Subject: Re: Three Immutable Laws of Networking
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:49:57 -0500
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Frank wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:56:15 -0700, davej@sedona.net (Dave Jensen)
> wrote:
> (cut)
> >
> >I am growing tired of the word "networking" because it is used so
> >frequently; and so often by me,
>
> and others. It's a 90's buzzword noun turned verb, like "let's
> party". ecch.
>
> >but I can't think of a substitute. Also, a
> >problem with the word is that it is misinterpreted so often.
>
> The archaic phrase was "talking with people". In the 70's and 80's it
> was replaced euphemistically by "communicating".
>
> Call me old fashioned, but I still like the old phrase.
I'm old fashioned too (or I like to at least think I am), and I'd use some
of the following phrases:
getting to know people
making business contacts
developing business relationships
getting aquainted with people
making new friends and keeping old ones
do some favors now and then, ask for favors now and then, and offer to
return favors if you ask for favors.
reward past favors rendered to you (remember people)
remember that actions speak louder than words
don't waste time on "low reliability people"; but look for "high
reliability people"
forget people who "speak" but do not "do"
have your radar turned on
beware of people who convey that they know everything
(this is not all inclusive)
Art Sowers
>
> Frank Heasley, Ph.D.
> Principal
> FSG Online - Careers in Science, Biotechnology and Medicine
> http://www.chemistry.com
>
>
Subject: Re: consulting as a career
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:58:05 -0500
Brian, Thats a good synopsis of consulting. And, your rates are about
right as I have seen. What would be appreciated on src is any ways someone
who WANTS to drum up some consulting work can do this. Most of my
consulting work resulted from companies which approached me rather than
the other way around. I know from gleanings I've gotten from those who do
consulting full time that there are two ingredients: i) marketing
yourself, and ii) having something to offer of commercial value.
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On 15 Dec 1996, Brian J. Cummings, PhD wrote:
> > > We don't hear much from people with
> > > consulting oriented careers, and I wonder if anyone has something to
> > > say about this as a career. IMNSHO, it seems that the economy is
> > > veering more and more towards consulting versus tenured employment.
> > > For my part, I think this is great, as it offers both companies and
> > > employees more freedom. With increasing facility of communcation, we
> > > have a near term possibility of a virtual workforce.
> > >
>
> Hi Mark, Art, and everyone else at SRC.
>
> My system has been down for a while (comp. sci. is NOT one of Harvard's
> strong points- come to think of it I don't think they have any strong
> points besides their undeserved reputation), so I haven't even been
> lurking here for a long time. Just got things "working" again in time to
> see Mark's post. Since I have been consulting on the side while working
> in a soft-money position for the last year at Harvard Med School, I
> thought I'd put in my $1.02 worth
> - the extra dollar is my consulting fee :)
>
> I was contacted by a local Cambridge Biotech company after they saw some
> of my posts on the bionet.neuroscience.amyloid group. They asked me to
> come down to their place and give a lecture. I thought this would be just
> your typical "give a talk about what you do" / "self-promotion" tour /
> "please site my papers now that you've heard about them" type of visit. I
> was not looking to become a paid consultant. After my 1 hour talk and a
> nice lunch, they handed me a check for $200 as a speakers fee. Was I
> surprized. The details of my talk (on a canine model of Alzheimer's
> disease) were interesting to the company, but they were certainly NOT
> going to start a canine research program based on my talk. However, thru
> "networking" with several of the scientists in the group over the next few
> weeks, it was clear that a number of people there got along well with me.
>
> They later contacted me for my advice on histology and other animal model
> issues and asked if I wanted to become a consultant. I naively asked them
> what the going rate was (since I'm not a cut-throat kind of guy and hadn't
> a clue as to the average rate). I accepted their offer of $100 per hour
> for any work I did in my own lab and/or $1000 per day if I drove over to
> their company. There was also talk of setting up a contract guarenteeing
> me 4 full days per year (which we never really got around to finalizing)
> and I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement with regards to their
> chemical compound.
>
> Since then, I've been working about 10 hours/month with/for them. Some of
> the time is for doing experiements in my lab which they can't do (i.e.
> this may be difficult if you're trying to consult out of your own home),
> other hours are for my going to their company to sit in on lab meetings
> and argue/give advice, or to train their personel in histology, animal
> surgery and microscopy. Additional hours are for literature searching
> specialized info for them; spending extra time at a conference to look for
> info I think they might be interested in; or contacting
> peers/collaborators in the field and solicitating information for the
> company. Many of these kinds of things could be done whether you have
> your own lab or not.
>
> My situation with them is very informal, partly because I prefer it that
> way and partly because they are open to that type of relationship. I know
> of others who consult who are much more tightly controlled. I would
> suggest that the more concerned you are with a "regular" income, the more
> you would wnat to lean towards firmer contracts which can guarentee you a
> minimum number of hours/month. Currently, this is not an issue for me.
