Careerchat III

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 12/28/2018 at 6:33 PM, Iskaral Pust said:

Two pages is OK if you have more than ten years of industry experience to describe.  Don’t exceed two. 

Today I'm taking the plunge. It's just going to be one page. My problem is that I've done a lot of work that's unrelated to one another. Six years, spread apart over time, in politics, seven years of customer service, three years in health care finance and a year in banking. I'm applying to a NGO in D.C., so I'm leading with the political stuff and just lumping the rest into a lot of office experience and dealing with the public. 

Fingers crossed! And thankfully I have an in. 

[Jaxom 1974]

5 hours ago, Isis said:

 

Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

Nope. Someone on the social media side of things goofed.  Though it's possible the individuals involved signed a waiver of some sort, most likely is that someone simply wasn't paying attention.  Reach out to those who had their names listed?

[Jaxom 1974]

So I've dipped back into the interview pool...had one this past Monday.  It wssnt exactly what I thought I had applied for...I don't know if I'll get an offer, but if they do, and they meet the salary requirements, I have to think about it.  It's a managerial position, but it isn't salaried. It's a position that punches a clock and does do for 45 hours a week.  You have to work the 45 to get your base salary.  The final 5 hours are apparently at a time and a half rate.  OT is apparently possible, but not encouraged.  I'm hesitant.  I'm not used to punching a clock, havent had to do it in at least a dozen years (after having been salaried, at the time the hotel I worked for changed a policy for assistant managers, and we Assistants reaped the benefits).

My other concern, and I realize this is getting out ahead of myself, is that the timeframe.  It's not exactly what I'm looking for, though I hope it's negotiable.

Punch the clock punching, anyone hear of anything quite like it?

[DMC]

So I need to vent about the weird-ass situation I'm in right now.  Want to make clear from the start that while the following is gonna be a lot of complaining, in general it's no big deal and totally a white man problem.  More just something I need some therapy for - and you guys are so much cheaper!

Context:  I'm in the last year of a political science program and I waived the opportunity to be on fellowship because I wanted to get one more class under my teaching belt - namely a bureaucracy class.  The department chair gave me that class for this past fall, but the class was canceled due to low enrollment.  So while I was originally assigned to that class in the fall and teaching Media & Politics (which I've done twice here already) for the spring (now) semester, instead I'm a "GSA" for an old faculty member who's retiring for the entire academic year. 

She's an awesome person, truly a giant in her field, and has been in the upper-echelons of our university's hierarchy for the past decade.  She is also senile, and that's as far as I'll go with the armchair diagnosis.  When I took over the position, she was leaving a provost position and my predecessor warned me it could get bad.  Basically, she's endowed enough that I'm being paid to help her get rid of all her shit and complete her retirement.  It's a really easy job -- and a great assignment if you're trying to finish your dissertation.  I maybe spend two, three hours tops a week doing this, so on a rate basis I'm earning like a Rockefeller.

However, first, she doesn't get I'm not an administrative assistant.  I don't say this in a snotty way - I'm fine doing whatever she asks, but there's some things my department's staff has explicitly told her I'm not supposed to do.  This aspect is at once both fascinating and frustrating.  Here's this academic that literally doesn't know how to do the most basic of tasks.  And it's not just the aging or senility - over the past months it's been made clear to me she's been relying on staff for the better part of the past quarter century.

Earlier today, my work entailed making sure she was registered for a conference she's attending (and getting an award), plus booking the hotel.  Looked forward to it - a clear task in which I can just take over her computer and get the damn thing done.  Still took 45 minutes when it should have taken five.  And I'm fine with that in general.  Actually, I think this is a pretty valuable experience in teaching me patience.  I've never had to deal with any senile person that wasn't a close family member before, and it's surely a good life-thing to learn.

