come out with that impression but rather with the impression that he didnt actually do the work he described. This means the interviewers themselves had a defective ability at discerning confidence from capability and not even realizing it.

Exactly why I wouldn't take anyone's self proclaimed ability at telling "who actually did the work" at face value.

 

[jesse73]

Lying can help you get ahead. So it's difficult not to do it. It's too easy to say, and hard to do, but I'll say it anyway: be honest because it's right.

http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/labs/WhatisScience/section_08.html
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/dna_13

Aside from the links between psychopathic characteristics and success in the workplace.

Books about this.

Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Paul Babiak
No A**hole Rule by Robert Sutton

 

[D H]

Problem is that the interviewers didnt come out with that impression but rather with the impression that he didnt actually do the work he described. This means the interviewers themselves had a defective ability at discerning confidence from capability and not even realizing it.

No, it doesn't. You're missing something important: The cost of mistakenly rejecting a viable candidate is *tiny* compared to the cost of mistakenly hiring a non-viable candidate. A company that is hiring can always find someone else to interview for a job opening. Getting rid of a hiring mistake? That's extremely expensive, even for a big company.

The hiring process is extremely risk averse. Any perceived risk pretty much spells the end of a candidate's hiring prospects, and suspected lying ranks way up there as a risk.

 

[meanrev]

• The best job boards, in descending order, are Indeed, LinkedIn and, believe it or not, CraigsList. But none of these are good for a recent college grad. Any position that is listed is "Entry-Level" will have 20 requirements including 5-10 yrs professional experience. There do exist truly entry-level jobs at good companies, but you'll only be able to find them through your university or other connections. Apply for the jobs with "require" experience even if you don't have it. If they give you a call, that means they think you're a good potential candidate in spite of the fact that your resume doesn't show you have experience. I've gotten calls from several places after applying for jobs for which I didn't meet the "requirements."
• Don't bother going to any "networking events" or "open houses". It'll be you and 1000 other desperate people trying to suck up to the company while their managers give an info session and gloat over how great their jobs are and how they pick up only the greatest talent on Earth and that you should apply online if you think you're elite enough.

I disagree about these two. I, among many others, have found networking events and open houses to be more useful than any other in the job application process.

1. For one, working at a firm is a two-way process of you interviewing them as well as them interviewing you, so whether or not it facilitates getting employed, meeting other employees before you even send out your application is something I recommend everyone to do.

2. Secondly, it's a great way to learn what others are doing. You may be a math major looking for a job at Google, but find out that HP is doing some elegant things with network distribution in their Vertica acquisition; that Yahoo is trying to replace their employee base with 80% recent college grads to remove their old image; or that they're actually recruiting math majors at D.E. Shaw; or that there's a new medical imaging startup that needs experts at wavelet decomposition.

I noted a few posts describing recruiters who have to go through hundreds of applicants and get bored of it - well, it's partly true that standing on the spot for 8 hours straight, repeating the same stories about your firm, is very exhausting - but it's not boring. People love to talk about themselves - if you lower your sense of entitlement and give them a chance to, you can get a lot out of it even if it doesn't end in a job offer. I've never come across a recruiter who was unenthusiastic to pursue a conversation with me and follow up via email after that.

 

[jesse73]

No, it doesn't. You're missing something important: The cost of mistakenly rejecting a viable candidate is *tiny* compared to the cost of mistakenly hiring a non-viable candidate. A company that is hiring can always find someone else to interview for a job opening. Getting rid of a hiring mistake? That's extremely expensive, even for a big company.

The hiring process is extremely risk averse. Any perceived risk pretty much spells the end of a candidate's hiring prospects, and suspected lying ranks way up there as a risk.

Thats justification for why the mistake in perception doesn't matter. It is not reasoning for why the interviewer was not making a mistake in perception in that scenario.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The hiring process is extremely risk averse. Any perceived risk pretty much spells the end of a candidate's hiring prospects, and suspected lying ranks way up there as a risk.

Which is why its very hard for physics phds to get many jobs at engineering companies, especially in a crowded market. Its easier to hire the normal candidate over the outlier candidate.

