Lately, I've been trying to learn a bit about negotiation. Specifically, what is negotiable at the start of a job. I have a general sense that the starting salary is, but I don't know how I would ask for that. I've also heard plenty of internet blabber that Everything Is Negotiable. But at the very least, no one is going to want to sit down with the new hire and negotiate every little dumb detail about the job before they are clear you are pretty much onboard. So I surveyed some friends and colleagues to see what is common to expect from a professional job, and what/how to ask for other things.
Basically, everyone said you should negotiate your salary, and this was across the spectrum of "Take'em for all their worth!" to "it never hurts to ask." What was interesting to me what what was suggested as things to factor into this number. A friend said, you have to get out of "Ohmigosh, I'll do anything to work for you!" sucker mode, and move quickly into, "My skills are valuable, and valued at X price." But really, if you think of yourself, your potential, you as The Whole Package, it can be hard to distill all that into one number, especially when it's hard to gather objective evidence about your market value.
Several people (with enough work histories I am inclined to believe them) said vacation, health insurance and retirement aren't usually negotiable. But I need to find out about them so I can adjust the required salary accordingly. Terrible health plan? I'm going to need extra cash to make up for the fact that your competitors would include this in my package. Several people recommended I look at Glassdoor.com and Salary.com to be sure that the number was in the range for the position, and use this as the start point to add extra salary on to.
As for these other things, what can a professional still expect these days? Healthcare is a yes. Hopefully details of the plan can be made available before just accepting that "Health Plan" = "Good." There should be a 401K, with matching, most people said matching at 5% was standard (still), although it may take time to vest. I heard 3-4 weeks of paid vacation. I find that odd, since my husband only gets 2 weeks of "vacation time'" but he also gets another 10 days of holidays during the year. I suppose it all works out. The idea is, if an offer is lacking in any of these things, you ask for more salary to make up for it (since that makes for good leverage). No one addressed how to respond if these were all above average- probably thank your lucky stars and keep your mouth shut.
I also asked about other things like parking, bus pass, gym membership and other random perks. Most people said it's ok to ask for and about those things, but I should wait until the salary number is already lined up. When the question of salary is still on the table, it seems like you might walk. And it would be weird to turn down a job because you had to get your own bus pass, right? Or worse, if you are fussing about the parking, you are cool with the crappy salary number, right? You often have more leverage for those little things at that point. By the time an employer has gone through the HR hoopla to get you that far, they are keenly aware of how much they want you and need to make you happy to get you. Of course, if it was generally considered that these perks were valued by employees and available, they might think to mention it during the hiring process. That being said, the corporate goon who hires me might not be aware of how amazingly liberating I think it is to work flex time, so I will ask rather than assume someone will tell me about this nonsense. If I have learned anything in looking for a job, it is that what is important to me as a job-hunter is not what is important to a potential employer.
And then tactics. With luck, the employer will make the first offer, which gives you a number to start from. Countering with 5-10% more (and valid, sound reasoning), seems pretty much expected. Since I am terrible with arithmetic under pressure, I would make a table of annual and monthly salary numbers to compare with. I also heard that it is ok to take day to think about it- do your due diligence, and prepare a thoughtful counter offer. (Seriously? That's allowed??) And the valid, sound reasoning for your counter offer should include other offers, previous salary, the accepted salary for the industry etc., not so much personal budget issues (I've got this HUGE mortgage).
That's what I've learned so far about negotiations. This seems like a pretty key moment to have a spine and stick up for yourself, which isn't a good time to decide you dont't need one. I should probably practice this stuff.
Showing posts with label rumors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rumors. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Job opportunties for PhDs?
If you read any academic/career blogs for the PhD audience, you are probably aware of the debate about the over-production of PhDs. Are there too many? What jobs are they supposed to get? For some fields (chemistry especially), there is an painful mismatch between training and industry needs. Chemjobber started some nice dialogue about the opportunity costs of grad school in response to a Chronicle Article by Jon Bardin, a chemistry grad student and science writer who talked with excitement about the many directions a person can take graduate training. I agree, there are many places you can take a PhD, teaching high school for example, but many of those positions don't require the PhD which can make a burnt out graduate feel like the years of toil were for naught. DocFreeride responded very candidly about the risks of going to graduate school (it's not a guarantee for a job). These are all great articles, and I would encourage you to look at the comments section of each.
Some may point to the low unemployment rate for those with PhDs as evidence that there is not a mismatch. First, remind yourself that this number only accounts for those who have had a job that pays into unemployment- grad students and post-docs in between positions don't count. I would like to respond to this, as a technically 'employed' PhD. Someone asked me recently on a particularly optimistic day if getting my PhD was worth it. And I responded that I'll always be able to find work (editing papers for China or taking contracts, for example), but as someone who has invested so much time in my professional development, I have ambitions to find a fulfilling career. And that has proven to be much harder than I might have thought.
I was meeting recently with a couple of other out of work scientists (casualties of the boom-bust Seattle Biotech market). One of them walked me through his current career plan:
Plan A- Dream job as a scientist.
Plan B- Full time work using transferable and technical skills.
Plan C- Contract work using any transferable skills.
Plan D- any type of work. His unemployment is running out, so Plan D is a major focus.
