Why can't I land a job interview?

[EFD307]

Ive applied to over 20 positions with no luck. I have a 2.8 I am graduating in may with a bachelor degree in physics, i spent last summer in Taiwan doing bio physics research, i doubled up on physics research classes focusing on electrical engineering and nuclear physics. I worked for the last two years as an EMT in a power plant as medical standby, I am a volunteer firefighter, volunteer EMT at 2 different agencies and an eagle scout. I have presented 4 posters and given 2 lectures at my university student research symposium and i can't seem to even get a phone call back from anywhere i have applied to. my girlfriends step mother had a hiring position at IBM and helped me edit my resume and cover letters. and I've got letters of recommendation from professors I've done research with.

Im applying for mainly engineering positions, my university didnt have an engineering program until this year so i studied physics. you know what they say, any physicist can be an engineer but not every engineer can be a physicist.

any thoughts/help would be appreciated.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would work on your English. I would also broaden the kinds of positions your applying for. People looking for engineers can hire actual engineers with good GPAs, and not have to settle for physics majors with less than stellar GPAs.

 

[dipole]

Yea... your GPA is quite low. I wouldn't even advertise your GPA. If the job cares about your GPA, then you're probably not going to be considered with those numbers. If they don't care, then not having it shouldn't be an issue.

Also, you may want to consider doing a master's degree to make yourself a bit more marketable, and this time keep the GPA around a 3.5 or higher.

 

[donpacino]

I am assuming your cumulative gpa is a 2.8. what is your major GPA? general rule of thumb is don't post any GPA lower than a 3.0

 

[Choppy]

What have each of the twenty places at which you have applied told you when you called them to follow up on your application?

Simply submitting a CV is only one part of the job application process. If you're serious about a position, try to make contact with whoever is in a position to make the hiring decision. This helps you learn about the position, decide whether it is a good fit for you, learn whether there are internal candidates, and help you to tailor your CV and interview responses.

Also, I agree with Vanadium50. Remember even websites like this can be used as a form of social networking. Typing in a non-professional manner, ignoring proper capitalization and punctuation for example, doesn't put your best foot foward.

With respect to looking for an engineering position with a physics degree, you have to make sure you understand the rules of the playing field. Many places will only hire graduates from an accredited engineering programs for engineering positions and often they will look to their pool of interns first.

The attitude of "any physicist can be an engineer" is probably not helping you. I'm sure some people who graduate with a physics undergradaute degree would be quite successful in some entry-level engineering positions. There are lots of examples of this, at least anecdotally. But approaching an employer with the attitude that because you've managed to slug your way through an undergraduate physics education, that you're more than qualified for any engineering position they might have is a good way to get your CV dumped into the shredder. You assess whether you are qualified for specific positions on a case by case basis, matching both what is posted and what you learn about the position from your own research with your own skill set.

Finally, it sounds like you have a very broad array of experience. Being a volunteer firefighter and having worked as an EMT is great. But those facts are not going to help you land an engineering position because they are not relevant to the position. One way in which you could use this to your advantage would be to apply to positions that would see that experience as an asset. A position as an officer in the armed forces comes to mind.

 

[Locrian]

One thing to note: 20 resumes is not a large number.

First, review your resume again with someone else, to be sure.

Second, apply to another 30 jobs.

Finally, be sure you're following up on them properly, as others have mentioned.

Also, are you networking through professors, university contacts etc? That's how I got my first job after my bs. May not work, but worth a shot.

 

[Locrian]

As a side note, that statement about any physicist being able to be an engineer is something physicists believe. . .

 

[psparky]

With respect to looking for an engineering position with a physics degree, you have to make sure you understand the rules of the playing field. Many places will only hire graduates from an accredited engineering programs for engineering positions and often they will look to their pool of interns first.

True that. For example, the XYZ company bills its PE engineers out at $85 per hour and engineers out at $72 per hour. Anyone without an accredited engineering degree regardless of their skill gets billed out at $50 per hour. And no you won't get paid that rate, at max you will receive half of those billing rates (overhead and profit suck up the other half)

The attitude of "any physicist can be an engineer" is probably not helping you. I'm sure some people who graduate with a physics undergradaute degree would be quite successful in some entry-level engineering positions. There are lots of examples of this, at least anecdotally. But approaching an employer with the attitude that because you've managed to slug your way through an undergraduate physics education, that you're more than qualified for any engineering position they might have is a good way to get your CV dumped into the shredder. You assess whether you are qualified for specific positions on a case by case basis, matching both what is posted and what you learn about the position from your own research with your own skill set.