 

[Corpuscule]

Which is why its very hard for physics phds to get many jobs at engineering companies, especially in a crowded market. Its easier to hire the normal candidate over the outlier candidate.

Not only. You may notice that you are competing vs engineers with experience perfectly matching the job requirements. As a physicist you are likely to only have somewhat relevant or related experience. That would be an advantage vs totally unexperienced engineers, but even fresh engineering graduates these days come with several highly relevant internships under their belts.

 

[Lavabug]

I concur with most of what has been said. However, what if it comes down to answering the question "why do you want this job"? Either in an interview or a cover letter? I mean this outside the context of academia, but since we're mixing subjects here: in an academic scenario: a graduate school application when stating research interests?

Does it really pay off to be sincere in answering this question? Not everyone is fortunate enough to get to apply solely to jobs they would like, ie: not have to overtly lie about a subject like this. IME being frank about wanting to get your living expensive paid is a surefire way of not getting hired, every hiring manager even at simple retail jobs want someone who *"likes"* their job.

 

[kinkmode]

You do have to play the game to a certain amount. I wouldn't call that lying. Yes, if you go into an interview, you should be enthusiastic about it and act like you want the job. While I think it's a bit silly in this day and age for employers to expect entry level interviewees to pretend that they are only interested in THEIR specific opening, that's what you've got to do. And it's relatively easy to do that without lying. Be professional and polite, don't talk about previous negative work experiences, don't talk about your other job options/desires. Focus on the one at hand. Find the positive things to talk about with respect to the potential job. If it's a cool work environment, talk about that. If it involves working with a lot of people, talk about that.

On the other hand, I would call the thing that started this whole lying bit a lie, and a stupid one at that.

 

[TMFKAN64]

On the other hand, I would call the thing that started this whole lying bit a lie, and a stupid one at that.

I'd agree. To some extent, everyone tries to make molehills into mountains on their resume and sell what they've done to interviewers. That's very different than saying white is black.

 

[analogdesign]

I'd agree. To some extent, everyone tries to make molehills into mountains on their resume and sell what they've done to interviewers. That's very different than saying white is black.

True. Investigating the amount of inflation is one of the primary goals of a good interview.

 

[Turion]

Lying is extremely difficult.

My advice is that if you're going to do it, you better get every single tiny detail down. For example: if you say that you worked as a computer technician, then you better have gotten 100% on that Comptia A+ technician certification or else they'll immediately know you're lying.

Most people lying on their resume get caught because they don't have sufficient knowledge.

 

[D H]

Thats justification for why the mistake in perception doesn't matter. It is not reasoning for why the interviewer was not making a mistake in perception in that scenario.

How do you know a mistake was made? All we have is a brief second-hand description of why a job interview didn't go well, and it's a one-sided description at that. The interview was with Microsoft, and a big company like that is smart enough to know *not* to say anything remotely disparaging to a rejected candidate. "After further review we don't have an opening for you now" is about all you'll get.

We don't know why this person was rejected. You are assuming it was because of a mistake. I can think of lots of ways that the rejection was not a mistake. Like any big company, Microsoft is bound to have a few pockets of excellence and a lot of pockets of mundaneness. Suppose he interviewed with one of those groups that specialize in mundane work. They may well have found that he did do exactly what he claimed -- and rejected him precisely because of that. A superstar is not a good fit in a group that does not do superstar-class work.

 

[Locrian]

However, what if it comes down to answering the question "why do you want this job"? Either in an interview or a cover letter?
Does it really pay off to be sincere in answering this question? Not everyone is fortunate enough to get to apply solely to jobs they would like, ie: not have to overtly lie about a subject like this. IME being frank about wanting to get your living expensive paid is a surefire way of not getting hired, every hiring manager even at simple retail jobs want someone who *"likes"* their job.

I admit it has been a while since I worked retail, but I’d bet you real money I could get a job at a retail store and be 100% honest in the process. This is how I imagine the conversation going:

ER: So why do you want this job?
Me: I like to work. I’m looking to make some money in my spare time. I’m going to do an excellent job here and I believe this will work out very well for us both.
ER: But why do you want to work at this particular position?
Me: Well, [insert company name] has a good reputation. I believe this is a company that rewards responsible, hard workers like myself.
ER: Are you considering a career in [X]?
Me: I don’t know at this time whether this will turn into a career. However, I’m going to excel in the position that I’m in, and I’ll make it my goal to ensure you are glad you hired me.