I was starting to complain that I had just achieved Plan D- I can pay my bills, but now I spend all my time running around like a crazy person between 3 jobs and networking events and try to spend a few minutes sending out applications. This is not the dream- I never aspired to be a full-time job hunter.... but both of these scientists (politely) told me to stuff it. They knew too many scientists who had lost their homes, spouses and lives as a result of not being able to find a job of any sort. Am I really career savvy for taking a part-time job? Is the most important skill that I learned as a graduate student the ability to work diligently on seemingly pointless tasks?
Well, it is one the skills I learned, but I prefer to think that my analytical ability and aptitude for critical thinking were more important. Another skill I learned is the importance of jumping through hoops when necessary (as expressed by the great @GeneWrangler). When I told these guys I was thinking about getting my CAPM, they were skeptical that I would learn anything I didn't already know. And that's not the point- you don't always get certified to learn things, sometimes you get certified to prove you are a joiner, that you can put up with the necessary Bureaucratic Stuff (BS) to get the job done. A tolerance for BS is important in some jobs, like it or not. Yes, it would be awesome if we could all be fairly evaluated based on our potential for success stemming from a thoughtfully objective assessment of our strengths. But in reality, we just have to find a way to be the right person, in the right place at the right time. I'm not willing to leave that to chance, so I am committed to polishing my candidacy in as many ways as I can in an effort to be ready for when opportunities present themselves. To me, having my PhD means I have the skills to overcome the issues that my field and job market have. I'm not sure what the solution looks like at the moment, but I have spent years looking for something with a much lower probability of success, so I know I got this.
Some may point to the low unemployment rate for those with PhDs as evidence that there is not a mismatch. First, remind yourself that this number only accounts for those who have had a job that pays into unemployment- grad students and post-docs in between positions don't count. I would like to respond to this, as a technically 'employed' PhD. Someone asked me recently on a particularly optimistic day if getting my PhD was worth it. And I responded that I'll always be able to find work (editing papers for China or taking contracts, for example), but as someone who has invested so much time in my professional development, I have ambitions to find a fulfilling career. And that has proven to be much harder than I might have thought.
I was meeting recently with a couple of other out of work scientists (casualties of the boom-bust Seattle Biotech market). One of them walked me through his current career plan:
Plan A- Dream job as a scientist.
Plan B- Full time work using transferable and technical skills.
Plan C- Contract work using any transferable skills.
Plan D- any type of work. His unemployment is running out, so Plan D is a major focus.
I was starting to complain that I had just achieved Plan D- I can pay my bills, but now I spend all my time running around like a crazy person between 3 jobs and networking events and try to spend a few minutes sending out applications. This is not the dream- I never aspired to be a full-time job hunter.... but both of these scientists (politely) told me to stuff it. They knew too many scientists who had lost their homes, spouses and lives as a result of not being able to find a job of any sort. Am I really career savvy for taking a part-time job? Is the most important skill that I learned as a graduate student the ability to work diligently on seemingly pointless tasks?
Well, it is one the skills I learned, but I prefer to think that my analytical ability and aptitude for critical thinking were more important. Another skill I learned is the importance of jumping through hoops when necessary (as expressed by the great @GeneWrangler). When I told these guys I was thinking about getting my CAPM, they were skeptical that I would learn anything I didn't already know. And that's not the point- you don't always get certified to learn things, sometimes you get certified to prove you are a joiner, that you can put up with the necessary Bureaucratic Stuff (BS) to get the job done. A tolerance for BS is important in some jobs, like it or not. Yes, it would be awesome if we could all be fairly evaluated based on our potential for success stemming from a thoughtfully objective assessment of our strengths. But in reality, we just have to find a way to be the right person, in the right place at the right time. I'm not willing to leave that to chance, so I am committed to polishing my candidacy in as many ways as I can in an effort to be ready for when opportunities present themselves. To me, having my PhD means I have the skills to overcome the issues that my field and job market have. I'm not sure what the solution looks like at the moment, but I have spent years looking for something with a much lower probability of success, so I know I got this.
Monday, April 23, 2012
BLS data on Life Scientists
First off, a h/t to Chemjobber, who is great at navigating the Bureau of Labor Statistics to pull out depressing chemistry statistics so I that I can find a place to pull more optimistic biology numbers to share.
The BLS handbook is a great place to explore careers, and the online version makes it much easier to navigate. Skills and work environment are matched to job growth and salary information, and linked to related jobs in a very helpful way.
So, remember last week when I found that number about huge growth for Medical Scientists? Well, here is a little more comparative data, including projections for "Life Scientists," which is probably a more accurate description of who I am right now.
Life scientists are not as fast growing, nor as well paid as medical scientists- but this also seems more realistic. In the next 20 years, BLS predicts a 36% increase in medical scientist jobs (or 36,000 jobs), and a 20% increase in Life Science jobs. (The expected national average is closer to 17% growth in jobs.)
Compare the predicted job growth for biochemists and biophysicists, the need is expected to grow by 31%, but this is actually only 7,700 jobs. (They make more money though).
One facet you should be aware of (before your brain explodes) is that these documents suggest that there is no on the job training for any of these positions. What I am getting at, is that none of these numbers account for grad students or post-docs, who I totally believe deserve to call themselves scientists. I had previously thought that this median income data included us trainees, which implies that the top of that bell curve must be set to counterbalance an army of grant-funded RAs. If that's not the case, then the top of the curve is probably not so far away, because it only includes people who actually perform experiments and still wear a lab coat sometimes. (BLS is very systematic about their categorizations. My old PI would not likely count as a Life Scientist, he would instead be a Post-Secondary Teacher based on what he does daily.)