I concur with this as well. I find it offensive to say that any physicst can be an engineer. I don't like it and guarantee the guy interviewing you won't like it as well.

It's always tough starting out. Plan on sending out 500 resumes before you succeed. It's a numbers game.

And if I'm being totally honest, I would rather work with a guy with a couple years experience and NO degree...over a new guy fresh out of school with a physics degree. The guy with 2 years experience would hit the ground running...the new physics guy would have to be trained for a couple years just to get up to speed.

 

[jim hardy]

Welcome to the real world.
In the power plant,
We had a saying " The fact somebody got his education by going to college shouldn't be held against him."

A degree demonstrates that one is capable of learning.
So does progressing up the ranks via growing his technical competence.

I'd say work on your written exposition
and cultivate humility.

The day i interviewed, while in the waiting room with other interviewees i picked up some highfalutin' executive magazine.
They'd published an interview with a successful executive nearing retirement and among the questions they asked was :
"Did you find over the years any perpetual problem, something that just never got better ? "
His reply: "Yes. Spare me those young know-it-alls who think everything has to be changed."

Now that was humbling. But i came to appreciate his wisdom.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

All good comments above. I won't repeat them except to point out what I consider to be a Chinese Wall, called the Human Resources department:

WATCH OUT FOR KEY WORDS IN EVERY AD! You could be qualified, but if you don't use the right keywords, that highly paid clerk in the Human Resources department will kick out your resume as "insufficient."

They don't know what an EMT stands for. They don't care about your Eagle Scout achievement. They're looking for key words that tell them your resume is suitable for review by the person who actually requisitioned the position. So look for those key words in the ad. Don't lie about anything, but if you have done something or studied something that can reasonably be phrased in those terms USE THEM.

For example, while studying in my electrical engineering curriculum, I went through an extensive course in Boolean logic. The position required experience with relay ladder logic systems. With a straight face, knowing how to present one in terms of the other, I applied while mentioning my course in logic being applicable to relay ladder systems. I got the promotion.

Good Luck!

 

[ModusPwnd]

The myth that any physicist, or even a mere BS physics graduate, can be an engineer seems pervasive and is really quite ridiculous. I think its mostly perpetuated by students who have yet to get a degree, but I think professors and teachers can be guilty of it as well.

Let me offer my experience for some perspective. I graduated with a high undergrad GPA, only got one B+ in a physics class. In grad school I struggled and had to leave with only a masters and a low GPA just barley above 3.0. I have been applying for all sorts of STEM positions for two and a half years and have never gotten an interview. I apply for positions ranging from manufacturing tech requiring only a high school diploma, equipment tech requiring an associates, "engineer" positions requiring a BS in engineering and sometimes physics to masters required/PhD preferred scientist/engineer positions (and also teacher positions at community colleges). Never one call back. I have been to numerous career fairs, particularly engineering career fairs. I have had multiple people look at my resumes and cover letters and offer minor critiques. I have used the few people I know in STEM positions/companies to get my resume into the right person. Nothing.I think psparky's comment regarding experience is spot on. My degrees and research experience are no substitute for real on the job experience. To the prospective employer my resume is one of hundreds and my lack of experience makes me undesirable. Why would they offer on the job training to me when they get many applications from people already experienced who can hit the ground running on day one? My physics education is esoteric and the stuff I learned in classes is useless to them. This coupled with the glut of STEM graduates compared to jobs available leaves me with no hand.

Though I am still, perhaps naively, applying for STEM positions nearly all of my non-PhD classmates have moved on. They are seemingly happy and productive doing other things. The most popular choice seemed to be "Teach for America".