Of course, I can say all that because it’s true. And you can bet they’d hire me, even though I straight up told them I was doing it for the money. Of course you’re also there for the money, so be up front about what they’re going to get for it.

One thing I want to stress is that often job-seekers believe employers want extensive background information and a deep analysis of their history and motivations. They usually don’t. They want to know you’ll fill the gap they’ve got, or solve the problem they have.

So firstly, decide whether you can solve whatever problem they have, because they have one or they wouldn’t be looking to pay someone. Secondly, tell them you’re going to do that, repeatedly. Wherever the conversation goes, always come back to what you’re going to do for them. And, if you can, how you’re going to do it. I’ve been thrilled with how well that works.

 

[Locrian]

While I like the job I have, I began a job search about a month and a half ago. My principle for interviews has been as follows:

• Research the company. You don’t need to know everything, but if you can find their financial report, it often has very useful summaries and may tell you something about how the company is structured that helps in the interview.
  
• Listen to them describe themselves and the position. They don’t always give you this information up front, but if they do, be thinking of how you’re going to do that work. When they stop talking, take a turn and use language that puts you there (“So I am going to do W and meanwhile I’ll be working on X. That’s great because I already know how to Y and am confident I can learn Z very quickly.”)
  
• Say nothing negative. 100% positive is the rule. Learn to use language that transfers positively while honestly describing the situation.
  
• Stay on message. You’re going to do good work for them. You’re excited about it.
  
• Listen carefully and take good notes.
  
• If it’s on-site, smile and relax.

Pretty basic stuff, but I thought I’d throw it out there.

Being honest has been a given, btw.

 

[Choppy]

I concur with most of what has been said. However, what if it comes down to answering the question "why do you want this job"? Either in an interview or a cover letter? I mean this outside the context of academia, but since we're mixing subjects here: in an academic scenario: a graduate school application when stating research interests?

Does it really pay off to be sincere in answering this question? Not everyone is fortunate enough to get to apply solely to jobs they would like, ie: not have to overtly lie about a subject like this. IME being frank about wanting to get your living expensive paid is a surefire way of not getting hired, every hiring manager even at simple retail jobs want someone who *"likes"* their job.

Just to add to what Locrian has said, I think there may be this perception that you have to "lie" to this question - or at least exaggerate the truth, but I don't really think that's the case.

Of course there are lots of cases where you're looking for the best job that you can get out of what's available... and what's available at a given time may be crap. Stating that you think the job is going to be crap is obviously not a recommended course of action, but I would argue that wouldn't be telling the whole truth in that case.

1. You made the decision to apply.
2. You made the decision to attend the interview.
3. You have decided you would work that job if it were offered to you.

So on some level, you're agreeing to that position as an exchange for your time and effort. And though you may not think highly of the position or the company, you do believe it's worth your time.

A manager at McDonald's is going to be well aware that the applicants don't see the fry station as a permanent career. But he or she will want to know whether you can see the position as an opportunity and make the best of it and work diligently as you do.

 

[jesse73]

How do you know a mistake was made? All we have is a brief second-hand description of why a job interview didn't go well, and it's a one-sided description at that. The interview was with Microsoft, and a big company like that is smart enough to know *not* to say anything remotely disparaging to a rejected candidate. "After further review we don't have an opening for you now" is about all you'll get.

We don't know why this person was rejected. You are assuming it was because of a mistake. I can think of lots of ways that the rejection was not a mistake. Like any big company, Microsoft is bound to have a few pockets of excellence and a lot of pockets of mundaneness. Suppose he interviewed with one of those groups that specialize in mundane work. They may well have found that he did do exactly what he claimed -- and rejected him precisely because of that. A superstar is not a good fit in a group that does not do superstar-class work.

