Finding a Math Job: Preparing Before Graduation

[homeomorphic]

Math jobs tend to be ones that you have to dig for more. Not just a matter of getting the degree and picking up employable skills. Stuff like networking and internships are also helpful for getting your foot in the door.

Looking at some job postings might help get a feel for it. Usually, they are looking for very specific skill-sets that a math major won't have by default. Various programming languages being towards the top of the list. It's hard to find postings that you'll meet the requirements for, and probably they'll just screen you out if you don't meet them. Unless you have a contact who can get you around the screening/HR obstacles.

One of the few places where you can find where a BS in math is specifically sought after is the actuarial profession, but you have to pass one or two of the exams first.

If you don't fancy that sort of job-search stuff, go for engineering, where it's easier to just apply for something and get it. It's still a good idea to do that stuff--it's just not going to be as hard in engineering. Start thinking about it a couple years before graduating.

The non-academic job search in math can be a long, hard process if you are not prepared. I'm an under-employed recent PhD going through that now. In this economy, employers tend not to be very flexible about long-term investments, like me, where my talent is up there and given a little time, I could easily clobber a lot of the competition, if given a chance to catch up (and in some cases, it's not even a matter of catch up, but not having the official credentials), but I can't hit the ground running because I don't have all the stuff they want right off the bat. So, I'm left under-employed and working my head off on programming and actuarial exams and all kinds of stuff to try to make myself more marketable. Better to have more of it taken care of before you graduate.

 

[mal4mac]

... my talent is up there and given a little time, I could easily clobber a lot of the competition, if given a chance to catch up ...

Or perhaps you come across as arrogant? A little humility at job interviews works wonders...

 

[homeomorphic]

Or perhaps you come across as arrogant? A little humility at job interviews works wonders...

What interviews? I haven't had any.

Also, there's a very fine line to walk between selling yourself and humility. And that line may be different for each person you talk to.

The problem is I haven't applied to that many jobs yet because there aren't many that fit me.

I'm just trying to make the point that I know I'm better than some C student EE major at the jobs that they are getting but I still don't get the job because I switch to math and didn't finish my EE degree. I know because I studied EE for 3 years. The point wasn't to brag. The only reason I'm talking about myself specifically here is that that's the most concrete example I have. With some people, you can't even try to get a point across without them judging the hell out of you. I don't even matter for this discussion. The point is that you can be a great candidate, but that's not good enough if you don't have the official credentials or the job search skills.

 

[tyjae]

but I can't hit the ground running because I don't have all the stuff they want right off the bat. So, I'm left under-employed and working my head off on programming and actuarial exams and all kinds of stuff to try to make myself more marketable. Better to have more of it taken care of before you graduate.

That is what they hire engineers for. To hit the ground running. I agree with Mal4mac. You seem very arrogant. What companies hire C student engineers? I haven't heard of any. What specifically are you better at? There is RF,Analog/Digital design,Control systems,Power Systems,Solid State electronics.

This is a great forum but the bashing of engineers is getting old.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Math jobs tend to be ones that you have to dig for more. Not just a matter of getting the degree and picking up employable skills. Stuff like networking and internships are also helpful for getting your foot in the door.

Looking at some job postings might help get a feel for it. Usually, they are looking for very specific skill-sets that a math major won't have by default. Various programming languages being towards the top of the list. It's hard to find postings that you'll meet the requirements for, and probably they'll just screen you out if you don't meet them. Unless you have a contact who can get you around the screening/HR obstacles.

One of the few places where you can find where a BS in math is specifically sought after is the actuarial profession, but you have to pass one or two of the exams first.

If you don't fancy that sort of job-search stuff, go for engineering, where it's easier to just apply for something and get it. It's still a good idea to do that stuff--it's just not going to be as hard in engineering. Start thinking about it a couple years before graduating.

The non-academic job search in math can be a long, hard process if you are not prepared. I'm an under-employed recent PhD going through that now. In this economy, employers tend not to be very flexible about long-term investments, like me, where my talent is up there and given a little time, I could easily clobber a lot of the competition, if given a chance to catch up (and in some cases, it's not even a matter of catch up, but not having the official credentials), but I can't hit the ground running because I don't have all the stuff they want right off the bat. So, I'm left under-employed and working my head off on programming and actuarial exams and all kinds of stuff to try to make myself more marketable. Better to have more of it taken care of before you graduate.

