In article <3288ECE3.1ADA@vt.edu> Indu KonduriReturn to Topwrites: > [...] > >I am graduating in December with a PhD in mining >and minerals eng. My areas of interest are thermodynamics, >fluid mechanics - experimental & computational, and >air conditioning. Unfortunately my degree is in mining >eng. So, "no other discipline wants me and no mining >company needs a PhD in mining" thats how I feel after >an year long job search. Is this situation any different than when you entered the field? After all, I assume that you took time to investigate a field that you would dedicate the next 'x' years of your life studying. Exactly what does "no other discipline wants me" mean? Is it because you have a limited skill set or because your degree says "Mining Engineering" on it? I suspect it's the former. You list some practical areas of interest, but it's not clear what your *skills* are. Give me one good reason why a company should hire you and how you can help that company make money. It's nothing personal, but if you can't do this, then companies shouldn't hire you. >I dont know about the scene in other fields.. I guess its the same >problem there...but fortunately some of them are wanted by industry and >some are wanted in academia, and the remaining are like me. >I can see growing unpopularity with PhDs these days. It's a question of personal responsibility. You can either choose to increase your odds of finding a good job or decrease them. Either way, it is your choice. It's a shame that graduate students, who spend so much time doing research, do so little research with respect to developing job skills and making themselves attractive in the job market. >Most jobs out there are in software & database development fields. >I am left with no choice but to switch my field. i.e. my research >work over all these years is useless. There are a lot of jobs in these fields, but that has been the case this entire decade. On the other hand, I doubt that the research you have done would have been any more useful five years ago. Just out of curiosity, what is the track record of those who have graduated from your department or program over the past five years? Did they find good jobs? If not, then shouldn't that have raised a red flag for you? I get tired of the "I am left with no choice ..." excuse that so many graduate students adopt. Instead of taking personal responsibility, they fall back on the griping that made our lives more comfortable as graduate students. Griping may be a great way to vent some anger, but it's not an effective road to success in the real world. Instead of saying "I am left with no choice" how about the more accurate "The choices I have made leave me with no options"? Isn't that really the case? Greg Godfrey (ggodfrey@Princeton.edu)
Richard LoganReturn to Topwrote: >Juan Vitali wrote: >> In fact >> you are handicapped 'cause everybody thinks you are overqualified for >> just about any job. STAY THE HELL AWAY OF THE PHD ROUTE.... >If you have a Ph.D. you always have the option of not including it on >your resume. When I finished my MS in physics (1987), I proudly put the >degree on my resume and went off to look for work. After several months >of looking with not so much as a form letter response to my resume I was >desperate for money. I removed all my degrees from my resume, including >my undergraduate degree, and made up a story that I had to drop out of >college after two years and had worked various jobs out of state. I >credited the skills and knowledge I developed in graduate school to >several fictitious companies. I don't know if it's ethical to hide your >achievements, but I got a fairly good paying job within four weeks. >I have a Ph.D. now. The main reason I got the degree is my love of >physics. Along the way I also discovered that many Ph.D.'s undervalue or >completely discount arguments and suggestions made by people without >Ph.D.'s. So a secondary reason for completeing my degree was to provide >a means for forcing such assholes to listen to my ideas. >Working on the degree can be a wonderful opportunity but you should >minimize borrowing since it is unlikely your first job will pay enough to >enable you to pay back your loans and live like a human being. I think >if you can present your skills properly, the degree can be used to open >doors that will otherwise remain closed to you. >-- >___________________________________ >Richard J. Logan, Ph.D. >University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. >630 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center >Athens, GA 30602-7411 >Phone 706-542-3819 Fax 706-542-5638 At my most recent job interview, I applied for a research technician position-no degree required. I figured that since the work was not an area in which I had direct experience, I could work for a few months as a tech, then hopefully move into an engineering position. I was interviewed while standing up in the waiting room. Because of my general technical expertise, I was told I could probably do the job very well, with one hand tied behind my back. But I was also told that I would completely upset the chemistry of the company, as they tend to give people responsibility quickly and push them to exceed their current level. Since my level would already be far above that required for the position, it upset the balance. Reluctantly, the fellow that spoke to me (I hesitate to call it an interview) kept my resume. I wonder what happened to it... Perhaps I should have deleted all those degrees and publications from the resume. Things that make you go hmmmmmm. For the record, here is my salary history: 1982 BS/MS started at $27k 1985 still at same company, making ~$32K. Got two job offers, for $40K each, one with a $5k signing bonus. Got accepted into Ph.D. program. Guess what, I went back to school. 1990 After beating the bushes hard, finally found a job as a test engineer for $44K 1991 Found R&D; engineering position with small company for $50K. 1996 Laid-off, salary of $55K. When $$$$ got short, the highest paid employee (aside from pres/owner) was let go. I'm not an economics major, but if you want to do a Ph.D. for the money, you figure it out.