Im confused are you and analogdesign the same person or know this same individual because I was referring to analogdesigns comment. In analogsdesign comment he said he knew the guy actually did all the work he was describing.

 

[Lavabug]

I admit it has been a while since I worked retail, but I’d bet you real money I could get a job at a retail store and be 100% honest in the process. This is how I imagine the conversation going:

ER: So why do you want this job?
Me: I like to work. I’m looking to make some money in my spare time. I’m going to do an excellent job here and I believe this will work out very well for us both.
ER: But why do you want to work at this particular position?
Me: Well, [insert company name] has a good reputation. I believe this is a company that rewards responsible, hard workers like myself.
ER: Are you considering a career in [X]?
Me: I don’t know at this time whether this will turn into a career. However, I’m going to excel in the position that I’m in, and I’ll make it my goal to ensure you are glad you hired me.

Of course, I can say all that because it’s true. And you can bet they’d hire me, even though I straight up told them I was doing it for the money. Of course you’re also there for the money, so be up front about what they’re going to get for it.

That sounds good, sounds like you know how to sell yourself very easily, assuming that's the level of confidence a retail manager wants to hear. But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

I personally would have a lot of trouble responding like that while keeping a straight face, regardless of the "level" of the job, but I'm generally not that confident in the least. Hasn't stopped me from getting the few retail jobs I've actually been called to an interview for though. Then again the market back then may have been better, and my competitors for the position generally looked like ex-convicts, so it may not have had anything to do with me.

 

[trickslapper]

That sounds good, sounds like you know how to sell yourself very easily, assuming that's the level of confidence a retail manager wants to hear. But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

I personally would have a lot of trouble responding like that while keeping a straight face, regardless of the "level" of the job, but I'm generally not that confident in the least. Hasn't stopped me from getting the few retail jobs I've actually been called to an interview for though. Then again the market back then may have been better, and my competitors for the position generally looked like ex-convicts, so it may not have had anything to do with me.

I agree that it sounds too rehearsed. I think being casual is the best way to interview. You have to remember that the people who are interviewing you are still regular people with regular problems. If you can connect with them on that kind of level they would rather hire you then some brainiac who can barely keep eye contact / says what the interviewer "wants" to hear.

 

[Locrian]

I agree that it sounds too rehearsed. I think being casual is the best way to interview. You have to remember that the people who are interviewing you are still regular people with regular problems. If you can connect with them on that kind of level they would rather hire you then some brainiac who can barely keep eye contact / says what the interviewer "wants" to hear.

How could you possibly get from my post to "brainiac who can barely keep eye contact"? Was your post serious? Did I miss some sarcasm? The post Lavabug responded to absolutely included eye contact, and I was spectacularly clear that it was genuine, and not just what they wanted to hear. How could you have misread that?

Did you miss the line where I said "Of course, I can say all that because it’s true." Because then it's not just what they want to hear, it's also an honest assessment of my own motives.

Being forthright, direct, and focusing on the mutual benefits of the job is working very well. I'm sure it's not the only way, but it's one of the better ones.

As a side note, I'm in a job search right now and it's going really, really well. If I finish this process with three excellent offers, it'll be because I didn't feel the need to get six. Or more. My way isn't the only way, but I have hard evidence it works.

 

[Locrian]

But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

It’s not necessarily a bad thing. “Rehearsed” implies unnatural, but it also implies prepared. (Remember that some of those cruddy HR interview type questions are really just testing to see if you cared enough about the position to prepare yourself!) What’s important is that what you say is true and that you can support it if they ask further questions. I admit that at about the tenth interview, it has become hard not to sound rehearsed - because I have answered the same questions so many times! However, I really don’t think it has hurt me; it may have even helped.

One of the biggest dangers in interviewing is going off the rails, which is much easier to do than it seems. Part of the problem is that you’re not having a normal discussion – they’re usually taking notes. This means that they don’t jump in when you finish your sentence. It is very common for interviewees to finish a short description of something, be greeted with silence, interpret that as an indication they should continue, andthen continue on. Maybe you’ve seen what I mean (and if not, you will). Some interviewers will even place pauses on purpose just to bait you, and some will do it in person. They want to see what level of control you have. But usually these pauses are not intentional.

