Don't bring your CV

When you go on an informational interview, everyone tells you not to bring a CV.  "You are just getting information, you aren't asking for a job."  I do a lot of informational interviews, and at least 1 in 10 will the person be confused that I didn't bring my CV.  I think I look like a much better candidate in person than on paper, so I prefer this.  When I say I have strong communication skills while I am talking comfortably about my background, it feels much more compelling than the line on my CV that says the same.  I'll get back to this, but it also gives me something to follow-up with.

Recently I had an informational interview with a local small pharma company.  Fortunately, the acquaintance of an acquaintance there is the CSO.  I wasn't sure how much he would know about the actual position in question, but he had a Ph.D.  I wanted to know the basics, how big is the company, who is the hiring manager for this opening, is 2-4 years experience essential?  Sometimes I come away with a better global perspective (ie- we can't take you for this job, but check back in a month because things are bananas here), but I don't usually ask that.

Anyway, I sit down with this guy, and he gives me this quizzical look at asks for my CV.  Instead I give him the twitter version.  Holding his skeptical look, he asks for my life story starting with where I am from.  I'm from Juneau, Alaska, which pretty much everyone thinks is cool.  I told him about my undergrad research, and what I did in grad school.  Or I tried to- he kept cutting me off with really odd, direct questions and that confused look.  "Are you good at the bench?  What are you good at?"  "Are you smart?  How do you know?"  "What have you been doing since you graduated?" Contract editing. "Do you have classical training in writing?" Um...

It was hard to read.  I couldn't tell if he was trying to make me uncomfortable so I would leave (I'm immune to awkward), or if he was pleased with my answers.  He called in the Director of Pre-Clincal research and one of his PIs.  He tried to look aghast that I didn't bring my CV, "But I'm not asking you for a job." "But you are looking for a job, aren't you?"  The questions kept coming, ("What's your goal in life?" "Are you opposed to animal work? Ever work with Radiation") and I figured the game was already lost and simply mine to win.  A year ago I would have been really intimidated, and what a difference a year makes.  Finally, the CSO says, "I wouldn't hire you.  You don't have any experience..." The Pre-Clinical Director says, "She has a experience- she has a Ph.D.  She's been in the lab before."  "You know that's different.  Send them your CV.  If they like you and want to bring you on as a contractor, that's great."

Cross your fingers that this works.  I sent them my CV.  I know my CV says I've worked on some random projects using a host of techniques, I published in mediocre journals and I've been up to all kind of other extra curriculars.  Hopefully they'll remember that super weird meeting this morning and be curious enough to talk to me again. 

But getting back to the point I started with, What would have happened if I'd had my CV?  They might have left me with the same cliff hanger, and then I'd have to write back later and say, "So, um... do you like me?"  I will probably still get to send that email, but that seems like a terrible place to start correspondence.  Instead, my first email to these people was reiterating the conversation we had shared and giving them a tangible reminder of who I am.

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.

Notes on working with entreprenuers

In a meeting the other day, an entrepreneur shared a moment of great self-insight.  He said, "I'm an entrepreneur, I come up with all kinds of ideas.  Some of them are great, and lots of them are terrible.  I need people around me to tell me which is which.  But I really need people to get things done."  At first, I thought this was just his take on the role, but I've had the chance to work with several now and I see it's a bit of a universal truth.  And knowing that can help those interactions quite a lot.

This is a guy I am day dreaming about a STEM program with.  He loves it when I tell him which ideas might work, or how we are going to have to pull them off.  He doesn't perceive those responsibilities as his role- his job is to have great ideas and find the resources to make them work.  I am one of those resources, and I'm valuable because I can tell him when his ideas stink. 

When I look back on my interactions with the algae guy, he had a lot of this too.  Great ideas that weren't always bounded by our current access to technology, money or other practical considerations.  I'll admit that that kinda spooked me a bit.  A good entrepreneur is so compelling about that "The Sky is the Limit!" pitch that other people buy into it, literally giving money, and suddenly you've got everything you need.