>
> A side benefit of consulting (in addition to the money) is the possibility
> of future employment. This would be even greater if one pursued consulting
> which multiple companies. In these times of pitiful employment, a good
> way to land a job is via contacts. The more people/companies you consult
> for the greater your number of connnections. I am in a tenuous situation
> here at Harvard on soft money (McLean hospital is in debt and will likely
> not pick me up should my next grant not get funded). I recently contacted
> my friends whom I consult for and was immediately promised up to
> 30hrs/week if I need it; even though there is currently a hiring freeze
> there on new people, they consider paying part-time people as a good work
> around. This would certainly not be the case unless they had hard the
> time to get to know me and my capabilities.
>
> Summary:
>
> Depending on how one "sells" or promotes oneself, there are a number of
> science consulting tasks that the average under-employed science type
> could pursue.
>
> Consulting need not be for the exact topic your thesis was on; you need to
> be creative about the kinds of things you can do which are useful to a
> company who doesn't want to "waste" benefit costs on another employee.
>
> In BioTech, the going rates for a consultant are between $50 and $200 per
> hour. Most people I know are making $125. (Maybe I should have asked for
> more?)
>
> If the company asks for a contract which prohibits you from consulting
> elsewhere, it is typical to get greater than $125/hr and/or a have a
> specified minimum number of total hours they they will agree to pay you
> for up front.
>
> One could consult full time or part time as a career and survive, with no
> real pension plan, no health benefits, no tenure possibilites, and no
> guarentee of future employment. Gee, this sounds just like post-doc'ing
> in any acedemic situation !
>
>
> Perhaps I'll actually attempt to directly answer Marc's specific questions
> in a follow-up post. e.g. I DO think it is "techinically" unethical for
> companies to shift towards consultants in leu of a "tenured" work force,
> but in practical terms this a a complex issue - several of my friends in
> BioTech are no their 3rd or 4th compnay already but their salary continues
> to climb with the experience.
>
> Hope my little story here answers someones questions. I'd be glad to go
> into further details if asked.
>
> Take care
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Brian J. Cummings, Ph.D. The Prophet, Gibran, On Children:
> Harvard Medical School "You may give them your love, but not your
> Instructor in Neurosci., thoughts. They have their own thoughts."
> McLean Hospital,
> 115 Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02178
>
> (617) 855-3251 Office cummings@helix.mgh.harvard.edu
> (617) 855-3198 Fax
>
> "Intel Inside" - The world's most widely used warning label
> _____________________________________________________________
>
>
Subject: Re: Non-traditional student guidance
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:25:02 -0500
Jane, The best thing you can do is to take a day off and drive over to
your nearest medical school and just walk in off the street. Don't worry
too much about not having any appointments with anyone. Just find (use
commen sense, which it sounds like you already have) to find actual
departments of "X", "Y", and "Z" and ask in the offices if there is
anyone in any office right now that you can "talk to for just 5 minutes"
(don't worry if this expands to much more than 5 minutes) and put your
questions to them. Dont tell them that you are spending the whole day
getting opinions (unless they ask you your whole days plans). See what
they tell you.
I was on a medical student admissions interview committee for a couple of
years and there are always exceptions to the general "ways things are
done." Being in your early 40s by the time you finish an MD/PhD program is
absolutely a major negative factor in your case. You have to consider that
if you are thinking about research, then you're going to be on postdocs
and/or internships and residencies for another 3-4 years, minimum (I
repeat, minimum), and then figure out your arithmetic on your age. There
is nothing wrong with what you are thinking about doing; HOWEVER, the
institutions that do the hiring typically get 200-300 applicants per job
and where you will have a disadvantage is that they will get a number of
applicants from people with the same academic credentials you have, or
better, but will be maybe ten years younger. Personally, I would encourage
you to continue developing your "dreams" but from a practical viewpoint
you have sensed the shortcoming in your own career development: the window
of opportunity is somewhat behind you.
Instead of pursuing science, per se, I'd recommend that you spend some
time on understanding business, economic trends, and how our government is
going to be operating in the next ten years. Job stability is as bad as
its ever been and I'd be looking at industry rather than academia for
work.
This is probably not what you want to hear, but its not what you are
interested in that will count. What will count is that you will get into
an endeavor (a job, profession, career, whatever) that gives you much
lateral mobility and that you won't get flushed out of after you turn 50.
You are going to want medical coverage, a good retirement package, and a
decent income and as low a stress job which is consistent with those
goals. Sure, if you can get your dream job, then go for it. But, I'd
rather you understand about the attrition in some of these careers BEFORE
you become an attrition statistic rather than afterwards.
