Why can't I land a job interview?

[glueball8]

Going to a university and walking out knowing how to do just one thing defeats the whole purpose. And, getting back on topic, is not attractive to employers. Wise employers know that they are making a long-term commitment (c.f. Zappos) and that the only certainty is change.

But most employers know they aren't making a long-term commitment due the extremely large amount of job switching these days. It is very unlikely that entry level positions stays at that company for say 5 years or more. So employers are looking for you to be able to work asap, so it is attractive to employers. IMO, at least.

 

[AlephZero]

But most employers know they aren't making a long-term commitment due the extremely large amount of job switching these days. It is very unlikely that entry level positions stays at that company for say 5 years or more. So employers are looking for you to be able to work asap, so it is attractive to employers. IMO, at least.

I agree lots of employers are just as shortsighted as other people. But if you don't get continuing lifelong professional development from somewhere, you will quite likely be unemployable in 10 years time whatever paper qualifications you have now.

 

[Lavabug]

I don't have much to chime in with, I'm a recent physics grad myself and I've been struggling to find even temporary employment of any sort. 20 applications is not anywhere near enough. Try 200+. Been shooting off applications and cold-calling and cold-visiting employers in my region non-stop since March (sending online applications well before), and I've yet to land a single job interview. Not even retail/service jobs like the type I had fresh out of high school (in retrospect, I should've probably left my college degree out of my resume).

All I can say is give up on engineering-type jobs without an engineering degree. If any kind of technical job appeals to you, you will invariably have to pursue a graduate education (and not just any) for that nowadays, preferably one that will give you coop opportunities/shoe-ins to internships at a tech company, so pick a school with an excellent track record of getting their graduates into industry.

Fortunately, I'm joining grad school in the fall so it's not the end of the world for me, but I really need the funds to prepare. I'd be extremely worried if I didn't have grad school already lined up right now, as I think I've exhausted all my ideas and things don't look like they'll be getting any easier anytime soon.

 

[thegreenlaser]

I don't have much to chime in with, I'm a recent physics grad myself and I've been struggling to find even temporary employment of any sort. 20 applications is not anywhere near enough. Try 200+. Been shooting off applications and cold-calling and cold-visiting employers in my region non-stop since March (sending online applications well before), and I've yet to land a single job interview.

Not only should you send out lots of applications, but you should put some effort into each application. It's easy to write a generic cover letter/resume and just plug the company name in, but that probably won't be very effective. Do your research on both the job and the company before applying. You need to show them why you want this job, not just a job. And you need to show them why you would be good at this job, not just a job. If they describe "necessary skills," you should concisely demonstrate how you meet most of those skills. And of course, everything you say on your cover letter should be backed up by your resume.

This actually kind of ties into your comment about physicists being able to be engineers. Even if that were true, you can't expect your potential employer to glance through your resume and say "Wow, a physics degree! Get my hiring pen!" They probably get lots of applications from people with technical degrees. You need to sell it to them, and explain (concisely) why your physics degree and your other experience makes you a great fit for the job.

My point is, be an active job applicant, not a passive one. Just handing out resumes might work in high school, but in the professional world, you need to put some effort into each and every application.

 

[Lavabug]

Not only should you send out lots of applications, but you should put some effort into each application. It's easy to write a generic cover letter/resume and just plug the company name in, but that probably won't be very effective. Do your research on both the job and the company before applying. You need to show them why you want this job, not a job. And you need to show them why you would be good at this job, not a job. If they describe "necessary skills," you should concisely demonstrate how you meet most of those skills. And of course, everything you say on your cover letter should be backed up by your resume.

This actually kind of ties into your comment about physicists being able to be engineers. Even if that were true, you can't expect your potential employer to glance through your resume and say "Wow, a physics degree! Get my hiring pen!" They probably get lots of applications from people with technical degrees. You need to sell it to them, and explain (concisely) why your physics degree and your other experience makes you a great fit for the job.