Not sure what this does for my job hunt, but BLS showed me that very few jobs for people with a Ph.D. have any on-the-job training, so be sure you've learned everything you need to know to enter industry before you walk away from academia. (Ha, I jest).
Next time you encounter a student trying to decide what to do with their life, point that at the Occupational Outlook Handbook, so they can avoid the sad fate of chemists, who believed there was a great need, and are now unemployed.
The BLS handbook is a great place to explore careers, and the online version makes it much easier to navigate. Skills and work environment are matched to job growth and salary information, and linked to related jobs in a very helpful way.
So, remember last week when I found that number about huge growth for Medical Scientists? Well, here is a little more comparative data, including projections for "Life Scientists," which is probably a more accurate description of who I am right now.
Life scientists are not as fast growing, nor as well paid as medical scientists- but this also seems more realistic. In the next 20 years, BLS predicts a 36% increase in medical scientist jobs (or 36,000 jobs), and a 20% increase in Life Science jobs. (The expected national average is closer to 17% growth in jobs.)
Compare the predicted job growth for biochemists and biophysicists, the need is expected to grow by 31%, but this is actually only 7,700 jobs. (They make more money though).
One facet you should be aware of (before your brain explodes) is that these documents suggest that there is no on the job training for any of these positions. What I am getting at, is that none of these numbers account for grad students or post-docs, who I totally believe deserve to call themselves scientists. I had previously thought that this median income data included us trainees, which implies that the top of that bell curve must be set to counterbalance an army of grant-funded RAs. If that's not the case, then the top of the curve is probably not so far away, because it only includes people who actually perform experiments and still wear a lab coat sometimes. (BLS is very systematic about their categorizations. My old PI would not likely count as a Life Scientist, he would instead be a Post-Secondary Teacher based on what he does daily.)
Not sure what this does for my job hunt, but BLS showed me that very few jobs for people with a Ph.D. have any on-the-job training, so be sure you've learned everything you need to know to enter industry before you walk away from academia. (Ha, I jest).
Next time you encounter a student trying to decide what to do with their life, point that at the Occupational Outlook Handbook, so they can avoid the sad fate of chemists, who believed there was a great need, and are now unemployed.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Advice for contracts
The number one advice I have heard about finding stable work as a contractor is to respond quickly and to always meet deadlines. An editor or manager would rather work on improving your work with you then wonder if you've done any. So this week I am focusing on meeting my next round of deadlines, and I'll have more to say later.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
STEM Summit- Day 1
For the next couple days, I am participating in a state-wide STEM Summit, aimed at K-12 educators, Community College and Voc. Tech schools. The focus of the summit is more Aerospace and Energy, but it is interesting to hear employers discuss the future of the workforce, and specifically their needs of the mid- and entry-level applicants. Just to be clear, I'm not participating because I think these people should be telling me how to get a job, but because I really believe that Science affords us the engine for innovation, and that STEM careers can and should be open to a wider range of the population to support a strong economy. That being said, I was pretty well baffled when I heard employers (Boeing, Tacoma Light etc.) saying We need people to enter trades! Please!
This certainly wasn't something I heard when I was in high school, but the modern "trade school" is very technical. That's why they earn such a solid salary (average in WA state for all "STEM" professionals, $76,000/yr in contrast to the state average of $55,000- and the jobs are dominated by those that require only a 2 year certificate). But the two major barriers for getting people into these jobs is perception and pre-reqs. Admit it- you kinda think trade school isn't brainy, or doesn't provide middle class jobs. But running a hydroelectric dam doesn't require a degree in engineering these days. Maybe that means that yuppies are paying for college degrees while thse seats at Trades Schools are being filled by those who can't afford it- but those students still need to have gotten a C in Algebra and be capable of learning and performing very technical tasks. Students who go through the two year program are prepared to make twice as much money as that prissy communications degree and in half the time. Not bad, right? We focused on this gap of perception and pre-reqs today- teachers begging for more info to distribute to their students about these very good jobs that don't require a 2400 SAT score, and industry begging the teachers to get those kids the science and math skills they will need to get into those programs. (I hope it was eye-opening for both sides, it was for me.)
Sure, the industry buffs would waffle a little on "what should we train the next graduates to do." The pace that technology changes in these industries is hard to keep up with for those working in it. It's nearly impossible to hone training programs to accommodate that level of fluidity. Ok, so you might not be able to a Nano-Circuitry-Informatics-Fitter Certification from your local community college. But, they kept harping on the same skills that would make a person succeed in the long run at any level.
This certainly wasn't something I heard when I was in high school, but the modern "trade school" is very technical. That's why they earn such a solid salary (average in WA state for all "STEM" professionals, $76,000/yr in contrast to the state average of $55,000- and the jobs are dominated by those that require only a 2 year certificate). But the two major barriers for getting people into these jobs is perception and pre-reqs. Admit it- you kinda think trade school isn't brainy, or doesn't provide middle class jobs. But running a hydroelectric dam doesn't require a degree in engineering these days. Maybe that means that yuppies are paying for college degrees while thse seats at Trades Schools are being filled by those who can't afford it- but those students still need to have gotten a C in Algebra and be capable of learning and performing very technical tasks. Students who go through the two year program are prepared to make twice as much money as that prissy communications degree and in half the time. Not bad, right? We focused on this gap of perception and pre-reqs today- teachers begging for more info to distribute to their students about these very good jobs that don't require a 2400 SAT score, and industry begging the teachers to get those kids the science and math skills they will need to get into those programs. (I hope it was eye-opening for both sides, it was for me.)