You might also want to read my essays (see below my name) that are on the
Web, and other web resources relating to science careers cited there.
There are some other strategies you can pursue, but they are even more of
a crapshoot than I would recommend you follow.
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On 16 Dec 1996, Jane Zulovich wrote:
> Hello! I am currently trying to sort out aspects to consider for the
> next step in my career. I have a BS in Medical Technology and have
> worked about 6 years in the medical device industry as a research
> associate. There have been many instances where I believed I had
> good ideas for applied science research within my job. Everything
> always got stifled [not enough $$, time, perceived talent (ie. no MS
> or PhD behind my name, therefore how could I possibly know what I was
> talking about)]. Since I have always sought the field of medical
> research, I have recognized a need to go back to school. This will
> be after a 10 year lapse since my undergraduate study completion. I
> am planning to take MCATs in April '97 and GREs sontime thereafter.
>
> Here is my quandry.... I'm not afraid of the hard work and long study
> hours that will be required of me, but where can I really expect it
> to get me? I mean by the time I would finish say a MD/PhD program, I
> would be in my early 40s. Will anyone in industry or academia
> consider someone like that? Have I missed the window of opportunity?
> Or is it a crap shoot like everything else in life seems to be?
>
> Any input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have
> no personal input, perhaps you could guide me to some resources that
> could help me along.
>
> Thank You!!!
> Jane
>
> PS. I'm new to this Internet environment, too. So on-line help
> related to this may be something I haven't found yet.
>
>
Subject: Re: Moving expenses for PDF
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:35:46 -0500
Its very rare for a hiring department to pay for moving expenses for a
postdoc. It would have helped us more if you had indicated what, where you
are moving to. Academic vs. professional. What kind of support you are
getting, and whether you had any chance to talk to other postdocs there
(or have you talked to any postdocs where you are now). You can bring up
with your new mentor that you had professional movers give you an estimate
for moving and that it was more than you expected and see how that
"flies." If your new mentor does have access to sufficient funding, then
it might be arranged. In many cases, however, budgets are pretty tight and
you should be prepared for bad news.
I know of one case where a technician was recruited and instead of paying
moving expenses, the boss simply raised the salary by a thousand dollars
or so. Sometimes faculty can get moving expenses, but as a practice,
unless there is money (eg. a drug/pharmaceutical company, etc.), I
wouldn't count on it.
Art Sowers
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, fethi bellamine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For those who know or did their postdoctoral studies, I wonder
> if it is O.K. to ask the department to ask to pay for my moving
> expenses given that the university is over 2,000 miles from my
> current place. Do departments usually pay the bill? or since
> it is only a postdoctoral position, then they usually don't.
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>
Subject: Re: The foreign postdoc
From: Robin Hood
Date: 16 Dec 1996 10:53:23 GMT
Hate it or not, The labour market also follows the rule of
"Better Value for Money". The only fair resolution is make
the employer have no way to pay less to an alien than to
a native for the same job. Then there is no reason why an
employer will prefer an alien if a native is really qualified
for the job.
jamie@enterprise.net (Dr Jamie Love) wrote:
>
> The foreign postdoc "thing". My opinion, part TWO! "On the other hand..."
>
> Hello again
>
> Regarding my earlier post;
> I stated my opinion about the foreign postdoc thing and after sending it I
> realized I forgot to mention a real problem (and my solution).
>
> Most (Western) countries have laws regarding the hiring of aliens.
> (Probably even that University on "Third rock from the sun"!)
>
> When I left the USA to do my postdoc over here (United Kingdom), my boss had
> to tell the Home Office (the government boys) that I was desperately needed
> for the research to continue and no one in the UK could do it.
> Of course that was pure crap!
> My boss hired me (I was told) because Americans have a reputation for working
> harder.
> (Before you blokes flame me, understand that I am just repeating what I was
> told.)
> She (the Principal Investigator) wrote the standard letter and filled in the
> standard forms. And some clown in London who wouldn t know DNA from MTV,
> decided the UK couldn t survive without me.
> So he gave me the thumbs up. They usually do. And I moved to the UK for a (4
> year!) postdoc.
> When that was done, I was hired in the same town on an unrelated research
> project. My new boss did as my old boss had done. Told the folks at the Home
> Office that the UK needed me!
> My God, if only my salary reflected this great national need!
>
> It is standard procedure to do this.
> The boys in government offices (in the UK, USA, etc.) haven t a clue!
> They are not qualified to argue with a Principal Scientist (PI) that a foreign
> postdoc is NOT needed!
> They stamp the letter and move it on.
>
> My PhD advisor (who is much older and wiser than I) told me that this had
> "evolved" as the "fringe benefit" of being a scientist. Most governments agree
> (as do many scientists, including myself) that it is good to have open doors
> to the world s scientists.