The only advice I can offer is to consider non-STEM careers or consider getting a different degree (and doing better at it). Otherwise, its tough out there. Apply all over the place and apply often. And be sure to let us know if/when something works out.

edit - Also, keep in mind that many listed positions are not "real" positions. Sometimes a position has a shoo-in candidate already before being listed, but it is listed anyway because it is required to be listed by the funding agency or internal policy. Other times the listing is just there to fish for resumes or to keep up appearances. This is one reason why only 20 applications is not nearly enough.

 

[jkl71]

I'm sure the relevance of physics depends a lot on the fields of engineering you’re looking at, but even in the best case scenario it seems unlikely to me that a physics education makes one better prepared than an engineering education for an engineering job. For some areas of engineering, physics probably doesn’t do anything at all to prepare one. Speaking for myself, I learned more relevant job skills my first week writing software than I learned the entire time I spent studying physics (PhD), yes I mean this literally and it was really more like a couple of days.

I’ve been there and I know it’s tough, but as others have said, 20 resumes aren’t that many. Not nearly enough to get discouraged. In terms of suggestions, from the employer perspective they likely expect that you’ll need a lot of training (Side note: the first person that hired me after I finished school told me, at my 90 day review, that he thought hiring me was a gamble, but he was glad he did because if paid off.). I might help if you could somehow get across (cover letter or in the interview when it gets to that point) that you know the transition will be tough, but you’re excited about the challenge.

That’s my 2 cents.

 

[cragar]

what if you offer to work for free some place to gain experience.

 

[Vanadium 50]

what if you offer to work for free some place to gain experience.

Illegal in the US, where there are minimum wage laws.

 

[cragar]

ok then work for minimum wage

 

[ModusPwnd]

ok then work for minimum wage

Putting that you are willing to work for minimum wage on your resume isn't going to help you get hired for a career style STEM job. In fact, I think it would only hurt because that implies you are no good and will consume more of their resources to get up to speed (if you ever do).

 

[heatengine516]

The idea that "a physicist can be an engineer but an engineer can't be a physicist" is not accurate. Maybe if you're comparing a PhD experimental, applied physicist and a BS engineer. But the physics major and the engineering major have completely different educational goals.

I don't understand why so many physics majors want to work at engineering firms. They turn their noses up at engineering in school and then are crawling to these firms asking for a job.

With your extensive bio-physics and EMT experience I'd be applying to hospitals and things like that. "physicist's assistant" jobs at hospitals usually only require a bachelors. That's if any hospitals near you are large enough to have medical physicists.

 

[caldweab]

As a side note, that statement about any physicist being able to be an engineer is something physicists believe. . .

Yeah and it's quite annoying.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

As a registered professional engineer, and one who holds a BSEE, I should be the one who is most offended by the statement that any physicist being able to be an engineer. But I am not.

True, there are things in engineering that are not taught to physics students and vice versa. But there are also a great many things that schools do not teach engineering majors that they encounter right away on the job. In other words, anyone with a technical college degree is going to be drinking from a fire hose of experience to learn what they need as soon as they get to the working world of engineering. Yes, the physics majors will be at a slight disadvantage, but compared to what everyone has to learn when the get to the working world that disadvantage isn't as stark as it might first seem.

Show a willingness to learn and you will get work. Take the FE exam (for EIT), learn the trade from a mentor, and then take the principles and practices exam after a few years. Then, for all intents and purposes you ARE an engineer, no matter what your degree says.

Yes, any physics graduate can become an engineer. But you need motivation, commitment, and perseverance, just like any other engineering student. In many cases, people's lives depend upon what we design. Half baked attitudes will not get you anywhere.

 

[analogdesign]

As a registered professional engineer, and one who holds a BSEE, I should be the one who is most offended by the statement that any physicist being able to be an engineer. But I am not.

Yes, any physics graduate can become an engineer. But you need motivation, commitment, and perseverance, just like any other engineering student. In many cases, people's lives depend upon what we design. Half baked attitudes will not get you anywhere.

I'm an EE as well, and also not offended by that sentiment (life's too short to get offended all the time). When people make that statement, they usually mean a physics grad (or Ph.D. experimentalist) can ease into an engineering role and succeed immediately. I work with lot of physicists and this attitude is pervasive. It is also false.