Sure, the industry buffs would waffle a little on "what should we train the next graduates to do." The pace that technology changes in these industries is hard to keep up with for those working in it. It's nearly impossible to hone training programs to accommodate that level of fluidity. Ok, so you might not be able to a Nano-Circuitry-Informatics-Fitter Certification from your local community college. But, they kept harping on the same skills that would make a person succeed in the long run at any level.
- Curiosity, passion, excitement for the field (which means staying abreast of those changes, be they in advanced manufacturing or rocket science)
- Project management, team work and collaboration
- Technical communication-"The only classes you take in college that are still relevant 5 years later are technical writing and Public Speaking!"
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Dealing with contracts on my CV
I am fortunate that while I am not working full time, I have been able to put together a couple short term or part time contracts that help to keep me busy, growing professionally and, to some extent, paid. It's been insightful for me to navigate the process from signing a non-disclosure, to writing a contract and submitting invoices- heck, even getting my own business license to keep it all above board. I would presume that jobs that want "industry experience" are looking for a certain sensitivity to these types of issues. My current question then, is how do I display that I have done these things? I've heard that "too much contracting" can look like a red flag to an employer- why did none of that turn into a full-time/permanent offer? But should I list these things on my resume or CV? and how? Should this be on my LinkedIn profile- and if so, where?
I expect I'll be browsing my current connections for people who have done this type of work to see how they describe it and what works. I think I may just need an additional title as "freelancer" or "Sole proprietor" to let some of that work fall into- but I am not sure it will be found, or be able to imply the breadth of the work I am doing (currently biofuels and education on separate contracts, hopefully more in the future). I'd love some feedback, and I think that I'll probably play with a few iterations until I get something I like.
I expect I'll be browsing my current connections for people who have done this type of work to see how they describe it and what works. I think I may just need an additional title as "freelancer" or "Sole proprietor" to let some of that work fall into- but I am not sure it will be found, or be able to imply the breadth of the work I am doing (currently biofuels and education on separate contracts, hopefully more in the future). I'd love some feedback, and I think that I'll probably play with a few iterations until I get something I like.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Hello, I am a business owner
I live in Washington now, and some of the laws about
business things are different here.
Actually, I don’t even know that for certain, I just have a better sense
that people know and follow those rules.
Why? When I mentioned that to
kill time while job hunting, I was doing some contract work, someone asked me
if I transferred my business license. I
laughed, “I don’t make enough to pay taxes on, so, I didn’t have one in PA.” “Oh,
but in WA you need one if you make more than $600 a year or something.” Really? I should look into that. Whether or not I am actually going to make
that much money in WA is yet to be determined, but I figured, what the heck- I
want to prove I have business savvy? I’m getting a business license. I mean, if I can. Fortunately, Washington has some useful
resources for making this an unintimindating process. I managed to open a ‘sole proprietorship’ ‘doing
business as (DBA)’ Sandlin Seguin. Ok,
$20 later, I am a business owner. Is that
the difference between entrepreneurs and the rest of us Schmucks? I think there might be more to it, but I’ll
keep you up to date. The nice lady at the state suggested I get a separate bank
account for my “business,” in case there is liability at some point, it allows
my personal and business finances to be distinguished. Put that on my list of Things to Do before I
make my millions.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What's in a business plan?
When I started asking around for advice about working for a start-up, everyone said "Look at the Business Plan." That's nice seeming advice, but considering my first experience with one is the one I am making a career choice on, I'm not sure if that actually puts me in a good position to judge. Seriously, what is normally in one of these?
A business plan (esp for a company looking for investors, or anticipating growth), should include everything from the mission statement to the revenue streams and expected profitability timeline, and provide an indication that each of the major issues for the business have been considered and addressed. There should be some indication that both the Market (who will buy what you have to sell?) and Finances (can you make it for less than you'll sell it? How much outlay is required to make it?) have been considered. For example, it might include the expected clients, or investors, predicted areas of growth or challenges. In a science field (I'm clearly thinking about biofuels, but this holds true for biotech as well), these is probably some oblique reference to the whiz-bang science that is going to move the company forward. If it doesn't sound believable, you should be able to get references about it.
The part that is a little confusing is that a business plan is normally written for investors, either the bank that will make a loan or venture capitalists. As a result, everything is couched in the language of "Potential Success and Profits!" It's hard to look past the "uniquely qualified team," and their "cutting edge approach," despite their "deep understanding of market realities" to see if there is a good idea down there. And working for a start up might not be like a normal job, where you know if you show up and do your thing, you'll have some stability. It's riskier, and as someone who doesn't like job hunting much, I want to be sure the job I take is one I'll still have in a few months.
I'm not really sure how one balances all that, frankly.
The one other think I have to add was this funny acronym, EBITDA- earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization which is a nice way of making earnings look as GIANT as possible, even though that isn't a perfect reflection of the final take home.