> The USA benefited greatly from the European immigrants after WWII. No one
> questions that.
>
> What is being called into question is whether this "policy" should continue.
> Indeed, the talk is over and the laws are in place.
> Ford s Executive Order bans hiring of non-citizens by the Federal Government
> and forbids other employers from discriminating against permanent resident
> aliens.
> The President has spoken!
> And been ignored. The "trade" in international PhDs continues.
> It s like having a law against the smoking marijuana and letting people smoke
> it (and inhale!).
>
> Faculty, lab administrators and others who write letters and sign documents
> claiming they need a(particular) foreigner to fill a hole in their lab which
> can not be filled by a native are(with few exceptions) LIARS!!!!
>
> And they know they are liars!
> Had these same folks been found to have LIED about the data they publish or
> the cost of equipment, you can be sure that they would be the center of an
> investigation!
> Instead, they are encouraged to do so! Economics encourages them. Folks from
> 3rd world countries are happy to accept the bad pay and uncertain future
> because the pay and future offered in the USA is still MUCH better than at
> home.
> And this drags down ALL the PhDs because the price of postdocs is bid
> down.
>
> The USA (and the UK, et al.) need to either enforce the law or get rid of it!
>
> Attorney s advertise that they can get you into the USA with your PhD. They
> make money that way. Telling people "who and where" they can find somebody
> willing to LIE about their need for a foreigner and willing to sign a letter
> to that effect. These attorneys know what paperwork works to bullshit the boys
> in Washington!
>
> I know for a fact that the USA, UK and Canada have "strict" rules about hiring
> foreigners, and (for the most part) these are ignored.
>
> I smell trouble.
>
> If the public go nuts when they hear about money "wasted" on various research
> projects (you know the stories I m talking about), just think what a
> "Watergate" it will be when someone decides to investigate the claims made by
> Universities with respect to their hiring LIES.
>
> As a beneficiary of the UK s ignorance in regard to hiring me (because no one
> in the country could pipette like I do), I am of course happy to see the UK
> continue its stupidity.
> BUT
> the natives don t like it! And some of them don t like me.
> They KNOW I have ("had" actually) a job that a UK citizen should have.
> (BTW, now I m a resident so I m probably OK to stay.)
>
> Natives don t like foreigners taking their jobs.
> That s why they lobbied to have laws passed to limit it.
> The blatant LIES by folks who want to hire foreign postdocs demeans research
> and researchers.
>
> The USA (and UK) produce plenty of PhDs qualified to do great research.
> Actually they produce too many!
> Bringing other PhDs into the job market, whether from outside the country or
> from within, hurts all of us who want a postdoc position (and more some day)
> at a reasonable salary.
>
> BUT
> these laws are just "protectionism".
> Protectionism is the last resort when you can t stand the competition.
> There was a time when the USA (and UK, etc.) could stand the competition.
> But now the 3rd world postdoc is just a cheap way to make data.
>
> Natives (and permanent resident aliens) should have first crack at the job.
> That s the law and the only way to help those who the law was meant to
> protect.
> When labs say they MUST hire from outside the country, they should be called
> upon to PROVE IT!
>
> If the law is NOT enforced the PhD will continue to become a commodity item.
> Over production of PhDs and the open doors "policy" produced by LIARS will
> only do more harm.
>
> I feel I am caught in my own paradox.
> I benefited from the "wink and nod" policies to get me into the UK.
> But I know it is a scam and I feel uncomfortable with it.
>
> If it weren t for the relentless overproduction of PhDs by grad schools, they
> might have had a leg to stand on when they LIE about not being able to find a
> qualified candidate at home.
> The laws should either be unforced or changed.
> In the current environment (too many PhDs) the former is more beneficial (to
> the natives).
>
> But the BEST solution is to shut down the grad schools.
> All of them and NOW!
> When the PhDs become rare, the price (salary) will go up and some labs may be
> able to say they really honestly DO need a foreigner to work in their lab.
> Then the law can stand and be used the way it was meant to be used.
>
> However, we all know that grad schools will not do the right thing (they
> certainly haven t yet!).
> The Universities know the cost-effectiveness of grad students and the more
> PhDs they make the better
> (for the established researchers who use them up like tissue paper.).
>
> Summary:
> Universities and their affiliates LIE to bring cheap labor to their labs.
> They also LIE when they attract cheap labor in the form of grad students
> (the lie being that the PhD is worth something).
> The law should either be unforced or changed.
> Until this is resolved the word should go out to all potential grad students
> that a PhD is a 3rd world salary and a 3rd world job market.
> Only someone from a 3rd world country will benefit from a PhD.