Many physicists are very smart and capable. However, their goals are often very far removed from an engineer's. A physicist will typically build a amplifier (for example) by throwing something together from a book and tweaking it until it works in the lab. That's fine for doing a quick experiment or feasibility study.

However, I'm paid to design robust, low-cost systems that operate correctly over the long term with varying component tolerances and environmental conditions. This is a far cry indeed from making an amplifier work on the bench. In my experience this capability is very often overlooked and unappreciated by physicists and the methodologies needed to successfully build these kinds of systems are not included in a physics curriculum.

That said, a lot of the techniques engineers use boil down to common sense, but it would take a physicist time to come up to speed and equal an engineer's capability. This is the key reason that an engineering firm would rather hire engineers than physicists. From a company's perspective an engineer's education is more germane and an engineer requires less training and remedial education than a physics grad and is therefore cheaper.

I think most physics grads are quite capable of being competent engineers over time, but it would be more efficient from them to just study engineering.

 

[caldweab]

I'm an EE as well, and also not offended by that sentiment (life's too short to get offended all the time). When people make that statement, they usually mean a physics grad (or Ph.D. experimentalist) can ease into an engineering role and succeed immediately. I work with lot of physicists and this attitude is pervasive. It is also false.
Many physicists are very smart and capable. However, their goals are often very far removed from an engineer's. A physicist will typically build a amplifier (for example) by throwing something together from a book and tweaking it until it works in the lab. That's fine for doing a quick experiment or feasibility study.
However, I'm paid to design robust, low-cost systems that operate correctly over the long term with varying component tolerances and environmental conditions. This is a far cry indeed from making an amplifier work on the bench. In my experience this capability is very often overlooked and unappreciated by physicists and the methodologies needed to successfully build these kinds of systems are not included in a physics curriculum.
That said, a lot of the techniques engineers use boil down to common sense, but it would take a physicist time to come up to speed and equal an engineer's capability. This is the key reason that an engineering firm would rather hire engineers than physicists. From a company's perspective an engineer's education is more germane and an engineer requires less training and remedial education than a physics grad and is therefore cheaper.
I think most physics grads are quite capable of being competent engineers over time, but it would be more efficient from them to just study engineering.

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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.

 

[tyjae]

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 don't agree with that at all. Nuclear reactors are used to generate "12%" of the world's electricity. You can't escape the fact that "Engineers" are monetarily focused. It's not a researched based degree. There has to be practical applications that benefit many people and still earn a company money.

 

[AlephZero]

There has to be practical applications that benefit many people and still earn a company money.

Not if the company is trying to make money designing nuclear power plants in the USA.

All US nuclear power plants, and almost all reactors, began construction by 1974; following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and changing economics, many planned projects were canceled. More than a 100 orders for nuclear power reactors, many already under construction, were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s, bankrupting some companies. Of the 100 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1977 or earlier.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

On the other hand, every hospital treating cancer patients needs accelerators, and about 40 million people have been treated in the last 50 years:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/med-accelerator-041807.html

 

[ModusPwnd]

It looks like more nuclear engineers work in power than in medicine or on accelerators.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/nuclear-engineers.htm#tab-3

How many people have been treated by non-nuclear engineers and the number of accelerators vs reactors are not relevant statistics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't agree with that at all. Nuclear reactors are used to generate "12%" of the world's electricity. You can't escape the fact that "Engineers" are monetarily focused. It's not a researched based degree. There has to be practical applications that benefit many people and still earn a company money.

Do you seriously think that the 20,000+ accelerators in this country are all for research? The vast majority are used for "practical applications": everything from medical isotope generation to microchip lithography and ion implantation. There are 22 research accelerators in the US: so 99.9% of them are used elsewhere. (Compare this to 156 reactors: 100 for power generation and 56 research reactors.)

More generally, the attitude that "I want to do X, and so learning Y is a waste of my time" is horribly short sighted. I'd rant about this, but I think Prof. Steven Dutch at UW Green Bay has done a much better job than I ever could: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Inconvenient.HTM I'll just quote his closer:

There has never, ever, in the whole 4.6 billion years of the planet, been a worse time to train for a job with closely defined requirements where you wait to be told exactly what to do. Even in the good times, those jobs were a guaranteed career path to a dead end job and waking up on your fortieth birthday and realizing your life sucks. Nowadays, when you can hire someone off the street in a poor country and give him minimal training to do the same job, it's career suicide.

