Disclaimer: I'm educated, not handicapped

When moving outside of academia, it's sometime hard to know how to address having a Ph.D.  Lately, I've been trying not to overemphasize it (I'm a strong communicator and critical thinker who happens to have a Ph.D), but I think I am missing an opportunity to talk about what I really learned in graduate school.  A lot of the feel good literature for Ph.D.s thinking about finding a new career path teaches us to recognize the value of the Ph.D. in terms of communications skills, teamwork, independent work, critical thinking...  Sometimes I forget that other people (and I mean hiring managers), don't read this stuff.  I have certainly written cover letters where I failed to address some of those secondary job requirements.  I'm not sure if that cost me the job, but "strong communication skills," "attention to detail," or "Proficiency in Microsoft Word" sometimes seem to obvious to state.  

Then again... I met someone a while back who was really surprised, could barely contain his surprise, that I was such a capable communicator.  Not that I did anything out of the ordinary, he just assumed I would speak only in math equations and that I'd never hear a word he said. He really thought I'd be handicapped by my education. He was thinking about ways to get kids into STEM fields, and gave me one of those "geeks don't have social skills" lines that made me sigh.  I carefully corrected him, scientists don't always value their interpersonal skills, but it is impossible to be successful in science if you cannot write a grant that present a compelling argument to fund your work or present a clear story of your novel finds that gives you credibility with your colleagues.  He was sold, but it reminded me that a huge part of communication is understanding your audience.  If I am applying to a position where a Ph.D. is unexpected, I should probably explain why I think that 5 years in drug discovery provides me enough professional experience to be successful in a new role.  I gotta remember that to some people, a Ph.D. is for those who are too single minded to make it anywhere but in that chosen field.  And saying, "This job isn't as hard a grad school," isn't likely to win any hearts or minds.

Currently, I am applying for a hot curriculum development position (LinkedIn can tell you how many people have applied- I'm #117.  I suspect my application won't be read, or if it is, it will be forgotten.  I'm developing the materials for similar positions, so what the heck- I'm being ridiculous and possibly memorable).  My short cover letter explains my background and interesting in the position, but I felt it needed more.  They wanted someone with a BA in Comm, so I included this paragraph. 

Briefly, I want to address some of the other job requirements that may not seem obvious given my background.  I earned my Ph.D. in molecular biology by taking the lead on a large collaborative project that involved investigators in 3 states, so I am familiar with team work, collaboration and the value of interpersonal skills.  This project allowed me to share my work in both papers and talks for an audience of highly educated skeptics, so I have developed strong communication skills, attention to detail and a thick skin.  As a freelancer working off-site, I have mastered independent work and time management.  

 Too much?  My new, fatalistic attitude about the job hunt is helping me to try new things.  But approaching every job thinking, "well, I already don't have this job, how bad can it get?" might not be the fast lane to my dream job.

I reapplied for this job

This is probably a case study in "How to Apply for Jobs," so I am going to try and write this up objectively.  I applied for a job as a Scientist I (requires BS or MS +5yrs, it's a rural setting and I can do the assays, I figured why not) that required someone to validate pure proteins for clinical use.  There is a long write up about keeping records, working in a CLIA environment.  I tweaked the resume, and wrote a nice letter about how I am interested in this position, my background in drug discovery required me to validate lots of pure protein and I am really a good communicator. Sent it off.

The next week I tried to phone the recruiter, and left a message.

I finally got an email from him today, apologizing that while my resume is impressive, they were "looking for someone who can do SDS-PAGE, and check protein concentrations, but thanks for your interest."  I was appalled.  And then I thought, this is a guy who recruits predominately sales people, he has no idea that when I said "I've been optimizing protein purification for 7 years" it implies I've run SDS-PAGE.  So I checked my attitude, thanked him for clarifying the job requirements, told him that made me more confident I am an excellent fit for the job and asked him if he'd reconsider my application if I rewrote my resume.  He wrote back immediately and said, "Sure!"

So I rewrote my resume.  I have a short bulleted list of "Technical Aptitudes" that I update for each job, and I removed "protein purification" and added, "SDS-PAGE" and "Protein concentration." I added to my teaching experience when I had taught these techniques and bolded each time it came up.  Then I rewrote my letter.  "Thank you for reconsidering my application, as you can see, I am a serious asset, especially for the type of work your company does.  I've performed these assays with a level of expertise that allows me to train others.  The remaining assays that you perform that I have more limited experience in I am confident I can learn, because I have a Ph.D.  And years of experience.  In Summary, I am ideally suited to excel at this job, and I will happily discuss it with you further."  I hope it wasn't too defensive, but to write a letter for someone who really doesn't understand what the job requires, you gotta be really explicit. 

This is one reason checking out the recruiter on LinkedIn can help before you apply.  The job I applied for yesterday was going to be filled by a former Post-doc- Turn that jargon up to Stun!  This guy, not so much.  On the flip side, at this point, I'm much less interested in the job.  But I just couldn't take the idea that he thought I couldn't run a gel or do a Bradford.  Ouch. 