Gregory A. Godfrey wrote: > > It's a question of personal responsibility. You can either choose to > increase your odds of finding a good job or decrease them. Either way, > it is your choice. It's a shame that graduate students, who spend so > much time doing research, do so little research with respect > to developing job skills and making themselves attractive in the job > market. I think the average grad student has no idea how limited their skills are in the eyes of potential corporate employers. As a grad student, you're usually in a position of using the software and hardware that is readily available in your lab. I suggest that, after passing your quals, you make it a point to start reading trade journals in addition to academic journals. Many job advertisements in these magazines list skills required of new hires (software packages, specific hardware). Find someone on campus using that software, buy it yourself or try and get a company to donate a version to your lab. Take some extra classes outside your discipline that require completion of a major project to pass the class (this will allow you to showcase your technical writing skills in addition to developing some new technical skills). Give presentations, even if it's only in your department. Find ways to demonstrate to an employer that you work effectively in a team. You can find a HOST of other desireable job skills by reading trade journals. Develope those skills. Remember, although you're working on an advanced degree, there are loads of people out there with a BS who are getting a year of demonstrable experience for each year you spend in the lab. Make that time count. -- ___________________________________ Richard J. Logan, Ph.D. University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.Return to Top
In article <3289F846.1CF3@OVPR.UGA.EDU> Richard LoganReturn to Topwrites: >Juan Vitali wrote: >> In fact >> you are handicapped 'cause everybody thinks you are overqualified for >> just about any job. STAY THE HELL AWAY OF THE PHD ROUTE.... > >If you have a Ph.D. you always have the option of not including it on >your resume. When I finished my MS in physics (1987), I proudly put the >degree on my resume and went off to look for work. After several months >of looking with not so much as a form letter response to my resume I was >desperate for money. I removed all my degrees from my resume, including >my undergraduate degree, and made up a story that I had to drop out of >college after two years and had worked various jobs out of state. I >credited the skills and knowledge I developed in graduate school to >several fictitious companies. I don't know if it's ethical to hide your >achievements, but I got a fairly good paying job within four weeks. > I don't think it is unethical to leave your degrees off your resume, but lying about ficticious companies is most certainly unethical. If I discovered an employee had done this he would be fired immediately. How can an employer trust you to have ethical judgement after discovering that? On the other hand, whoever hired you after four weeks obviously did not do an adequate job of verifying your resume and references. Mike -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Baker baker@groves.neep.wisc.edu Engineering Research Bldg., 1500 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706 -------------------------------------------------------------------
jbszee@worldnet.att.net wrote: > > For the record, here is my salary history: > > 1982 BS/MS started at $27k > 1985 still at same company, making ~$32K. > Got two job offers, for $40K each, > one with a $5k signing bonus. > Got accepted into Ph.D. program. > Guess what, I went back to school. > 1990 After beating the bushes hard, finally found a job as a test > engineer for $44K > 1991 Found R&D; engineering position with small company for $50K. > 1996 Laid-off, salary of $55K. When $$$$ got short, the highest paid > employee (aside from pres/owner) was let go. > > I'm not an economics major, but if you want to do a Ph.D. for the > money, you figure it out. I believe you could have gone for an MBA during the mid 80's and re-entered the work force in a pretty good position. The problem, however, was that there was a lot of propaganda by the sci/eng societies during that time telling everyone that there was a coming sci/engr shortage and that more grad work will further the prosperity of the great nation. Unfortunately, you fell into the same R&D; trap as many of my colleagues and are now suffering the consequences. The solution for the late 90's, I believe, is part time computer consulting. -S.B. ~Return to Top
Mike Baker wrote: > > I don't think it is unethical to leave your degrees off > your resume, but lying about ficticious companies is most > certainly unethical. If I discovered an employee had done > this he would be fired immediately. How can an employer > trust you to have ethical judgement after discovering that? > > On the other hand, whoever hired you after four weeks obviously > did not do an adequate job of verifying your resume and > references. I agree completely. Maybe there's a better way to explain away the years you have to hide when you take degrees off your resume but I couldn't think of one. This is just an example of the desperate actions you might have to take when you're told you're over qualified for the jobs you apply for, when your credit cards are maxxed out and when your checking account says zero. -- ___________________________________ Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.Return to Top