Scientists can be a little like this too.  If you dread showing your boss data because they will come up with 8 equally important follow-up experiments that don't overlap with the experiments they proposed that got you there in the first place.... you work with an innovator.  I knew a guy like that.  I work with some of these PIs now as an intern at C4C.  The tech managers often complain that their teams can't make forward progress because they get distracted by all kinds of other considerations.  You mix the entrepreneur's dream with a habit of basic research and it can be really tough to move a brilliant idea to a product on the shelf. 

One of the (many) reasons I don't want to be a faculty member is because I don't think like that.  I don't like to invent bad ideas to find good ones, and I am much more opinionated about the practical things.  Honestly, I thought that made me less of a scientist.  But I think in a commercial world, there is a real need for people like me.  Brilliant ideas aside, if you want to put a drug through trials, there is a lot of regulation that doesn't usually benefit from creative thinking.  I mention this, because I think recognizing which type of person I am and how I related to the other type has helped my professional interactions.

Work-Life Balance: AWIS Panel

Yet another thing I have done while looking for a job is join a couple professional societies here.  I am on the Board of the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), which is a great organization because the membership is diverse and active.  I've met a lot of interesting people as a result, and this is a fairly large organization, so I have been able to use that to connect with several people on LinkedIn.  One benefit of being on the Board is that I feel compelled to attend all of our events, which are targeted to issues I actually care about.

This last week was a great panel on work-life balance, presented by women at different career stages and with different career trajectories.  This wasn't just a Q&A on when the best time to have babies is, I think that these women were able to highlight some universal truths.  For starters, AWIS National emphasizes that work-life balance is personal and changing.  What makes you feel satisfied with your life and trajectory is different when you move to a new city to start grad school and don't know a soul than when you are mid-career and settled with a family.

These women talked about setting boundaries to carve out time for their families, but also finding ways to have a family while enjoying a fruitful career.  The job is supposed to be satisfying, remember?  Several people said that they considered the few hours of the day where the were at home were too precious to worry about maintaining their home, so they paid a house keeper or yard service.  Others talked about finding a way to keep the pressures of family from preventing them having a fulfilling career.  One worked from home after the baby went to bed so she didn't feel guilty about leaving early to be home, one who religiously took off at 5 would give herself a night to linger at work when she felt too much pressure from home.  There was discussion about routine, for one woman a routine was so important to her she normally carpooled to have that added structure.  Others felt that the best advantage of their career track was the the flexibility. 

What was really helpful was to hear them say that they each felt like there had been some critical junctures where the idea of "balance," came to a head.  How to solve that two-body problem?  When to seek promotion?  How to deal with a lay-off?  How to deal with a teenager?  I like this idea that work-life balance looks very different at different career stages, which means that our approaches can change, and that it is fine to reassess it whenever it feels off kilter.

There were several practical ideas floated, but in addition, it is always so helpful to hear successful women be honest about the challenges they have faced and how they were able to address them.  It's one of the reasons I am glad to be able to participate in AWIS events.

On the STEM Skills gap

I have, in the past, weighed in on the question of over-producing Ph.D., and I will probably never run out of things to say on this topic.  But recently I've been thinking about the flip side of this problem, sometimes called the STEM Skills Gap.  You see, there are apparently many companies and recruiters who are at a loss to find qualified people to fill positions under that STEM umbrella (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).  From my perspective, this is why I get rejected for positions that require some clinical trials experience, or GxP experience.  Locally, employers like Boeing and Amazon need employees to push forward the boundaries of modern manufacturing, and run their SQL data bases or use Sharepoint or other things that we don't do in school.  The argument is that if 'we' (in this case the US or WA workforce) don't provide adequate workers, these jobs will go elsewhere.  I get that, the company needs a workforce that provide the engine of labor to move forward.