A business plan (esp for a company looking for investors, or anticipating growth), should include everything from the mission statement to the revenue streams and expected profitability timeline, and provide an indication that each of the major issues for the business have been considered and addressed. There should be some indication that both the Market (who will buy what you have to sell?) and Finances (can you make it for less than you'll sell it? How much outlay is required to make it?) have been considered. For example, it might include the expected clients, or investors, predicted areas of growth or challenges. In a science field (I'm clearly thinking about biofuels, but this holds true for biotech as well), these is probably some oblique reference to the whiz-bang science that is going to move the company forward. If it doesn't sound believable, you should be able to get references about it.
The part that is a little confusing is that a business plan is normally written for investors, either the bank that will make a loan or venture capitalists. As a result, everything is couched in the language of "Potential Success and Profits!" It's hard to look past the "uniquely qualified team," and their "cutting edge approach," despite their "deep understanding of market realities" to see if there is a good idea down there. And working for a start up might not be like a normal job, where you know if you show up and do your thing, you'll have some stability. It's riskier, and as someone who doesn't like job hunting much, I want to be sure the job I take is one I'll still have in a few months.
I'm not really sure how one balances all that, frankly.
The one other think I have to add was this funny acronym, EBITDA- earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization which is a nice way of making earnings look as GIANT as possible, even though that isn't a perfect reflection of the final take home.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Is having just a Ph.D. a non starter?
If you, like me, spend much (all) of your time looking at job postings, you have probably noticed a trend. There are jobs for those with a BS, an MS or a PhD+postoc, but there is a surprising gap in the number of jobs for people who just graduated, and want a job. I am in the habit of contacting recruiters before I apply for a job, so I recently asked about a job for a person MS and a couple years of experience in drug discover (on average, that's me! It would be perfect!) The recruiter wrote back that unfortunately "the salary is not in
line with that credential." I wanted to write back "Lady! The NIH wants to pay me $37K, I'll find a way to make do with whatever you are offering!" but I didn't because I am an adult.
I'm sure you've heard this rumor though: you can't get a job in industry unless you have post-doc experience (and it has to be the right post-doc experience, whatever that is). The friendly folks at Simply Biotech don't think it is impossible to be fit to an Associate Scientist position (read: Ph.D. + 0yrs). I want to believe them, because they believe in me, but... I've started asking around.
I've started asking recruiters on LinkedIn "Does your company ever hire Ph.D.s without experience?" Check it out, I'm getting aggressive and networking. Heck yes.
The score so far: Novartis does not, and Kimberly-Clark and Cepheid do (in principle- neither has positions open today). I'll try to keep you up to date as that score changes. But the early results suggest that if not working freaks you out, get a post-doc. It might be a while before a position opens up for you, new grads.
I'm sure you've heard this rumor though: you can't get a job in industry unless you have post-doc experience (and it has to be the right post-doc experience, whatever that is). The friendly folks at Simply Biotech don't think it is impossible to be fit to an Associate Scientist position (read: Ph.D. + 0yrs). I want to believe them, because they believe in me, but... I've started asking around.
I've started asking recruiters on LinkedIn "Does your company ever hire Ph.D.s without experience?" Check it out, I'm getting aggressive and networking. Heck yes.
The score so far: Novartis does not, and Kimberly-Clark and Cepheid do (in principle- neither has positions open today). I'll try to keep you up to date as that score changes. But the early results suggest that if not working freaks you out, get a post-doc. It might be a while before a position opens up for you, new grads.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Experiment 9: Getting aggressive, asking about jobs
By this point in the experimentation process, it's become clear to me that behavior I previously thought was outlandishly presumptive or aggressive is at worst barely approaching standard practice. Remember how I used to feel about calling HR? Or finding people on LinkedIn? Who knows what makes us scientists so shy, but I am here to push the bounds of acceptable job hunting behavior all the way to "expected levels of interaction." Call me a rebel.
I've started committing (via Twitter) what I used to think was a major faux-paus: asking about jobs. I'm not asking for jobs yet (that's still tacky), but I've found some recruiters who ought to have the types of jobs I am looking for, but only seem to post jobs that aren't right for me (QC Chemist). In prinicple, they know I am watching, because they can tell that I follow them, but I don't pay any attention to who my actual followers are. The only way to get noticed on Twitter is to speak up directly. When I asked Vala Sciences (publicly) for more info about openings, I heard back from them (they will be opening a new department, but they want to get a director in place first. It's almost time for a follow-up with them). So why not just ask the biotech recruiter? Why not just ask Amgen, do you have positions for people with my background?
The obvious reason not to is that the very thought of it makes me feel ill. But both Steve Levy and Adrienne Graham were comically appalled by my lack of aggressiveness in this whole thing. How are these people/entities going to know you want a job otherwise? Continuing to apply for the wrong positions isn't helping. I would really like to work for Amgen- they paid my summer stipend the summer I decided to go to graduate school, so I've always had a soft spot for them. But their careers pages is confounding and so my resume is likely filled under "people who can't read job descriptions." Hopefully I can get someone there to at least point me towards the correct job title or department to look for, since that would be a huge advantage to me. As bashful as I am feeling about this, I still don't think I'm crossing the bounds of appropriate job seeker behavior. In fact, I am finally just beginning to broach the whole reason groups like Amgen and Merck are on Twitter in the first place- to connect with candidates before the hiring process begins.