>
> My Solution? (Hey, if you read this far you deserve one!)
> Change the law!
> Change it to reflect the reality of the problem and deal with it.
> How?
> Allow labs to hire from outside of the country only when they (the lab) pay
> oh let s say, $10,000 to process the application!
> Yeap.
> This would solve the problem.
> It is a fact that labs LIE on the paper work because they want to save money.
> If the fellow they want is "required" and SO damn special, then the lab should
> be happy to pay the extra fee. Right?
> And if they aren t happy to pay the fee then maybe (just maybe) they can find
> someone locally to do the work. (And spend that application fee on something
> else, like a salary!)
>
> Happy to hear your comments.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jamie
>
> Dr Jamie Love (PhD, MBA)
> Scientist for Hire
> "Life is my business"
> http://homepages.enterprise.net/jamie/sci4hire
> email jamie@enterprise.net
Subject: Re: Why do people give money to well endowed ivies?
From: "Lisa M. Sweeney"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:38:13 -0800
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Hi. Can anyone explain to me why people continue to
> donate money to places like Harvard? I mean, in
> this Christmas time of year, are people also
> donating to Trump and Carl Icahn? What gives?
> What difference does even a few million make to them?
> A Harvard endowment fund manager can make or break someone's
> stock, or a whole state, maybe even a
> federal government bond issue with a sell order.
> Is that good?
>
> Regards,
> Marc Andelman
No, I cannot explain it. I don't let my husband donate to his
undergraduate and graduate alma mater, Cornell University, because we
are still paying off his student loans. I've always said the only way I
would ever give money to Cornell (I got my Ph.D. there) would be to
establish an endowed parking space right next to the chem. e. building
for a graduate student doing experimental work. Too many rich kids with
cars on campus to ever get a decent parking space. Hmm, maybe I should
put in a clause that the car in the Lisa Sweeney Parking Space must be
at least 5 years old...
Lisa
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Lisa M. Sweeney, Ph.D. Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Risk Assessment Specialist 1450 Scalp Avenue
sweeneyl@corp.ctc.com Johnstown, PA 15904
Subject: Re: Why do people give money to well endowed ivies?
From: sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu (Jeff Sweeney)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 14:05:39 GMT
In article <32B50F21.526@ultranet.com>,
Marc Andelman wrote:
>Hi. Can anyone explain to me why people continue to
>donate money to places like Harvard? I mean, in
>this Christmas time of year, are people also
>donating to Trump and Carl Icahn? What gives?
>What difference does even a few million make to them?
>A Harvard endowment fund manager can make or break someone's
>stock, or a whole state, maybe even a
>federal government bond issue with a sell order.
>Is that good?
Charles Wang donated 25M to SUNY at Stony Brook this year. In Chicago,
Pritzker and Galvin donated 115M to IIT this year. There are a few
forward thinking people.
Wang's contribution is ear-marked for a center for Asian-American
studies and a new building to house it. That is certainly a laudable
project, but it is difficult to justify given the tenuous financial
condition of SUNY right now. On the other hand, I don't think SUNY has
a general endowment or, if they do, the state probably treats it like
part of their opperating budget so ear-marking is the only way to make
a big impact.
IIT is a private institution.
--
Jeff
sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu
Subject: Re: Three Immutable Laws of Networking
From: sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu (Jeff Sweeney)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 14:11:26 GMT
In article <58rnrr$gq1@abel.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Jeffrey S. Sweeney wrote:
>In article <01bbe888$08229120$770a5f80@tony>,
>Anthony B. Russell wrote:
>> [long paragraph describing how networking is used in business to
>> discriminate among potential employees, deleted]
>then he says...
>> I disagree that networking is a form of discrimination...
That was a cheap shot. I apologize.
My experience is that jobs go almost exclusively to those who
network. It is also true that some people are very bad at
networking. In the dictionary sense of 'discriminate', most hiring
discriminates in favor of those who can effectively network. Often,
that is not a bad outcome because good social skills are required for
most jobs. But it is far from egalitarian and it makes a mockery of
'equal employment opportunity' and most advertised job positions.
It is a waste of time to respond to an advertised job position unless
the person responsible for hiring knows you and has been favorable
impressed *before* having seen the cv. In fact, many jobs are created
ad hoc and tailored for a specific individual. In those cases, the
position is advertised only to fulfill EEOC or other requirements. It
is a sham.
--
Jeff
sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu
Subject: Re: Three Immutable Laws of Networking
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:34:54 -0500
On 16 Dec 1996, Jeff Sweeney wrote:
> In article <58rnrr$gq1@abel.ic.sunysb.edu>,
> Jeffrey S. Sweeney wrote:
> >In article <01bbe888$08229120$770a5f80@tony>,
> >Anthony B. Russell wrote:
> >> [long paragraph describing how networking is used in business to
> >> discriminate among potential employees, deleted]
> >then he says...