But she actually got under my skin today for the first time today.  I met with her on Monday, and while we were in the process of going through all her papers* she got an alert for a doctor's appointment.  After a few minutes consulting her calendar, she confirmed that she indeed did have a doctor's appointment, so she needed to leave immediately.  That meant we needed to schedule our next meeting quickly.  She wanted to meet on Wednesday (today), but didn't know what time.  The subsequent sequence needs bullets:

• I told her as she left at ~2:00 on Monday I had a meeting at 1:00 on Wednesday but otherwise I'd be available
• I emailed her at ~4:00 on Monday reiterating the above and asking her when she wanted to meet on Wednesday
• I emailed her at ~noon and 5:00 on Tuesday again asking her when she wanted to meet on Wednesday

After no response from any of the above, I stopped by her office at about 2:30 today (Wednesday) to see if she was alright.  Her reaction was "yeah I figured you were coming in today at the regular time."  First, we don't have a regular time.  Second, at the time I can literally see she's looking at her email in which there are the (above) unread emails of me asking her to specify a time to meet.  For four months I've tried to be as patient and as accommodating as possible, and I do have a lot of sympathy, but at that moment man - I couldn't help but feel she was expressing a big fuck you to me.  Rather than not being aware that we hadn't agreed on an appointment, seemed clear she just didn't care.

And, in conclusion, that sucks.

*Which is one of the primary tasks of the job, and ultimately results in her keeping multitudes of drafts and copies of articles, some of which are over 40 years old, that are all on the fucking internet.  I could've cleaned her entire office out in a week if she just realized this.

[HexMachina]

These days I feel like a degree is almost a pre-requisite for many applications. Doesn't make you stand out from the crowd, but a lack of a degree will make you stand out (for the wrong reasons). Kind of sad, although I know in the UK at least there is a push with some companies and professions to offer alternative, non-degree pathways to jobs which traditionally would require a degree.

Telephone interview coming up on Tuesday morning. I hate these so much, but I feel ok. I've done my homework, know the firm, know my strengths (*cringes internally*) know my weaknesses. Now I just have to hope I don't do my usual freeze and go blank!

[S John]

3 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Telephone interview coming up on Tuesday morning. I hate these so much, but I feel ok. I've done my homework, know the firm, know my strengths (*cringes internally*) know my weaknesses. Now I just have to hope I don't do my usual freeze and go blank!

Anytime I do a phone interview I write down a bunch of things ahead of time to have in front of me to prevent drawing a blank.  Usually just a page or two so I can easily find what I’m looking for quickly.  But I’ll bullet out a couple answers for strengths and weaknesses type questions or just general things I want to remember to say that I can plug into any curveball questions.  Since it’s over the phone they don’t have any idea that I’ve got notes in front of me.

[Datepalm]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I also have something that's more rant than question.  As I've continued to job search I feel like I've gained more evidence of something that I'd feared which is that I got a graduate degree that is close to worthless, possibly worthless.  Its a degree with a focus, and i work in that field, and just applying to jobs seems to get me nothing.  

There is no way that most people applying to grad school think this.  It's this system where applicants are ignorant by their nature and often (and I'm guilty of this) don't do enough homework about how this really improves job prospects.  But the schools that offer there programs are so full of it because their whole pitch is how superior you'll be if you go there.  

I'd have hoped at least that there'd be a degree (put not intended) "guy has this degree, let's at least have him in for an interview."  

All this being said, I don't really have a peak behind the curtain on how resumes are screened at the departments I'm applying to, so maybe mine is getting tossed for unrelated reasons.  But it's also clearly not being flagged as compelling because I have a degree.  

What field is it? In city planning a graduate degree is kind of odd, I guess, where its both the basic qualification and yet kind of a non-entry-position thing, as far as I can tell. So both in my program in Israel and in knowing the equivalent Master's students here in the US, a significant majority have been working in the field or in something related in some capacity for at least a bit, and often several years. Getting the degree seems to be a kind of decision point and professionalization towards more senior/technically oriented positions, not so much a foot in the door. (There are a lot of windy roads that lead to working in planning-adjacent stuff through, which may not be that common across professions.) So, yeah, I guess that supports more than contradicts the limitation of value of a grad degree as a singular CV entry in the labour market.

[S John]

@Triskele

how long have you been looking?  I was really feeling very similarly to the way you described (highly specialized degree, not getting many bites) but lately it’s been kind of a torrent. I got rejected or straight up ignored for a few jobs that I was clearly more than qualified for, but lately I’ve had to choose between a couple of options and it came all at once.  