What I don't get is why they think these skills are so hard to come by- in contrast to, say, a Ph.D.  All of those 'experiences' I mentioned before are simply things a bright person could pick up on the job.  In a era of tight budgets, there is no time or money to train an insufficient candidate, and apparently leaving a role empty is less of a burden than hiring someone who might be inefficient at their role for a period. Is there a place where there is an experienced workforce ready to mobilize on these challenges?  If these companies don't stay here, where are they going instead, and how are those workers prepared that those of us here are not?  I'd really like to know the answer to this, I think we could learn a lot.

I like the phrase the Skills Gap, because it implies there is a disconnect on both sides.  Schools train us to do something no one will hire us to do directly, jobs are looking for people with training that doesn't exist.  If schools would help their graduates recognize that while your training may provide you expertise in some specific arena, this type of training prepares you, generally, to be successful in a wide array of fields.  And then those companies might be willing to look at these trainees with an eye towards their future, rather than just their ability today.  I think companies are too myopic in their hiring practices.  If the industry is as dynamic and changing as they insist it is, why aren't they looking for a workforce that is as well?  People who are brave enough to take on a technical challenge and have a history of success with other technical challenges are probably going to be just what Microsoft or Philips need to compete. 

I have one other gripe about this process- I don't believe that the people in charge of hiring really understand what they want and need in a candidate.  I was hired at the bank because (among other things) I am "good at math."  I took math up to 3 dimensional calculus; this does not make me a better teller.  Not once have I been asked to calculate an interest rate and returns for a client on the fly. I sometimes total checks and subtract withdrawals, but that is arithmetic- a skill set that I all but lost touch with by high school.  Yes, a teller needs to be comfortable with numbers and fairly detail oriented in that way, but no quantity of calculus will be required on that job. I often worry that I am overlooked as a candidate because my experience doesn't match verbatum the ambitions of a hiring manager who is asking for the stars and willing to settle in between.

I will recognize that if I had been involved in an actual clinical trial as a graduate student, my job prospects would be better.  But our work was funded to be basic research by the NIH.  I did some drug discovery, which means I learned how to pull the very interesting parts out of huge datasets, and how to refine my assumptions by performing iterative analysis.  Unfortunately, potential employers seem to believe that the ability to submit a 510K for FDA approval is WAY more important to my potential for success than my capacity to solve problems.  Sure, the first is easier to quantify.  But there are much fewer funding opportunities for academic researchers who have interest in commercializing their science.  This is why so few of us come out of our training with that perspective.

When I hear educators complain about the leaky STEM pipeline, my heart breaks.  They are looking at students who can't perform in basic skills categories that make it nearly impossible for them to perform, let alone compete for good jobs and opportunities.  When I hear employers talk about the leaky pipeline, I want to scream.  To them, the biggest leak is those who stay in the pipeline and fail to train into the fields that we didn't know existed.  But I don't want to leave this as just an angry tirade.  The gap is real, and it is part of the compartmentalized cultures of "academia" and "industry."  All parties need to do better about seeking out input from the other side about what funding can be earned, what training should be provided and what skills will be necessary to present a workforce that keeps up with the changing demands of the global economy.

Navigating recruiter relationships

Because I am not a naturally socially savvy person, learning to navigate the new cultural worlds of business and recruiters have given me some chances to reflect on how I do interact with people.  I'll share a few of these here.

There is plenty of advice that if you are working with a recruiter, you should ping them every week or so to stay relevant.  If you stop, they assume you found a job and don't bug you.  I've let plenty of recruiters come and go out of my life.  Since most of them never sounded like they would have much to offer a Ph.D. with no work experience, I let those relationships wither quickly- and guess what? They never got me a job.  This time around, I am trying harder to build a relationship and be remembered, and do it with brevity.  (Of course, this is easier to do when you are working with someone who will return your calls or emails- distinguishing which relationships to cultivate is a topic for another day).

I was sending out several of these pings this morning (I updated my resume to include being finished with my PM class).  This afternoon, I had a meeting at the recruiting office of one of these people (to talk to someone else), and she was of course surprised to see me.  She ended up introducing me to another person who might be in a better position to get me a contract position, and as I was leaving for the day she said, "Next time, let me know before you come down here.  That way I can get you set up to meet more people."  Oh.... that's actually the third time I've been in the office.  New rule of thumb, when you go into an office where you know some people- go say hi to every single person you know.