 

[AlephZero]

It looks like more nuclear engineers work in power than in medicine or on accelerators.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/nuclear-engineers.htm#tab-3

How many people have been treated by non-nuclear engineers and the number of accelerators vs reactors are not relevant statistics.

The number of people that were employed in a particular sector of nuclear engineering two years ago is also irrelevant, if you are trying to predict future career prospects.

I note that almost every tab on that web page you referenced mentions medical applications, except for the tab that you actually linked to.

 

[ModusPwnd]

No, its not irrelevant at all. That's a ridiculous claim. Two years is not that long and recent history is the baseline that one extrapolates future predictions from.

I see that it does mention medical use on the other tabs. Are those included in the federal govt. and scientific research industries? It says this as a footnote "Nuclear engineers are also at the forefront of developing uses of nuclear material for medical imaging devices, such as positron emission tomography (PET) scanners. They also may develop or design cyclotrons, which produce a high-energy beam that the healthcare industry uses to treat cancerous tumors." I have no reason to suspect that. But the statistics show the industry that employs a majority of people as nuclear engineers is the power industry. The amount of accelerators vs reactors doesn't change this and getting treated by a non-nuclear engineer doesn't change this.

Under the physicist category it actually does list hospitals as an employer of professional physicists.

 

[thegreenlaser]

I'm an EE as well, and also not offended by that sentiment (life's too short to get offended all the time). When people make that statement, they usually mean a physics grad (or Ph.D. experimentalist) can ease into an engineering role and succeed immediately. I work with lot of physicists and this attitude is pervasive. It is also false.

Many physicists are very smart and capable. However, their goals are often very far removed from an engineer's. A physicist will typically build a amplifier (for example) by throwing something together from a book and tweaking it until it works in the lab. That's fine for doing a quick experiment or feasibility study.

However, I'm paid to design robust, low-cost systems that operate correctly over the long term with varying component tolerances and environmental conditions. This is a far cry indeed from making an amplifier work on the bench. In my experience this capability is very often overlooked and unappreciated by physicists and the methodologies needed to successfully build these kinds of systems are not included in a physics curriculum.

That said, a lot of the techniques engineers use boil down to common sense, but it would take a physicist time to come up to speed and equal an engineer's capability. This is the key reason that an engineering firm would rather hire engineers than physicists. From a company's perspective an engineer's education is more germane and an engineer requires less training and remedial education than a physics grad and is therefore cheaper.

I think most physics grads are quite capable of being competent engineers over time, but it would be more efficient from them to just study engineering.

Agreed. If it's true that a physics degree prepares you for an engineering job, but an engineering degree doesn't prepare you for a physics job, then engineering students are wasting a lot of time. Why would they spend so much time and effort learning stuff that physics majors don't learn if they're not gaining any skills that physics majors don't have? It just doesn't make sense...

 

[Vanadium 50]

The present distribution of employers and tasks for a particular job may have nothing to do with where people are hiring. Look at, say newspaper reporters. The people who have been in the jobs a while don't look like the people who are hiring now. Furthermore, it reinforces the idea that things today will be the same as they have always been. Part of the point of college is to learn how to be adaptable to a changing world.

"I just do eyes...just eyes!" doesn't work any more (if it ever did). It's very short-sighted to be thinking "I want Job X, so I only want to learn things that are relevant to Job X". I spend most of my day doing things that didn't even exist when I was in school.

The idea of a university can be traced back to Martianus Capella. Capella lived in the 5th century, a time where the Roman Empire was disintegrating and it was entirely possible that your city would be sacked by barbarians and you would wake up in a strange country surrounded by strange people. He was trying to figure out the answer to what one needed to know to survive in such a rapidly changing world. His answer: everything. Because you didn't and couldn't know what pieces of information would end up being useful, you should get as close to knowing everything as you could - along with the skills to acquire and synthesize information. Now, the odds of getting conked on the head and dragged away by Ostrogoths are pretty low nowadays, but the general idea that one needs to be adaptable to change stands.

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.

 

[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.