It could just be that things take longer the more highly specialized you are.  I also suspect that at some places the people who actually are sorting the resumes might not know wtf they are doing.  Like they might be told to look for certain keywords and throw out anything that doesn’t have those specific things, a lot of places use a sorting algorithm as well.  I guess it kind of highlights the importance of tailoring your resume for each job, but also I wouldn’t get discouraged I think it just takes more time when you get to a certain level of specialization.

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

In truth I've only been looking since this past Fall, and I've probably applied for ten positions max.  I've had one place reach out with some questions and not really follow up, and there was one that I did apply to that I mentioned upthread where I reached out to the department.  That was the one where I had a phone interview that I thought went well and ended with the guys saying "let me circle back to you to get you in for an in person interview," but I never heard back.  

I might be acting too fatalistic at this point as it's not in fact been all that long of a job search.  But I think my fatalism is coming from a couple of things:  the feeling that I already had that my degree wasn't that valuable, and the fact that a couple of the positions I applied to felt like really good matches in terms of the job experience that I had on my resume.  So there was on my part a little "I do what you guys are looking for and I technically have a masters and you're not interested at all?" thinking.  

When I'm in a more optimistic mood I tell myself that things are going to work out and the right position just hasn't quite opened up yet.  

How long have you been working?  The longer you've been working, the less important your degree.  If you are applying to a more experienced position, the degree is probably something they just look to check off, but the focus will be on your work experience.  Is your resume drafted to match your experience with what the job posting is looking for?  Ideally, the person screening the resume should be able to tell by skimming your resume that you have the right experience.  Might be a good idea to use similar language that is in the job posting to describe your past work experience.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

In truth I've only been looking since this past Fall, and I've probably applied for ten positions max.  I've had one place reach out with some questions and not really follow up, and there was one that I did apply to that I mentioned upthread where I reached out to the department.  That was the one where I had a phone interview that I thought went well and ended with the guys saying "let me circle back to you to get you in for an in person interview," but I never heard back.  

I might be acting too fatalistic at this point as it's not in fact been all that long of a job search.  But I think my fatalism is coming from a couple of things:  the feeling that I already had that my degree wasn't that valuable, and the fact that a couple of the positions I applied to felt like really good matches in terms of the job experience that I had on my resume.  So there was on my part a little "I do what you guys are looking for and I technically have a masters and you're not interested at all?" thinking.  

When I'm in a more optimistic mood I tell myself that things are going to work out and the right position just hasn't quite opened up yet.  

I was in your position (perhaps slightly worse because I was moving into an entirely different industry) a couple of years ago and at first I also carefully selected the jobs that I applied to, but in my experience and also based on speaking with some friends and relatives who either took part in the hiring process or spoke to people who had done so, this is not a good idea. Keep in mind that the reason you're hearing nothing back may have nothing to do with you.

For example, sometimes, for all intents and purposes, the job does not exist (not yet, anyway). When there is a planned expansion, a company might create a posting early in the process, but no further steps will be taken until the funds for the expansion materialize (which may or may not happen at all). Similarly, several departments might be competing for resources and waiting to hear back from their own management. In either case, they will simply accumulate resumes without any response. If the position does not come into existence, the posting will be taken down. If it does eventually become real, they'll go through the pile of resumes and start interviewing -- that's one way people hear back from a company months after they sent them a resume.

Here's another example: it might be that the job does exist, but in one way or another, it is already taken. The most obvious way this happens is that by the time you're contacted them, they're well on their way to settling on another candidate and the posting is only around because they've forgotten to take it down or company procedures forbid them from taking it down until they've formally hired someone. Another way this can happen is that the job is for a specific person or a group of people which does not include you, but either government laws or internal guidelines prohibit them from simply hiring their intended target without a posting supposedly open to all applicants.

My advice would be to less selective about which jobs you apply to. I also started with of order ten over several months and everyone I spoke to told me that this is way too few. Even if the job is not entirely what you're looking for, you'll get some practice interviewing which is kind of an art in and of itself. I screwed up several of mine before I figured out that certain nearly useless things should simply be memorized; your field may have a similar unwritten code.