I for one as a skilled worker (Ph.D. scientist) and 'proud to be US citizen' are getting rather fed up with the posts from thisReturn to Top(see below) who never provides her/his identity, but keeps on pushing his/her scape goat views to explain the current changes in employment opportunities in the US. Also continually disturbing to me is the considerable dialogue, expressed in a variety of media (e.g., newspapers, internet news groups and professional publications), concerning the apparent current oversupply in the US of individuals with high professional qualifications. The blame is typically placed on immigration, education, and employment procedures that are apparently resulting in an major influx of students and highly qualified immigrants from abroad who are displacing 'US born Americans' at the same professional level. Concern expressed at the congressional level is already resulting in changes in immigration policies and a resulting wide spread hidden agenda to favor employment and advancement for 'US born' over 'Foreign born' residents of the US. Perhaps, this may seem entirely justified; after all, in many countries written laws favor citizens over non-citizens for employment and in almost all countries there is some form of immigration bar to employment. In the United States, permanent residency status (i.e., the Green card) used to be sufficient to allow the 'Foreign born' a chance to follow his or her choice of career (some government positions an exception). Today, however, citizenship (irrespective of the length of residency or presence of US born family members) may not be enough to avoid prejudice. It is now the 'Foreign born' who are being discriminated against. All the above represents somewhat of a turnaround, since undoubtedly it has been the drive and expertise of immigrants as well as the open freedom and competitiveness of the democratic capitalist system that has made the United States the economic power and world leader in science and technology that it is today. It should also be considered that increased competition for positions and resources in science is not confined to the United States. Similar problems are also apparent in many other countries from as far a field as India to France. Thus, nationalist tendencies towards employment and careers are likely to increase on a global basis. This is unfortunate since the advancement of technology, science and economic well being should ideally be an international endeavor. I hope that any participants of these newsgroups outside of the US do not think that all Americans are a bunch of Xenophobic bigots. There are actually a few people in the US who believe in open competition and enjoy and look forward to the challenges that such competition may bring to this world. I also hope that if this is so, these people will openly recognise the utter crap ‹ for what it is ‹ being perpetuated by and colleagues on these newsgroups and in any other form of media. Graeme Eisenhofer, Ph.D. graeme@his.com _______________________________ rodan_@primenet.com wrote: >
U.S. programs that allow entry to tens of thousands >of permanent and temporary foreign workers fail to protect U.S >workers' jobs or wages and are riddled with abuses that in many >cases have made their original intent a ''sham,'' according to >an audit by the Labor Department's inspector general.The >audit, >a draft summary of which was obtained by the Washington Post, >found that employers routinely flout requirements >to search for U.S. workers for job openings and to pay the >prevailing wage to the foreigners they hire. The inspector >general's >office, an ''independent agency'' within the Labor Department, >decides autonomously which programs to audit, a >departmentofficial said.
'Unique' skills
>''The inspector general's report confirms what we've been >saying >for years,'' said Labor Secretary Robert Reich. In particular, >a program that allows annual admissions of up to 65,000 foreign >workers with ''unique'' skills under temporary H1B visas >''doesn't >work,'' he said.
Employers strongly defend the H1B program >and a category ofemployment-based permanent immigration that >makes >available up to 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign workers and >their families. >
Businesses and immigration advocates say the programs >help >supply U.S. high-tech firms and other businesses with the >world's >''best and the brightest'' in an increasingly competitive >global >economy and that U.S. workers are protected by existing rules. >Among them are Labor Department requirements that employers >search >for qualified U.S. workers before sponsoring foreign workers as >permanent immigrants and pay ''prevailing wages'' to foreign >temporary workers.
>'Shopping' services
The inspector general's report said, >however, ''the foreign labor programs we audited do not protect >U.S. workers' jobs >or wages from foreign labor because neither program meets its >legislative intent.''
The program for certifying permanent >employment-based immigrants instead allows foreigners already >in the United >States to obtain permanent resident status ''and then shop >their services in competition with equally or more qualified >U.S. workers without regard to prevailing wage,'' the report >said.
The H1B program, it said, largely ''serves as a > probationary try-out employment program for illegal aliens, >foreign students >and foreign visitors to determine if they will be sponsored for >permanent status.''
>'Sham' tests
Of 24,150 foreigners for whom employers in 12 >states applied for immigrant status during fiscal 1993, the >audit found, 98.7 >percent were already in the United States and 74.1 percent were >already working for the employer when the application was >filed. >Of those already employed, 16.4 percent were working illegally, >it found.
Market tests for qualified U.S. workers are >''perfunctory at best and a sham at worst,'' > the report said.
Advertisements or postings for those >24,150 jobs as required by the Labor Department resulted in >165,000 applicants, but in >more than 99 percent of the cases a U.S. worker was not hired, >the audit found. This was because the employers were simply >posting the jobs to meet the requirement, a department >spokesman >said.
The audit, begun in April 1995, also showed that few >of > the employers surveyed could prove that they paid their H1B >workers >the prevailing wage. The auditors reported that nearly 75 >percent >of H1B visa holders worked for employers ''who did not >adequately >document'' their wages, that nearly 13 percent ''were paid >below >the advertised prevailing wage and that 10 percentwere either >illegally treated as independent contractors to avoid payroll >and >administrative costs or contracted out to other employers.