I've started committing (via Twitter) what I used to think was a major faux-paus: asking about jobs. I'm not asking for jobs yet (that's still tacky), but I've found some recruiters who ought to have the types of jobs I am looking for, but only seem to post jobs that aren't right for me (QC Chemist). In prinicple, they know I am watching, because they can tell that I follow them, but I don't pay any attention to who my actual followers are. The only way to get noticed on Twitter is to speak up directly. When I asked Vala Sciences (publicly) for more info about openings, I heard back from them (they will be opening a new department, but they want to get a director in place first. It's almost time for a follow-up with them). So why not just ask the biotech recruiter? Why not just ask Amgen, do you have positions for people with my background?
The obvious reason not to is that the very thought of it makes me feel ill. But both Steve Levy and Adrienne Graham were comically appalled by my lack of aggressiveness in this whole thing. How are these people/entities going to know you want a job otherwise? Continuing to apply for the wrong positions isn't helping. I would really like to work for Amgen- they paid my summer stipend the summer I decided to go to graduate school, so I've always had a soft spot for them. But their careers pages is confounding and so my resume is likely filled under "people who can't read job descriptions." Hopefully I can get someone there to at least point me towards the correct job title or department to look for, since that would be a huge advantage to me. As bashful as I am feeling about this, I still don't think I'm crossing the bounds of appropriate job seeker behavior. In fact, I am finally just beginning to broach the whole reason groups like Amgen and Merck are on Twitter in the first place- to connect with candidates before the hiring process begins.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
I turned down a job offer
In this economy, it seems like a crime not to accept any reasonable job offer. The nation's unemployment is at 9.1%, so consider yourself lucky to be employed or haveing that olive branch extended to you. Right? We used to be counseled not to jump right on the first job offer that comes our way, but now, who knows when the next one is coming?
Well, I'll argue that with the unemployment rates for PhDs being closer to 2%, you have a lot more leverage than the general population. In fact, I'm willing to put out this argument strongly enough to turn down two offers for the wrong job. I mean, jumping through the hoops of the job hunt isn't fun, but I am doing it so I can get a job that helps me move ahead and advance my career. I'm willing to settle for positions that aren't my dream job, but they've gotta provide me more opportunity, new skills, or a step into a direction I am interested in going.
My reasons for turning down jobs?
1) They won't add anything new or helpful to my resume. It's fairly easy to pick up a semester of teaching if you are in the right place at the right time. But I have enough teaching experience to know that I'm not interested in being a professor, and probably enough teaching experience to make the case for being able to teach in other contexts (like training, or giving seminars or something). So what would teaching another semester do for me? Give me a job (a plus), but keep me on a semester long contract where I might be too busy to pursue opportunities outside the classroom (big minus). I opted to use my time to find a better match for my interests.
2) There's no way forward. I also turned down a job with poor pay, not just because of the poor pay, but because it wasn't clear that I could be promoted out of that position, or would be in a good geographical location to network my way into better positions. Like I said, I am willing to make compromises to reach my long term goals, but I still want to reach my long term goals.
I am looking for a career that I can be passionate about, no matter what direction it takes me. That's why I've committed so much time to it so far, so I really don't want to sell myself short or give up on the opportunity to get engaged in some meaningful work. I'm really hoping this gamble will pay off.
Well, I'll argue that with the unemployment rates for PhDs being closer to 2%, you have a lot more leverage than the general population. In fact, I'm willing to put out this argument strongly enough to turn down two offers for the wrong job. I mean, jumping through the hoops of the job hunt isn't fun, but I am doing it so I can get a job that helps me move ahead and advance my career. I'm willing to settle for positions that aren't my dream job, but they've gotta provide me more opportunity, new skills, or a step into a direction I am interested in going.
My reasons for turning down jobs?
1) They won't add anything new or helpful to my resume. It's fairly easy to pick up a semester of teaching if you are in the right place at the right time. But I have enough teaching experience to know that I'm not interested in being a professor, and probably enough teaching experience to make the case for being able to teach in other contexts (like training, or giving seminars or something). So what would teaching another semester do for me? Give me a job (a plus), but keep me on a semester long contract where I might be too busy to pursue opportunities outside the classroom (big minus). I opted to use my time to find a better match for my interests.
2) There's no way forward. I also turned down a job with poor pay, not just because of the poor pay, but because it wasn't clear that I could be promoted out of that position, or would be in a good geographical location to network my way into better positions. Like I said, I am willing to make compromises to reach my long term goals, but I still want to reach my long term goals.
I am looking for a career that I can be passionate about, no matter what direction it takes me. That's why I've committed so much time to it so far, so I really don't want to sell myself short or give up on the opportunity to get engaged in some meaningful work. I'm really hoping this gamble will pay off.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Ideas for getting the bills paid
When I tell people from my normal life I've got my Ph.D., there is usually some well-meaning inference that "you can work anywhere." If by "anywhere" you mean in a select numbers of currently funded labs in diverse geographic locations, then yes, I might just end up anywhere. While I am trying not to fall into the caustically narrow-minded opinion that my options are limited, it's hard not to envy the writer/artist/freelance types who can generate themselves income as needed, and from anywhere.
But even the best laid plans for a dream post leave you with a bit of a gap. You know, grant cycles and academic calenders don't always sync up with the other factors influencing your job hunt, or more importantly, your credit card billing dates. So how can a scientist make some short term cash, or even just boost your CV while your dream job waits for that NIH gravy train?