My point is, be an active job applicant, not a passive one. Just handing out resumes might work in high school, but in the professional world, you need to put some effort into each and every application.

I think you're overestimating the professional character of the jobs I'm applying for. More recently, I've actually been downplaying my degree as much as possible, as unskilled jobs likely consider me overqualified for the position. I'm also apparently underqualified for "entry level" career jobs that I've been wasting close to a year applying to.

I'm not shooting for career jobs anymore, and quite honestly 70-80% of entry level job applications I've encountered do not even give you an option for a cover letter. A good cover letter will not get you through HR filters. So writing a magnum opus for each and every one of 100+ applications is not likely to do you any favors if it's never going to be read. I think this is time that is better spent on completing more job applications instead of placing your eggs in just a few baskets...

 

[ModusPwnd]

In my searching I have done both. I have spent a good hour or two researching and crafting my cover letter and resume to try to highlight the specific skills they want and using the jargon they use. Of course this very much limits how many you can send off. I have also rapid fired off dozens in one day with virtually the same cover letter and resume for all.

Im not sure which approach would yield better odd at a job, so I continue to do both.

 

[jim hardy]

I worked for the last two years as an EMT in a power plant as medical standby,

Have you spoken to plant management there ?
A power plant is a smorgasboard of interesting technology to run that huge equipment.
Every plant i know of has a "performance engineer" who looks after thermodynamic performance, somebody to tend to the boiler water chemistry, a mechanical engineer or two for the rotating machinery, and a few electrical types for the electrics instruments and controls; and nowadays an environmental monitoring type too..

You doubtless know a lot of the maintenance folks already.

Utilities like to hire locals because they're more apt to stick around long enough to become really useful. old jim

 

[analogdesign]

Have you spoken to plant management there ?
A power plant is a smorgasboard of interesting technology to run that huge equipment.
Every plant i know of has a "performance engineer" who looks after thermodynamic performance, somebody to tend to the boiler water chemistry, a mechanical engineer or two for the rotating machinery, and a few electrical types for the electrics instruments and controls; and nowadays an environmental monitoring type too..

You doubtless know a lot of the maintenance folks already.

Utilities like to hire locals because they're more apt to stick around long enough to become really useful.


old jim

Personal contacts beat out job applications sent in shotgun mode hands down.

Jim gives excellent advice. Talk to the people at the plant in general terms about your goals and what do they suggest. People really like to be helpful. If they can't offer you something they may know someone who knows someone...

I have gotten all of my jobs in my career this way.

 

[D H]

Personal contacts beat out job applications sent in shotgun mode hands down.

Definitely. If you don't know someone who's hiring, you probably do know someone who knows someone who will hire you. And if that's not the case, you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who will hire you. Exploit the six degrees of Kevin Bacon phenomenon to the fullest extent.

I have gotten all of my jobs in my career this way.

Almost the same experience here. When I was young I did have to prove to myself that I could get a job without help. I did just that, once. But with every other job, including my first, I had a personal contact who helped, and sometimes they helped a lot. Personal contacts have pulled my bacon out of the fire more than once.

There's a flip side to this: You have to develop those personal contacts and you have to make your name. When you present a paper at a conference, make sure to share business cards and email addresses, and then follow up. When you write a piece of technical software, a white paper, whatever, put your name on it, and when people contact you, follow up. There are all kinds of ways where you can make your name. It might mean coming out of your shell socially, it might mean spending some of your own free time. You, not your employer, are responsible for the rest of your life. Take ownership of the rest of your life.

 

[caldweab]

OK, quiz time. How many accelerators are there compared to reactors in the US?

A. 1% as many
B. 10% as many
C. About the same number
D. 10x as many
E. 100x as many

The answer is E. (And if you asked about recent orders, it's more like another order of magnitude) Given that, I would argue that a modern nuclear engineer who only knows about reactors and not accelerators has not received the education that he should have.