> >> I disagree that networking is a form of discrimination...
>
> That was a cheap shot. I apologize.
I don't think an apology was particularly in order. I have seen enough
"interactions" among the same people who are "into" networking and
sometimes its a wonder that they succeed at anything besides networking.
Of, course, it is fine if you are "in" the network. But if you are "out"
of the network, then you are OUT, and it doesn't matter what your
credentials are. Still, I would advise people, in general to "network"
whenever they can.
> My experience is that jobs go almost exclusively to those who
> network. It is also true that some people are very bad at
> networking. In the dictionary sense of 'discriminate', most hiring
> discriminates in favor of those who can effectively network. Often,
> that is not a bad outcome because good social skills are required for
> most jobs. But it is far from egalitarian and it makes a mockery of
> 'equal employment opportunity' and most advertised job positions.
Yep. But, I also know that its not a lost cause to make applications for
jobs. There are enough opportunities out there that the networks fail;
under those circumstances you have a chance. The major problem is when you
are in job markets where there are hundreds of applicants per job opening.
> It is a waste of time to respond to an advertised job position unless
> the person responsible for hiring knows you and has been favorable
> impressed *before* having seen the cv. In fact, many jobs are created
> ad hoc and tailored for a specific individual. In those cases, the
> position is advertised only to fulfill EEOC or other requirements. It
> is a sham.
True. Sometimes if you can get a phone call into someone who knows what is
going on, then you can learn something about what the story is behind the
story.
> --
> Jeff
> sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu
>
>
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Hidden agenda in hiring.
From: Marc Andelman
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:57:56 -0800
Hi. Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in biotech. We do
not do academic hiring, but can offer the following opinion
1. A lot of academic jobs have a hidden agenda. If you interview
for these, you may have no chance from the start. They are
only interviewing to give a patina of fairness. However, they
have already made up their mind to hire someone's favorite,
fill some research or EEOC quota, or a mydriad of other political
things that have nothing to do with you except waste your time.
It only gets worse, so carefully consider the validity of an
academic career. Society needs bright people to be actively
involved, not in an ivory tower.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
Subject: Hidden agenda in hiring.
From: Marc Andelman
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:58:24 -0800
Hi. Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in biotech. We do
not do academic hiring, but can offer the following opinion
1. A lot of academic jobs have a hidden agenda. If you interview
for these, you may have no chance from the start. They are
only interviewing to give a patina of fairness. However, they
have already made up their mind to hire someone's favorite,
fill some research or EEOC quota, or a myriad of other political
things that have nothing to do with you except waste your time.
It only gets worse, so carefully consider the validity of an
academic career. Society needs bright people to be actively
involved, not in an ivory tower.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
Subject: Re: Three Immutable Laws of Networking
From: kinsler@dirac.shef.ac.uk (Paul Kinsler)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 17:23:52 GMT
Jeff Sweeney (sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu) wrote: [...]
: It is a waste of time to respond to an advertised job position unless
: the person responsible for hiring knows you and has been favorable
: impressed *before* having seen the cv. In fact, many jobs are created
: ad hoc and tailored for a specific individual. In those cases, the
: position is advertised only to fulfill EEOC or other requirements. It
: is a sham.
I'd be interested to see some statistics on this kind of thing.
#Paul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Kinsler@sheffield.ac.uk Physics, University of Sheffield, S3 7RH, UK
------------------------------+soluble fish+------------------------------
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
Subject: Re: Three Immutable Laws of Networking
From: davej@sedona.net (Dave Jensen)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:51:58 -0700
In article <593lae$6uv@abel.ic.sunysb.edu>, sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu
(Jeff Sweeney) wrote:
>It is a waste of time to respond to an advertised job position unless
>the person responsible for hiring knows you and has been favorable
>impressed *before* having seen the cv. In fact, many jobs are created
>ad hoc and tailored for a specific individual. In those cases, the
>position is advertised only to fulfill EEOC or other requirements. It
>is a sham.
>--
>Jeff
>sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu
Hi Jeff
I agree and disagree with your post, because I have seen it happen both
ways. In some cases, companies DO have to run ads for a position in which
they have already identified a candidate. Most likely, that is for a very
small percentage of openings, however. (Most often when a non-resident is
the preferred choice; the company has to prove that they have extensively
advertised and can't find a better choice than the non-resident.)
But I don't think that position ads are in general a sham, or that
scientists shouldn't apply to them when they see a perfect fit. I think
they do an injustice to themselves when they apply to everything, however
(even those that don't have any similarity to their background).