The most common suggestion is to teach a semester, at your alma mater or a nearby school/community college. All calibers of schools will have surprise staffing shortages and may need someone to step into teach intro bio labs or senior writing seminars. Contact the department directly (especially someone in charge of curriculum), an ad hoc position may be exempt from affirmative action- meaning the person in charge of hiring can pick any candidate for any bias reason at all. Like there was a desperate need and you sent an email. If you know the right person to ask, this can be an easy job to find. These positions are not lucrative, but may provide some much needed teaching experience for your job hunt.
If you are more interested in the pay check and flexible schedule than the accredited experience and strong letter, you might want to look into teaching online courses. These gigs can vary in caliber and time commitment, but you don't have to commute. Or bathe. To me, this sounds like a great deal, although I've never heard of anyone doing it, just wanting to find this plum job.
What if you have no interest in teaching, but still need a paycheck? If you are a native (or proficient) English speaker, you may be able to be an editor for ESL scientists trying to send articles to English language journals. Working on short contracts may sound like a nice way to make some beer money, but this can be a full time salary if you work at it. This position will give you a chance to stay in the game, or even make some extra cash, until your dream job pulls in.
I know that most of the major recruiting firms say that they are looking to fill temporary positions for tech's etc. The rumors I've heard lead me to believe that these are temp contracts that lead to permanent placement. These also aren't any easier to get than any other type of job, so start looking early. However, this might be a good way to get some "industry experience" before you go back on the market for the dream job.
What else do scientists do in lieu of freelance mini-preps?
But even the best laid plans for a dream post leave you with a bit of a gap. You know, grant cycles and academic calenders don't always sync up with the other factors influencing your job hunt, or more importantly, your credit card billing dates. So how can a scientist make some short term cash, or even just boost your CV while your dream job waits for that NIH gravy train?
The most common suggestion is to teach a semester, at your alma mater or a nearby school/community college. All calibers of schools will have surprise staffing shortages and may need someone to step into teach intro bio labs or senior writing seminars. Contact the department directly (especially someone in charge of curriculum), an ad hoc position may be exempt from affirmative action- meaning the person in charge of hiring can pick any candidate for any bias reason at all. Like there was a desperate need and you sent an email. If you know the right person to ask, this can be an easy job to find. These positions are not lucrative, but may provide some much needed teaching experience for your job hunt.
If you are more interested in the pay check and flexible schedule than the accredited experience and strong letter, you might want to look into teaching online courses. These gigs can vary in caliber and time commitment, but you don't have to commute. Or bathe. To me, this sounds like a great deal, although I've never heard of anyone doing it, just wanting to find this plum job.
What if you have no interest in teaching, but still need a paycheck? If you are a native (or proficient) English speaker, you may be able to be an editor for ESL scientists trying to send articles to English language journals. Working on short contracts may sound like a nice way to make some beer money, but this can be a full time salary if you work at it. This position will give you a chance to stay in the game, or even make some extra cash, until your dream job pulls in.
I know that most of the major recruiting firms say that they are looking to fill temporary positions for tech's etc. The rumors I've heard lead me to believe that these are temp contracts that lead to permanent placement. These also aren't any easier to get than any other type of job, so start looking early. However, this might be a good way to get some "industry experience" before you go back on the market for the dream job.
What else do scientists do in lieu of freelance mini-preps?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Experiment 5: Calling HR
Once upon a time, I found a job and fell in love. I applied for the job, and dreamed of spending a lifetime happily ever after in that job. That's where the story ends. Actually, where it ends a lot.
I was complaining about this to my brother, "I apply for jobs, and nothing happens." And he asked my what the HR person said about my application. I was slightly appalled- you can't just talk to those people. And he explained, with the patience of someone who still remembers finding their first job, that 'no, you must talk to those people. That is, in fact, their job.' Then I was really appalled, "If the job of the HR person is to find and hire good talent, then there is a reason she never called back, and I don't really want to have that conversation." Again, the patience and logic won out, so I tried the experiment. This was well past the day I was told there would be some follow up, so I had already decided I didn't have the job. He convinced me to call and ask. If I was right, I can ask how to do better next time (valuable to know, if painful to ask), and if he was right, I could ask how long the process might take. I spent 20 minutes sweating and hyperventilating in an abandoned conference room before I dialed her number. "Hi, I applied for your posted position, I was wondering if you could tell me about the status of my application?"
She was actually quite happy to hear from me, it saved her looking up my number again. And actually, I wasn't out of the running for this job, they were very interested in me for this position. I don't recall much else of what was said, because when you go from that nervous to that relieved you sometimes get light-headed. Basically, the update was that they hadn't made up their minds yet, but they were pleased to know I was interested enough to check in. I called back every week until it became clear the project would be unfunded. Every time I called, the HR person said she'd been meaning to call, and it comes back to what my brother was trying to tell me.
The HR person is basically the door keeper to these mid-size company jobs. Their normal job revolves around keeping everyone paid, and on occasion, they get an additional project to hire someone. They don't know about you or your expertise, they are going to try to match the description someone else gave them to your application- try to make that as easy as possible with every aspect of your application. From there, decisions have to be made in a very human way, usually by someone feeling a little overworked and under-appreciated. Sometimes the hiring choice is made by someone who would be your manager or peer, and the same goes for them. Calling reinforces your interest, and the silly reasons you make up to call might give you more insight about the job. What is the next step in the process? Is there someone I can talk to and get more info about the specific duties?