Perhaps the bigger moral here is to stay professional- I never would have known what was missing if I hadn't called, and he wouldn't have cared to reread my application if I have been a jerk about getting rejected.

Start your job search early

People had told me to start looking for my next job 6-12 months in advance. I had several thoughts on this:
1) What if I get a job, and then have to tell them I want to start in another 12 months?
2) It's kinda hard to find much motivation for the job hunt when you aren't sure if you are really graduating.
3) Is it really going to be that bad? What will keep me busy for a YEAR?

With the benefit of experience, I wish I could reach back and respond to each:
1) You should be so lucky. If they want you, they'll wait. And if they can't wait, you can find another job you are that well qualified for. I applied for a job that I didn't get a call back about until SIX MONTHs later. The job you apply for on the first day of hunting might just take 12 months to get their funding in order. Especially if you are looking for a post-doc.

2) It's even harder to find the motivation to look for a job while writing your dissertation. You might not have a date yet, but if your boss is dropping hints about graduating (stops making reference to your attending the next 5 annual retreats, starts mentioning which PIs would be good mentors, stops writing grants for your project...), start the process. Even if you are off by a few months, you'll be glad you've put the time in. Because...

3) Grad student-self, you are way less prepared than you think, and this process will take way more time than you imagined. Oh sure, my CV was up to date when I first applied for a job. But the second job wanted a resume. And my first cover letter was awful : "To whom it may concern, let me summarize the contents of my CV, and evade my motivations for applying here..." I still am working on how to pitch myself in interviews or job fairs to prompt potential employers to see me succeeding in the positions they have open. But more than that, I still don't know what I am looking for. Reading job descriptions got me thinking about jobs I could or couldn't do, and made me realize that when we say "industry job" that's about as specific as "University degree." This has helped me to realize that while I want off the bench in the long term, I would like to try some applied R&D, in drug development or even clinical trials. It got me thinking about how to use my interest in writing, and even how many "industries" are out there. Sure, BigPharma and Biotech spring to mind, but biofuels, bioremediation, food science, regulatory science, medical devices and science publishing are all venues that need Ph.D.s in biology, and that I'd really never thought of until I started looking. It doesn't have to take a year to find a job, but if you are looking for a job you want, you need the flexibility to be more discerning.

Sure, you might get the first job you apply for, but it may take them half a year to get back to you. It's hard to get focused on the search unless you have a firm date, but really I should have started looking at job boards earlier- like maybe when I was applying to grad school. Seriously, if I had figured out what job I wanted after I had my degree, I might have tailored my education to get it.

Use your cover letter to score an interview

Let's take a break from this general job hunting stuff and talk about what happens after you'd found the job you'd love to do. It's time to apply, hopefully you have your CV in great shape already, so you just need to dash off a quick cover letter and submit it! Well, maybe you can do better than that. After I submitted a few cover letters that read more or less "I am pretty great, and you are looking for someone awesome, so..." or the one I wrote for the dairy fermentation tech "I brew beer, so I know a little about fermentation. And aseptic technique is a lot like food handling skills, right?" I've been looking into what really should go on a cover letter. There is lots out there about the format and etiquette of a cover letter, so let's focus on Content.

Much like the first year graduate student who answers questions to prove that they know lots, my first cover letters were very reactionary. My attempts to address how I fit the job requirements were just that, a binary assessment of the parallels between who they want, and who I am. This isn't helpful for either me or the person trying to hire me. Instead, I am trying think a little more about why there are these job requirements, and how I can help meet these same goals. The career seminar I went to last week was quite literal about it, "If you are applying to work at a company, they care about the bottom line, you need to explain how you will help turn a profit." Although it made me cringe after years of hanging out with academics, it is more valuable to show how I can meet the goals of the organization. If you are applying to a post-doc in an academic lab, the same is true (not about profit, but tone). Your letter should address how you and your experience can help the lab in general.

This gives you a bit more flexibility in how you describe your experiences- the job may say they need an expert in immunology, but really they need someone who can jump right into the histology with some understanding of immunology, and get expert along the way. (Because you should be applying for jobs that you might not be perfect for one day one.) This gives you a chance to highlight not only why you are great, but also that you understand the needs of the position and have given it serious thought. This isn't the same as selling out. Granted, if you don't agree with the goals of the organization or believe you have the skills or ambition to meet them, you shouldn't be applying. But if you can provide a good faith genuine explanation of why you are interested and will be successful in the job, you will be a stronger candidate for the jobs you actually want.

I've heard similar, more aggressive, advice for interviews. Specifically, at the interview, take the time to lay out how you'll start making an impact in the first 100 days. I don't think I have the confidence for that, but it is pretty easy to imagine how someone who could demonstrate that much interest and understanding during an interview is likely to get hired, right?