As a rookie recruiter a dozen years ago, I remember getting a couple of
assignments that were also advertised. (In some cases, companies have both
recruiters as well as advertising working for them -- usually only with
inexperienced recruiters). It was always tough to have produced a search
that isolated the best two or three scientists in the world that fit the
bill for the company, and then to find that the ad just happened to pull in
the winner. SO -- we learned the hard way, that COMPANIES DO READ THEIR
MAIL!
Best regards
Dave Jensen
Subject: Re: Three Immutable Laws of Networking
From: "Rebecca M. Chamberlin"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:14:07 +0000
Jeff Sweeney wrote:
>
> It is a waste of time to respond to an advertised job position unless
> the person responsible for hiring knows you and has been favorable
> impressed *before* having seen the cv. In fact, many jobs are created
> ad hoc and tailored for a specific individual. In those cases, the
> position is advertised only to fulfill EEOC or other requirements. It
> is a sham.
> --
> Jeff
> sweeney@sbmp56.ess.sunysb.edu
This is often true at the National Labs -- but with a caveat. LANL used
to "promote" a lot of its postdocs to permanent positions, but in recent
years this has been frowned upon. The current excercise is to advertise
the position nationally in order to prove that your postdoc is the most
qualified person for the job (it helps that the ad is written to match
the postdoc's skills!). I am slightly embarrassed to say that's how I
got my current job.
The caveat is that sometimes more than one person is hired -- this
happened with "my" job ad. Another applicant had a very complementary
background to mine, and the division leaders approved hiring both of us.
Around the same time, I applied for a job advertised at another national
lab (which I had heard was "wired" for one of their postdocs) -- and was
surprised to be invited out for an interview! At the end of the day I
finally got up the nerve to ask whether the job was really wired (and if
so, why was I there?) and they said they were considering petitioning to
create a second opening for me.
(BTW, the guy that wanted to hire me had reviewed a paper I submitted to
a journal -- an unexpected method of networking.)
I don't know how often this happens in industry or academia, but the
moral of the story for me was that if the job fits, apply for it. (The
other moral: if you expect the worst you might just be pleasantly
surprised...?)
Becky
Subject: Re: Moving expenses for PDF
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:40:39
In article <32B3968C.6565@sympatico.ca> fethi bellamine writes:
> For those who know or did their postdoctoral studies, I wonder
> if it is O.K. to ask the department to ask to pay for my moving
> expenses given that the university is over 2,000 miles from my
> current place.
It cannot hurt to ask, can it? (Of course, they may be so enraged at the
request they will cancel your appointment and you will have to get a job that
actually pays living expenses.)
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, Inc.
600 North Commons Drive, Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504
630-978-8802, fax -8854, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of fine gas sensors and
contract R&D; to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Subject: Re: Hidden agenda in hiring (read as: Marc needs more bodies)
From: MURIANAP@foodsci.purdue.edu (Pete Muriana)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:35:27 LOCAL
In article <32B5A9E0.73E9@ultranet.com> Marc Andelman writes:
>From: Marc Andelman
>Subject: Hidden agenda in hiring.
>Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:58:24 -0800
>Hi. Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in biotech. We do
>not do academic hiring, but can offer the following opinion
>1. A lot of academic jobs have a hidden agenda. If you interview
>for these, you may have no chance from the start. They are
This one-sided slam on academia is interesting from someone who
makes a living filling spots for industry (the preceeding plug for Biosource
was most obvious). At least Dan Reiley (sp.?), who works in industry was fair
and gave pros/cons for both big/little industry and academia.
Sorry, but just ran out of tea bags :-(
-Peter
>only interviewing to give a patina of fairness. However, they
>have already made up their mind to hire someone's favorite,
>fill some research or EEOC quota, or a myriad of other political
>things that have nothing to do with you except waste your time.
>It only gets worse, so carefully consider the validity of an
>academic career. Society needs bright people to be actively
>involved, not in an ivory tower.
>Regards,
>Marc Andelman
**********************************************************************
Peter M. Muriana
Associate Professor 317-494-8284 TEL
Dept. of Food Science 317-494-7953 FAX
Purdue University murianap@foodsci.purdue.edu
Smith Hall http://www.foodsci.purdue.edu/
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1160 personnel/muriana.html
**********************************************************************
The opinions expressed above are mine alone and do not represent
endorsement by my employer
**********************************************************************
Subject: Re: Hidden agenda in hiring (read as: Marc needs more bodies)
From: davej@sedona.net (Dave Jensen)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:57:45 -0700
In article ,
MURIANAP@foodsci.purdue.edu (Pete Muriana) wrote:
>This one-sided slam on academia is interesting from someone who
>makes a living filling spots for industry (the preceeding plug for Biosource
>was most obvious). At least Dan Reiley (sp.?), who works in industry was fair
>and gave pros/cons for both big/little industry and academia.