I went to an AWIS event last night on work-life balance (I'll be posting more on that and giving myself a pep talk later in the week), but one of the panelists said if you aren't comfortable going to network events, just network where you are.  Make conversation in the lunch room, and get around your department enough that you are well connected where you work.  Basically, build the relationships you have already. I'm having a much easier time building relationships through introductions than I have through those overwhelmingly loud and friendly networking events. 

There we go, some thoughts on networking and developing relationships in the arena of job hunting.  If any of these golden nuggets turn out to be the one that gets me my big break, well, you saw it here first.

Interview: Patent Law

Working at the UWs tech transfer office puts me in touch with a lot of scientists using their training in a non-traditional way.  I work directly with tech managers who have a portfolio of projects that they cycle through the development- moving from an idea, to a funded idea, to a company, or a patent or a license to another company.  This is a very cool job that I might talk about more later, but these tech managers also work in close contact with patent agents and patent lawyers.  In our office, these are all former researchers who've made the leap into law.  I got to sit down with a woman from an engineering background to talk about her move into law and her job now.

When we first sat down, she said, "you know, all you need to become a patent agent is to pass the patent bar, and that's really no big deal.  Seriously, just sign up, study for a couple weeks and take the test, and you can jump into law."  Hold that look of cautious surprise while we back up a bit.  Entering patent law is different than other forms of law- in order to sign up to take the Patent Agent Bar, you need a B.S. at least in a narrow list of technical or scientific fields.  If you have gone to law school following that degree, you can take the Patent Attorney Bar, which is a different exam.  I'm going to focus on the Patent Agent route, since there is no way I am going back to law school now. 

What the patent Agent does is help prepare and file documents related to patents with the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO).  There are several levels of documentation that go in with a patent, depending on that nature of the patent and it's claims.  What this looks like on a day-to-day basis is juggling several projects, each which requires about 8-80 hours of work, and doing anything from prior art searches, provisional patent language to prosecuting (fancy lawyer term meaning "to persue") patents.  Sometimes patents come back from the patent office, and need a response, so you get to advocate for why your client's patent is different that patents 6,923,245.  In order to be effective, you actually need to understand the fundamentals of your patents well enough to distinguish it from other patents/ literature available.  Even though you don't "do" science in the traditional way, you really need to keep your understanding sharp and up to date.

A little more on the career path.  I've heard people say that a Patent Agent is kind of a dead-end job, there isn't room for advancement.  It's probably true that your job title doesn't change much over time, but my contact had a little more perspective on it.  She said that most people start out in a law firm for at least a couple of years.  You work with all the lawyers in that firm and really get experience in the entire life cycle.  She said (and I was stifling a smile here), you really need to develop a tough skin and be prepared to put in long hows.  You'll be doing a lot of work, getting different types of criticism from the partners.  The stakes are high and the deadlines are short, so there is a lot of pressure.  The hours can be long and the intellectual labor is exhausting.  But after a couple years at a law firm, you have enough experience to pursue another position, like her position at the University, or in a USPTO office.  In her position, she manages the law firms that are contracted to do a lot of that work for the tech transfer office.  Or to work part-time, or generally take more control over your career. I'm not sure what the job opportunities for Patent Agents are right now or are predicted to be in the near future.

That said, this doesn't sound all that different from post-docing (or graduate school, she had a B.Sc. in engineering before making the switch).  Except for the pay.  The USPTO reports the average salary for a patent agent is $74500.

Back to the bar then.  It's a 3 hour exam, you can probably take at your nearest testing center.  You need to pass with a 70% score.  The fee to take the exam is a few hundred dollars (which feels like a lot when you are out of work), but could provide some new exciting opportunities.  Or, if you decide you don't like it, it doesn't shackle you to the debt of law school.  For a career that is a dynamic, challenging way you use your training, the barriers to entry don't seem too high.