The trouble I am running into now is that many of the jobs I am applying to, I can't find a person or contact to call. The next round of this experiment will be to follow-up more aggressively with the recruiter or Contact Us info that is available to see if I can track down someone who can help. This is more work then just uploading my resume, but when I've found someone to talk to it's been worth it.
I was complaining about this to my brother, "I apply for jobs, and nothing happens." And he asked my what the HR person said about my application. I was slightly appalled- you can't just talk to those people. And he explained, with the patience of someone who still remembers finding their first job, that 'no, you must talk to those people. That is, in fact, their job.' Then I was really appalled, "If the job of the HR person is to find and hire good talent, then there is a reason she never called back, and I don't really want to have that conversation." Again, the patience and logic won out, so I tried the experiment. This was well past the day I was told there would be some follow up, so I had already decided I didn't have the job. He convinced me to call and ask. If I was right, I can ask how to do better next time (valuable to know, if painful to ask), and if he was right, I could ask how long the process might take. I spent 20 minutes sweating and hyperventilating in an abandoned conference room before I dialed her number. "Hi, I applied for your posted position, I was wondering if you could tell me about the status of my application?"
She was actually quite happy to hear from me, it saved her looking up my number again. And actually, I wasn't out of the running for this job, they were very interested in me for this position. I don't recall much else of what was said, because when you go from that nervous to that relieved you sometimes get light-headed. Basically, the update was that they hadn't made up their minds yet, but they were pleased to know I was interested enough to check in. I called back every week until it became clear the project would be unfunded. Every time I called, the HR person said she'd been meaning to call, and it comes back to what my brother was trying to tell me.
The HR person is basically the door keeper to these mid-size company jobs. Their normal job revolves around keeping everyone paid, and on occasion, they get an additional project to hire someone. They don't know about you or your expertise, they are going to try to match the description someone else gave them to your application- try to make that as easy as possible with every aspect of your application. From there, decisions have to be made in a very human way, usually by someone feeling a little overworked and under-appreciated. Sometimes the hiring choice is made by someone who would be your manager or peer, and the same goes for them. Calling reinforces your interest, and the silly reasons you make up to call might give you more insight about the job. What is the next step in the process? Is there someone I can talk to and get more info about the specific duties?
The trouble I am running into now is that many of the jobs I am applying to, I can't find a person or contact to call. The next round of this experiment will be to follow-up more aggressively with the recruiter or Contact Us info that is available to see if I can track down someone who can help. This is more work then just uploading my resume, but when I've found someone to talk to it's been worth it.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Rumors from the Job Hunt
I am in the fortunate position to be very open about my job hunt, both that I am looking for work and for a career in general. I am fortunate because this means people all over the place are generously sharing their experiences and tidbits with me. However, if you are also a graduate student, there is a good chance that a lot of the tidbits are more like rumors. Sometimes these rumors are surprising, so I'll share these because I have no reason to distrust their sources, but I'd like to get some confirmation. If you have any reason to know better than I, please leave a comment!
Don't apply for too many different jobs at once. If you are applying to a big biotech, there is a good chance you'll see lots of jobs you think you can do, might like to try or want to know more about. If one hiring manager receives your applications for 20 positions from sales to research to tech to lead, they will assume you are unfocused and throw them all out. I'm not sure what the magic number is, but try to stay focused on specific types or responsibilities. Not sure how this sits with recruiting firms.
You don't really need to qualify for a government job. That's not totally true, you absoloutely must meet the minimum requirement; if they want a degree, you need to have one. But most government job postings will have qualifications, and Minimum qualifications. If you don't have 2 years of GS10 experience but still believe you can do the job, you need only convince the hiring manager, you may as well give it a shot.
You need to switch institutions for a post-doc. I know there are a few qualifiers on this rumor, this is only important to explain to NRSA Fellowships (although you'll inevitably apply for this if you plan to continue on the professor-training track), and if you have not switched institutions, you have space in your application to explain that choice. I am not sure what the NIH feels are compelling reasons to stay. But I am sure that at a very large research university like mine, I have not used ever opportunity for training available on campus, which is the standard argument for switching.
Do you know of other rumors? Are these ones true?
Don't apply for too many different jobs at once. If you are applying to a big biotech, there is a good chance you'll see lots of jobs you think you can do, might like to try or want to know more about. If one hiring manager receives your applications for 20 positions from sales to research to tech to lead, they will assume you are unfocused and throw them all out. I'm not sure what the magic number is, but try to stay focused on specific types or responsibilities. Not sure how this sits with recruiting firms.
You don't really need to qualify for a government job. That's not totally true, you absoloutely must meet the minimum requirement; if they want a degree, you need to have one. But most government job postings will have qualifications, and Minimum qualifications. If you don't have 2 years of GS10 experience but still believe you can do the job, you need only convince the hiring manager, you may as well give it a shot.
You need to switch institutions for a post-doc. I know there are a few qualifiers on this rumor, this is only important to explain to NRSA Fellowships (although you'll inevitably apply for this if you plan to continue on the professor-training track), and if you have not switched institutions, you have space in your application to explain that choice. I am not sure what the NIH feels are compelling reasons to stay. But I am sure that at a very large research university like mine, I have not used ever opportunity for training available on campus, which is the standard argument for switching.
Do you know of other rumors? Are these ones true?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)