>
>Sorry, but just ran out of tea bags :-(
>-Peter
Hi Peter
As another recruiter, I can tell you that I have known of Marc Andelman for
many years and he doesn't have a reputation for throwing out advertisements
for his business. I think your "slam" on Marc was a bit unfair.
Marc likes to get interesting discussions started on src, and as you can
tell by many of his threads which have gone on for dozens of posts, he has
been successful at that.
Too many people in academia think that headhunters are always pushing for
"bodies." I can tell you quite frankly that this is not the problem; there
are plenty of people looking for jobs. What recruiters tend to need more of
is client assignments.
(Clients=Companies, and not bodies)
Dave
Subject: Re: Hidden agenda in hiring.
From: Wayne Shanks
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:18:07 -0500
Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> Hi. Biosource is the oldest recruitment firm in biotech. We do
> not do academic hiring, but can offer the following opinion
>
> 1. A lot of academic jobs have a hidden agenda. If you interview
> for these, you may have no chance from the start. They are
> only interviewing to give a patina of fairness. However, they
> have already made up their mind to hire someone's favorite,
> fill some research or EEOC quota, or a myriad of other political
> things that have nothing to do with you except waste your time.
> It only gets worse, so carefully consider the validity of an
> academic career. Society needs bright people to be actively
> involved, not in an ivory tower.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc Andelman
Talk about hidden agenda....a head hunter bad mouthing academics. He
may be partly right, but I won't take his word. I am not familiar with
Bio-tech, but I do see thing this bad in the physics community.
How about some opinions about the hard sciences (physics) I see mostly
bio discussions.
Wayne Shanks
Subject: Dave's article in GEN
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:48:43 -0500
Hi everyone,
I had this "well, well, well, look who's here" feeling
when I saw Dave Jensen's article "Current Employment
Trends and Opportunities in the Biotech Industry" in the
December, 1996 issue of Genetic Engineering News. It
started on page 16 and continued on page 37.
I might add that I've been perusing GEN almost since it
began maybe almost a decade ago, now, and watched it
grow. Mary Ann Liebert (Inc.) didn't do too bad, with an
empire of expensive biotech journals, and a variety of
services and products, and associations with conferences,
etc. GEN is, for young people, a good place to read to
find biotech conferences, names, companies, and a lot of
other news. Its definitely NOT academic. And, rarely gets
into any controversy except as a newspaper.
GEN is an excellent source of names, names of companies,
phone numbers, etc., for people who want to get a
subscription. YOu can probably get it for free, but they
ask you to pay the postage (I think its around $19 per
year, now, but used to be really all free up to about 3-4
years ago). Alternatively, you can look it up in your
library. The biotech articles are often fairly technical
Dave's article is, as far as I can remember, the first by
a recruiter and the first to even discuss the job market.
As I recall, it was a few weeks ago that Dave was
ecstatic in a posting here on SRC about how Biotech was
increasing like crazy recently and so I was curious that
this article was rather muted.
His opening sentence in the first paragraph was:
"Depending on whom you speak with about the current
biotech job market, 1996 has either been a year of
increased opportunity or of continued frustration."
In the second paragraph was the following sentence:
"But, to the person caught between jobs, 1996 may have
been frustrating,...."
The article goes on to describe a person who, apparently
downsized out of a better job, ended up only with a
contractual, one-year only deal. That guy said that
"Applying, for scientists with more experience than
requested, can be futile."
In a couple of paragraphs later, he refers to information
that companies are only looking for "superman" or
"superwoman." They want people who can "...generate
results from day one" or already have "...a rolodex of
industry contacts." Also, there are reports that hiring
companies are taking more time to come to a decision, and
that they are checking references more formally and
extensively.
A theme which I worry about when I think of biotech was
just hardly mentioned in the second paragraph of the
continuation on page 37. That is, that people go into
some sub-specialization of biotech and spend maybe 5-10
years, and then maybe that whole area goes "cold." So,
then, where do those people go? In my mind, industry
might be a better deal for most people in the grad
student-postdoc pipeline, but for certain areas of
biotech, those areas might go hot for a few years and
then fizzle out.
Dave made attributions to six named people in a total of
17 instances. Three of the six named people seemed like
recruiters and one of the other three, Linda St. James
(his office manager), had her name repeated in six of the
17 instances. A good example of self-promotion. I'm sure
its going to increase his business down the road.
Another article in the same issue of GEN captured a
little more of my attention. Its title was "Coverage for
healthcare and its impact on biotechnology products and
sales" by Patricia A. Barnett (J.D., R.N.) on page 16,
and continued on page 45, but was a little cryptic at the
end but showed, or tried to show, how trends in health
care funding might affect drug industry markets.
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