[Isis]

9 hours ago, Mudguard said:

How long have you been working?  The longer you've been working, the less important your degree.  If you are applying to a more experienced position, the degree is probably something they just look to check off, but the focus will be on your work experience.  Is your resume drafted to match your experience with what the job posting is looking for?  Ideally, the person screening the resume should be able to tell by skimming your resume that you have the right experience.  Might be a good idea to use similar language that is in the job posting to describe your past work experience.

Yes, absolutely you need to do this.

I work in HE. We (are made to) score application forms/applicants in order to select for interview. The highest scores can be interviewed. We can tell from seeing the process all the way through that some people make it to interview because they are good at filling out application forms. In interview it can become apparent that they do not have the right experience and knowledge for the post - they just knew which words to put in the application.

And we (the people who wrote the job spec/person spec) know what we are looking for - i.e. it's the people directly involved who are selecting applicants, not HR (HR are just checking the process is done properly according to the rules for E&D, etc).

I'm not going to quote the whole thing but Altherion's last post is correct.

[Isis]

I actually hate the system we have to use. It lead to us having to offer a post to candidate A, where A and B scored equally over application and interview but A had two years more experience (which means more points). Trouble is everyone could see that candidate B was the much better option (attitude, approach, personality). Three years later, loads of problems with candidate A - now a colleague. And I still mourn the loss of candidate B. He had a bright future. I bet he's doing something better anyway. 

[Iskaral Pust]

@Triskele  Sorry you're in a frustrating vacuum at the moment.  Information does not flow freely in both directions during most job applications, which I think is generally a pity.  Applicants often exaggerate their resumes, and some of them harass busy hiring managers aggressively seeking to "network".  Employers often give little or no reason for not offering you an interview, but their reasons can be as diverse as: they already had a candidate in mind but had to post the job publicly anyway, approval for hiring has been withheld or deferred because of tight budgets and softening expectations (very likely in the last few months), they're not seeing resumes at the level they want (sometimes "minimum requirements" are well below what they are actually seeking), they think they cannot afford you, their diversity & inclusion policies require them to heavily focus on women and/or minority candidates (this is much more common in the past decade), your experience is not at all relevant to the specific job which makes you sound clueless and a waste of their time, they have so many applicants that they only spend time on a couple of the best resumes, or they're just inconsiderate or discourteous.

For your original question about the value of your post-grad: I don't know your industry well enough to say but I would assume you have enough experience in your industry to recognize this.  How many people in your organization have a similar degree?  Have you asked any senior people in your organization how they would perceive the degree?

At eight years of experience in your industry, you are in that sweet spot where industry-specific education adds value.  That's the window where a lot of professionals have just recently got credentialed (doctors, lawyers, actuaries, accountants), or have earned post-grads to level-up (MBAs), and they have enough experience to actually do something.  It's a different level to a token one-year masters immediately after undergrad to put some usable knowledge on top of an otherwise vague education, e.g. MS Finance or MS Statistics, which I would view as an entry level, albeit a higher quality entry level.  But it does also depend on the perceived quality of that education, e.g. an MBA or law school in a small regional program is probably not worth it.

[HexMachina]

So my telephone interview was a little strange. The advertised position did not state the working hours, so I knew there was a possibility it wouldn’t be suitable. This was brought up in the first couple of minutes when I was asked what kind of work and hours I was looking for. I explained, nothing more said.

went through my CV, which for once actually went well (I recently gained some small experience which has proved very beneficial as it gives me loads to talk about). Spoke about my experiences, then my education, my interests, then told me more about the role and company. Asked if i was interested, and why.

Interview wound up, she said she thought I was a great candidate and she was happy with how I hadn’t performed. But it was a full time Monday-Friday role, so she couldn’t put me any further, but I should get back in touch once my degree was over.

Which I don’t exactly mind...but why take me through the whole interview if you already knew that in the first couple of minutes? Was it so she could potentially add me to a bank of “maybe” applicants for future reference? Or was she just making an excuse to let me down gently? Is there some policy in place that meant she had to go through the motions anyway? Or did she really have nothing better to for 30 minutes than conduct an interview she knew was pointless?