I assume you just wanted to rant. I said he was pushing us towards doing research and working with accelerators. We didn't use an accelerator nor did we discuss any practical uses for accelerators, which was the point of my post to begin with. The physics professors seem to focus on moving into research instead of the practicality of the material they teach, it's nothing wrong with that if you want to do research. I don't want to be a researcher, and nowhere did I say accelerators were not important. What I want to do is work at a power plant as an engineer or operator or work at a vendor like Westinghouse designing reactors. I wouldn't even mind working at the NRC. .

 

[interhacker]

you know what they say, any physicist can be an engineer but not every engineer can be a physicist.

I really doubt the accuracy of that statement. The undergraduate electrical engineering programme I am planning to join has at least 3-4 semesters worth of engineering courses that are not generally covered in undergraduate physics programmes. Of course it is possible for a physicist to work as an engineer (and I think it's also possible for an engineer to work as an experimental physicist) but claiming that every physicist can be an engineer is like claiming every bio-chemist can be a medical physician.

 

[caldweab]

I really doubt the accuracy of that statement. The undergraduate electrical engineering programme I am planning to join has at least 3-4 semesters worth of engineering courses that are not generally covered in undergraduate physics programmes. Of course it is possible for a physicist to work as an engineer (and I think it's also possible for an engineer to work as an experimental physicist) but claiming that every physicist can be an engineer is like claiming every bio-chemist can be a medical physician.

agreed. What they teach in a physics curriculum is so far removed from what an engineering course is. For
example heat transfer is covered in physics 2 at my school. Engineers still get an entire course on heat transfer, which details how heat transfer is used and the practical use of it. The thermodynamics course physics majors take is also largely theoretical.

 

[Astronuc]

I agree. When I took all of my physics classes it seemed they were all geared towards preparing you for research oriented careers. For example our radioisotope lab is actually a physics course, the professor has a Ph.D in theoretical physics (nuclear) and although the course is in the physics department mostly nuclear engineering students take it. The course is about radiation protection and detection and the whole semester all the professor kept talking about was working with accelerators or doing research on different types of radiation. As a nuclear engineer, all of that is useless for working at a power plant or designing reactors. Protection and detection are important of course but he was more so trying to preparing us to move on to research type paths, there was one radiochemistry student and he was the only one interested in research and working with accelerators.

I assume you just wanted to rant. I said he was pushing us towards doing research and working with accelerators. We didn't use an accelerator nor did we discuss any practical uses for accelerators, which was the point of my post to begin with. The physics professors seem to focus on moving into research instead of the practicality of the material they teach, it's nothing wrong with that if you want to do research. I don't want to be a researcher, and nowhere did I say accelerators were not important. What I want to do is work at a power plant as an engineer or operator or work at a vendor like Westinghouse designing reactors. I wouldn't even mind working at the NRC. .

Assertion - "The course is about radiation protection and detection and the whole semester all the professor kept talking about was working with accelerators or doing research on different types of radiation."

Subsequent assertion - "I said he was pushing us towards doing research and working with accelerators. We didn't use an accelerator nor did we discuss any practical uses for accelerators, . . ."

In fairness to the professor, none of us were there, so we cannot independently confirm how the professor taught the course. Is it possible that he was providing the theoretical basis for the interaction of radiations in matter, because that is relevant to nuclear reactor design in which some structural materials are expected to withstand the effects of radiation over a 60 or 80 year lifetime, as compared to the older 40 year design life. On the other hand, nuclear fuel in the reactor core, which experiences much greater radiation fields (by one or several orders of magnitude), will be in-core for 3 to 8 years depending on core design and operating strategy.

Understanding radiation effects on materials is relevant to designing shielding and radiation protection, as well as to designing nuclear reactors and the components, including fuel, therein. It's also relevant to plant design.

What appears to be a push toward research may actually be a provision of the theory, which one would, or should be able to, apply sometime in the future.