Because the interviewee is trying to impress the interviewer, and because those silences can seem uncomfortable to the interviewee, it is critical that you practice giving concise, careful (and, obviously, honest) answers to questions.

Rehearsed isn’t perfect, but it’s infinitely better than rambling.

 

[trickslapper]

How could you possibly get from my post to "brainiac who can barely keep eye contact"? Was your post serious? Did I miss some sarcasm? The post Lavabug responded to absolutely included eye contact, and I was spectacularly clear that it was genuine, and not just what they wanted to hear. How could you have misread that?

Did you miss the line where I said "Of course, I can say all that because it’s true." Because then it's not just what they want to hear, it's also an honest assessment of my own motives.

Being forthright, direct, and focusing on the mutual benefits of the job is working very well. I'm sure it's not the only way, but it's one of the better ones.

As a side note, I'm in a job search right now and it's going really, really well. If I finish this process with three excellent offers, it'll be because I didn't feel the need to get six. Or more. My way isn't the only way, but I have hard evidence it works.

Relax, I meant in general that it's better to be casual than to be overly reherased, sound too smart, or say what an employer wants to hear. I wasn't talking about you in particular. Although i still think what you posted was too rehearsed but, I'm sure it didn't sound that way when you spoke those words.

 

[Lavabug]

Relax, I meant in general that it's better to be casual than to be overly reherased, sound too smart, or say what an employer wants to hear. I wasn't talking about you in particular. Although i still think what you posted was too rehearsed but, I'm sure it didn't sound that way when you spoke those words.

That's what I interpreted too.

As a physics major IME, and I'm sure many other people here can corroborate this, it takes very very little for the layman to automatically assume you have an intellectual superiority complex, which certainly doesn't do you any favors in a job hunt.

 

[D H]

But doesn't it sound a little too rehearsed? I'm assuming that's a bad thing?

Yes, there's always a danger in coming off as too slick, too rehearsed, during an interview. It makes interviewers wonder what's behind the interviewee's "interview face".

That said, Locrian's post addressed the key issue of someone looking for a job in a field rather different from the one in which a person has been educated in or has worked in. That person had better have a very good answer to the "why do you want this job" question because that question is going to come up. Interviewers pretty much expect a canned answer when they ask that question. It's a bit surprising when the interviewee stumbles on this question.

You should have an answer to that question no matter what, and to the question of why you want to work for the specific company that is interviewing you. Locrian addressed this in a later post, thoroughly research the company with which you are about to have an interview. You might find that you truly do want to work there. You might also find that you do not want to work there at all, in which case you might as well cancel the interview. (Or you can be a bit Machiavellian and make it a "practice interview." You go in with the explicit intent of getting an offer even though you know in advance that you will not accept it. Not that nice, but meh, it's good preparation for a "real" interview.)

 

[Lavabug]

You might find that you truly do want to work there. You might also find that you do not want to work there at all, in which case you might as well cancel the interview. (Or you can be a bit Machiavellian and make it a "practice interview." You go in with the explicit intent of getting an offer even though you know you will not accept it. Not that nice, but meh, it's good preparation for a "real" interview.)

There's another scenario: you may find you wouldn't want to work there, but it's the only job interview you've got in months/a year and you really need the job, ie: you're just about to miss a rent payment.

Which brings us back to the question of sincerity. It seems like in this climate, the job seeker is always at a disadvantage and will have to resort to lying in some form or another, more so if he/she is trying to get a job outside of what they were trained in (a very real and generally unavoidable thing for most physics majors).

Doing it skillfully in this scenario is the only way to get hired when the market is this bad for employees it seems, it's a buyer's market.

 

[Locrian]

My limited experience is that hard science majors can manage to come across as both arrogant and lacking confidence, which is pretty impressive if you think about it. I was def guilty of that a decade ago.

I think your worry about sounding rehearsed is way, way overblown. Youll get questions that you couldn't see coming; be properly prepared for the ones you can.

I have another interview tomorrow (final, post on-site) and I'm going to bust my butt preparing for it, including preparing answers for the questions I know are coming.

I advise you to do the same!