Maybe just overthinking it...but if she was genuine about getting in touch after my degree (and, in fairness, she did say early on they were going through significant growth and recruiting throughout the year) it’s certainly a role I want to pursue

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I think that when companies write some standard stuff like "we are always interested in new talent so please send in your résumé" etc they sometimes actually mean it. The reason is that recruiting good people is hard. If during a recruitment process they find a great candidate that cannot come now but maybe later, or someone who would be perfect for another position that isn't open right now, they are happy to hold on to that contact. The next recruitment could be significantly simplified if they already have a person in mind. So her spending 30 minutes on a candidate she knew wasn't an option for this position could very well be an honest attempt to find good people for future recruitments. 

I would absolutely contact her again after finishing your degree (or maybe even when you're getting close). Nothing to lose and she'll probably be glad you're still interested. 

[Iskaral Pust]

@HelenaExMachina  I agree with Erik.  Assume it was a sincere interest (it sounded like it).  That's much more likely than the alternative.  No-one encourages a follow-up call from a bad candidate.

If someone likes your resume enough to give you an interview, any temporary barriers to the role, e.g. schedule, location, contractual commitments, etc, are no reason to stop the interview.  And if you look like a strong potential candidate beyond the temporary barrier, then they would absolutely want to remain in touch.

If they just want to politely send you on your way, then they "wish you luck with your search for the right role for you".

A pity this one isn't currently convenient for you, but it sounds like you have an option available to pursue later.

[HexMachina]

Thank you for the input  my post sounded a bit pissed off at the recruiter but I didn’t mean to, she was actually lovely and I liked the experience of it. Afternoon so much rejection I guess I’m just slightly paranoid.

Its not my first choice of place to work after my degree, but if that doesn’t work out, which is likely, then I will definitely get in touch

[HexMachina]

12 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Thank you for the input  my post sounded a bit pissed off at the recruiter but I didn’t mean to, she was actually lovely and I liked the experience of it. Afternoon so much rejection I guess I’m just slightly paranoid.

Its not my first choice of place to work after my degree, but if that doesn’t work out, which is likely, then I will definitely get in touch

Just an add on/update to this. I had sent a standard follow-up email thanking this lady for the interview, as well as asking the best way to get in contact after my degree - should I contact her directly or apply again via the job vacancy board? 

Reply today was to contact her directly as she would be recruiting throughout the year. So yes, seems my paranoia/pessimism was unwarranted. Thank you to @Iskaral PustPust and @Erik of Hazelfield

[HexMachina]

Got contacted by a company I interviewed with last July to tell me they were expanding the offices up here and would I be interested in coming along to the recruitment day because they were very happy with how I had done in my previous interview as it happens, I can't commit to the start date because of university but it was a lovely confidence boost all the same. 

I have a question on my CV. It's just a basic linear CV since I have little experience, and I'm wondering how to build something into it. As part of my uni course I'm going to be doing a student law office where we give legal advice to real clients. This obviously entails a lot of relevant stuff for legal careers - research, interviewing, client care letters etc . I'd like to include this on my CV but not sure how/where to include it. Education, listed under my current course? Work? And is it acceptable vto include stuff like this?

Any advice is appreciated

[Joe Pesci]

7 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Got contacted by a company I interviewed with last July to tell me they were expanding the offices up here and would I be interested in coming along to the recruitment day because they were very happy with how I had done in my previous interview as it happens, I can't commit to the start date because of university but it was a lovely confidence boost all the same. 

I have a question on my CV. It's just a basic linear CV since I have little experience, and I'm wondering how to build something into it. As part of my uni course I'm going to be doing a student law office where we give legal advice to real clients. This obviously entails a lot of relevant stuff for legal careers - research, interviewing, client care letters etc . I'd like to include this on my CV but not sure how/where to include it. Education, listed under my current course? Work? And is it acceptable vto include stuff like this?

Any advice is appreciated

When I was looking for a new job a few years back, I would adjust my resume depending on the job. I had 'Relevant Skills & Experience' tab that I listed things under. It worked well for me. I had it above where I started my work experience. I'm by no means an expert when it comes to building a top notch CV though.