For an example, one will find use of electron or particle accelerators to irradiate materials in order to study the radiation effects (damage to the microstructure) without the activation of the elements. This is done because it is way much easier to analyze non-radioactive materials. On the other hand, while that approach enables one to evaluate the radiation damage and the influence on material properties, it misses completely the effects of transmutation, which can completely change the nature of a material or alloy system.

I do a lot of research related to materials and material behavior, both from the standpoint of how the material is manufactured, which is the initial condition prior to service, and how is behaves in service in a reactor. The companies in which I have worked do a blend of theoretical and applied research in support of the nuclear industry, as well as other industries.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I assume you just wanted to rant.

No. I have several points to make:

• What the professor thinks it is important to know may be different from what you think it is important to know. Your tuition paying him for this judgment.
• Deciding now that you want to do just one thing - in this case reactors - is a little like a mechanical engineer deciding he only wants to work on marine diesel engines. The field is much broader than that. If you decide you are only willing to do one thing, that's your decision, but a consequence of that decision is that it's going to be harder to find a job.
• If something is used in the field, but not directly for the one thing you have settled on, complaining about learning other things is a little like "When am I going to use geometry in real life?"

 

[symbolipoint]

No. I have several points to make:

• What the professor thinks it is important to know may be different from what you think it is important to know. Your tuition paying him for this judgment.
• Deciding now that you want to do just one thing - in this case reactors - is a little like a mechanical engineer deciding he only wants to work on marine diesel engines. The field is much broader than that. If you decide you are only willing to do one thing, that's your decision, but a consequence of that decision is that it's going to be harder to find a job.
• If something is used in the field, but not directly for the one thing you have settled on, complaining about learning other things is a little like "When am I going to use geometry in real life?"

All that may be good guidance. Recruiters and human resource people seem to try to find people who are a strong fit or a perfect fit to jobs needing to be filled. One may learn many topics, one may have some diverse experience within a field, but the principals often want the best fitting candidate possible to be found.


About the original question, "why can't I land a job interview?!", the reason could be:

• Not much directly related experience even if all good experience;
• Been away from your field too long;
• Not an exact enough fit to the job;
• Not a recent graduate;
• Although recent graduate, not enough or no experience closely related to the field
• Too old (age discrimination).

 

[jesse73]

All that may be good guidance. Recruiters and human resource people seem to try to find people who are a strong fit or a perfect fit to jobs needing to be filled. One may learn many topics, one may have some diverse experience within a field, but the principals often want the best fitting candidate possible to be found.About the original question, "why can't I land a job interview?!", the reason could be:

• Not much directly related experience even if all good experience;
• Been away from your field too long;
• Not an exact enough fit to the job;
• Not a recent graduate;
• Although recent graduate, not enough or no experience closely related to the field
• Too old (age discrimination).

That list has contradicting advice which doesn't make it particularly useful.

 

[ModusPwnd]

What is the contradicting advise? It looks like normal reasons to me. Most people already know it, but if a new graduate doesn't it could be useful even though its generic.

edit - also, recruiters and HR are under no obligation to have non-contradicting hiring policies.

 

[jesse73]

What is the contradicting advise? It looks like normal reasons to me. Most people already know it, but if a new graduate doesn't it could be useful even though its generic.

edit - also, recruiters and HR are under no obligation to have non-contradicting hiring policies.

You acknowledge some of them are contradicting. Experienced recent graduates. I am not saying there is a law against it just that as advice it is cliched to the point of not being useful.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Recruiters and human resource people seem to try to find people who are a strong fit or a perfect fit to jobs needing to be filled.

I keep hearing people saying that. Here's what I hear from recruiters (cribbed from slides from a friend who is a dean at a large state school, so it's not just me that's hearing it):

• Recruiters are looking for smart, well-trained people who can:
  1. solve problems
  2. learn new things quickly.
  3. work well in teams.
  4. analyze large amounts of data.
  5. communicate well.
• Answers are the same regardless of field
  1. Engineering, software, consulting, finance, government, medical technology, ...

With the possible exception of #5, this looks like a very good match for a physics BS. At the PhD level, #5 is definitely covered.