>Firm denials
>To preserve the current system, employers have spearheaded a >campaign tostrip >provisions on legal immigration from bills in Congress to >reformimmigration laws. >
The San Jose Mercury News archives are stored on a >SAVE (tm) newspaper >library system from Vu/Text Library Services, a Knight-Ridder >Inc. company. >
Please reply directly to the address given in the ad: Research Associate position available immediately to work in federally-funded project on cloning and expression of bacterial hem genes. Requires a minimum of a Master's degree ( Ph.D. preferred) with two years of molecular biological experience. Background in one or more of bacteriology, genetics and heme-biochemistry preferred. Interested individuals should submit a resume', publications and transcripts. Also ask two/three referees to send letters of recommendation directly to Dr. Debabrata Majumdar (Department of Biology, Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, 23504, USA. Phone 804-683-2543, Fax 804-683-8306; email: dm@vger.nsu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S. Raj Chaudhury Phone: (804) 683-2241 Norfolk State University Fax : (804) 683-9054 Center for Materials Research schaudhury@vger.nsu.edu 2401 Corprew Avenue raj@vigyan.nsu.edu Norfolk VA 23504 http://vigyan.nsu.edu/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------Return to Top
"Fast & Easy Way to Find a Job" We have many names & addresses of Human Resources of Universiites, Private Companies, etc. nationwide (USA only) to help you find a job. For more information, please e-mail me. Please indicate your fax # (USA) if available. Thanks!Return to Top
Graeme, I am sorry that I have to post to these newsgroups. I do not have the time or financial resources to lobby congress as so many companies do. Thank you for the detailed response, but I disagree with you. You say, the US is carrying out an agenda of helping american born, when the number of immigrants admitted this year shot up to 150,000, and the papers were full of stories about business getting their way. Please do your homework before you take a stand! It looks to me like I am the one who is a intelligent, detailed scientist, while you are a grandstander. You are right about other countries, germany and france have very low quotas on the number of immigrant workers -- you cannot get a job there period because they don't allow it. The way I see it, Foreign born scientists/engieers are a sort of novelty where avant garde employees get a chance to act hip and "unbiased" (we do not see class in america, but we can see race, and I am not Bart Simpson). These foreigners come here simply for the higher salaries, and employers hire them mostly to make a better profit and to lesson the chance of giving rise to a startup competitor. I wish these scientists would take a worldly viewpoint too, and stay in their own countries with the education they received at that countries expense and help to modernize it, instead of coming to the us and supporting greedy, aristocratic business and stock owners. RodanReturn to Top
Graeme, I am sorry that I have to post to these newsgroups. I do not have the time or financial resources to lobby congress as so many companies do. Thank you for the detailed response, but I disagree with you. You say, the US is carrying out an agenda of helping american born, when the number of immigrants admitted this year shot up to 150,000, and the papers were full of stories about business getting their way. Please do your homework before you take a stand! It looks to me like I am the one who is a intelligent, detailed scientist, while you are a grandstander. You are right about other countries, germany and france have very low quotas on the number of immigrant workers -- you cannot get a job there period because they don't allow it. The way I see it, Foreign born scientists/engieers are a sort of novelty where avant garde employees get a chance to act hip and "unbiased" (we do not see class in america, but we can see race, and I am not Bart Simpson). These foreigners come here simply for the higher salaries, and employers hire them mostly to make a better profit and to lesson the chance of giving rise to a startup competitor. I wish these scientists would take a worldly viewpoint too, and stay in their own countries with the education they received at that countries expense and help to modernize it, instead of coming to the us and supporting greedy, aristocratic business and stock owners. RodanReturn to Top
>A friend once told me something about love and marriage. He expressed the >idea that in love and matrimony there is no such thing as the one perfect >person. Rather he said, there are many people who are right for each other. > >Same in learning. A bright person can find several fields that are right. >So why chose one with dim economic prospects? I agree to some degree. I think there is a middle ground between finding a subject that you like and job prospects. The only other option for Ph.Ds is to find an academic position. This is certainly not easy, but you'll more than likely do what you want to do. I struggled with this question about a few months ago. I got into grad school to get a Ph.D. But after talking to a bunch of people who have been through it, and from what I have seen, a Ph.D. in engineering is not really what industry is looking for nowadays...unless you have worked on a project that really relates to what industry is doing. Plus, research nowadays is not what it used to be. It very much applied, thus there is no real fundamental work performed. Here at Ford, we are limited by cost and time. And a lot of research that you should do, isn't even considered just because of money. Anyways, this is the direction industrial research is heading, so a Ph.D. might not really help you train you for such a career. Just something to think about. AriReturn to Top