I hate to say this, but based on reading the messages here a lot of people's problems with employment seem to be self-inflicted. When someone says that as a physicist they'd make a better engineer than an engineer, one can't help wondering if this person will work well in a team - especially a team with engineers. When someone says they only want to do one thing, how does this look with respect to point 2?

 

[symbolipoint]

Vanadium50,

At least a few of us are saying what we say based on real experience. You are right about people sometimes inflicting problems on themselves-sometimes not knowing they are doing so at the time. Individuals can sometimes make unforeseen trouble for themselves when they change fields and this is where continued education has some value; and also where looking for/ or KNOWING to look for experience-building opportunities would be advantages. Best to get the right information about how to prepare BEFORE one tries to do a new career. Not everyone knows this. Not everyone recognizes some of the advice they receive when they first receive it.

Something people need to be aware of it that they should study MORE things; NOT FEWER things. One forces limitations on oneself when one focuses too narrowly. Very important, not always easy, is to have a strategy early or as early as possible. This is not easy for students who may have little or no experience in the real working world. You start to see some of your own limitations after you work for several months. For some of it, you could go back to school for one or two terms to pick-up extra skills or knowledge.

Some people put limits on themselves when they keep taking jobs in the same industry, doing the same work with the same types of products. The problem here becomes lack of diverse experience. You might like to change to something different, but your experience makes you appear to know only a narrow set of things - because you kept taking the same type of job.

 

[ModusPwnd]

You acknowledge some of them are contradicting. Experienced recent graduates. I am not saying there is a law against it just that as advice it is cliched to the point of not being useful.

I don't see the contradiction. Some recent graduates are experienced. Others are not. I am a recent graduate, (or I was a year or two ago) and I have no relevant experience. Just irrelevant research experience. Entry level jobs often require years of experience or specific skills. The electrical engineering program I am working for now will give me the opportunity to have about a year and a half of actual work experience (via paid internships) when graduating.

 

[caldweab]

No. I have several points to make:

• What the professor thinks it is important to know may be different from what you think it is important to know. Your tuition paying him for this judgment.
  
• Deciding now that you want to do just one thing - in this case reactors - is a little like a mechanical engineer deciding he only wants to work on marine diesel engines. The field is much broader than that. If you decide you are only willing to do one thing, that's your decision, but a consequence of that decision is that it's going to be harder to find a job.
  
• If something is used in the field, but not directly for the one thing you have settled on, complaining about learning other things is a little like "When am I going to use geometry in real life?"
  

I wasn't complaining, nor did I state I was uninterested in learning new or different things. I stated I have no interest in doing research, he used accelerators extensively in his research so he would always talk about doing research using accelerators. I have no interest or motivation to do research or pursue a phd.

 

[a_potato]

I tend to agree with the OP. Kind of the same with maths and physics. You can teach a mathematician to add units but you can't really go the other way...

 

[ModusPwnd]

I tend to agree with the OP. Kind of the same with maths and physics. You can teach a mathematician to add units but you can't really go the other way...

Why not? I don't think anybody here doubts that your average engineering, math or physics grad could be taught in a different major if they spent the time needed. The idea is that a physics grad can do engineering right out of the gate, without being taught engineering principles. That idea is false in my opinion and, in my experience, in recruiter's opinion.

 

[Chronos]

This is another reason why internships are so important. You learn many of the desired skills by being involved in a real world environment where you are forced to interact with competing interests. The kinds of success that impresses recruiters include securing funding for your projects, achieving results, and writing good papers.

 

[CWatters]

I don't know if it's the same in the USA but in many countries to be an Electrical Engineer you also need to be a member of a trade body which might require further study and practical experience.

"Engineering" is also a very wide field. I'd be thinking about fine tuning each CV you send out so that it matches the job advert. eg If the advert is for an Electrical engineer with experience of xyz you need to echo back to them that you covered xyz on your course and that it's an area you are interested in. Cite any relevant experience of xyz etc.