Here is a question specifically for you -- what branch of math did you earn your PhD in? Depending on your area of research, perhaps you could market yourself the skills that you have gained thus far, or at least proceed with teaching/private tutoring to make ends meet while you retool yourself.

You stated above that you are working on programming and actuarial exams -- have you spent any time teaching yourself more on statistics and machine learning (similar to what ParticleGrl had done)?

 

[homeomorphic]

That is what they hire engineers for. To hit the ground running.

Does it make sense to hire someone who is going to be better for only 6 months and then not as good for the X number of years? No. It's only a matter of HR and screening obstacles, and the fact that they don't have more training periods and stuff like that. Not every single company wants you to hit the ground running, and especially in the past, things were more flexible. The other EE students who are just graduating can't hit the ground running, either. I don't care if I get an engineering job or programming or whatever. The point is there's not much demand for math by itself. That's my point.

I agree with Mal4mac. You seem very arrogant.

SEEM. I'm glad you say "seem". Appearances can be deceiving. I only come off arrogant 0.01% of the time in real life. That's why it's called being judgmental. Judging based on a small amount of info. If I seem arrogant on here, it's often because I am angry at people for making STEM subjects boring and sucking the life out of them, and you become a target for my rage if you are on the wrong side of that debate. I have suffered a lot at the hands of such people. First, I left engineering because of it, then I left math, partly because of it. I'm not arrogant, I'm just angry. I don't care what you think. I have a perfectly realistic idea of my skills. I'm not superman. I'm just another smart guy. There are plenty of others smarter than me.

Anyway, you're focusing on the messenger and not the message. The message has nothing to do with me. The message is that math isn't in demand by itself. It could be in demand if you are a double major, but not just math, even applied. The actuarial profession is almost the only one where it's in demand, but they are open to almost anyone with a degree, and the entry-level market is flooded.

What companies hire C student engineers? I haven't heard of any.

Well, I don't know if they are C students across the board, but the ones my dad complains about. He teaches EE.

What specifically are you better at? There is RF,Analog/Digital design,Control systems,Power Systems,Solid State electronics.

Power and communications is what I would be most ready to handle. I'm not saying I'd be a great engineer right off the bat, but my reasoning is that the only real difference between me and the people who finished the degree is that they did a senior project and took a couple more electives. And the senior project is a big advantage, but I don't think it's magic, either. The fact is, the people who are fresh graduates are barely more prepared than I am, or less prepared, in some cases. Anyway, I'm not looking for a great job. If it's a crap job that allows for advancement, that's all I want. Give me stupid beginner tasks and pay me low until I prove myself. I don't care. But I can't get my foot in the door because they usually look for EE degrees specifically, and if not, they have a list of requirements, like having experience that I don't have.

This is a great forum but the bashing of engineers is getting old.

Where am I bashing engineers? That's a misinterpretation as far as this thread goes. If you're talking about other threads, yeah, I might have bashed engineering students and professors, not actual practicing engineers (yes, they were once engineering students, but now they are doing something slightly different and so none of my comments apply to them, since they are not really affecting the system I have problems with). Why? Because they made me suffer through their way of teaching (and the students are often a bad influence on that, too because they don't know better and are missing pieces of their education that should have taught them to seek deeper understanding). And I'm angry about it. I'm also angry at physicists and mathematicians. I "bash" (I'd prefer to say criticize) them, too. I'm not arrogant, I'm just angry because STEM fields don't NEED to be so annoying for people like me who want a deeper understanding, but people make them that way. I respect these people as individuals, but that doesn't mean everything they are doing is A-OK and I should just shut up about it because it's not okay. It's a problem. I've heard from a lot of people on here who feel similarly to me and can relate to the problems that I've had. They appreciate hearing this and knowing that they aren't the only ones who feel this way. Actually, I'd say my favorite EE professor is one of the ones who is also guilty. It's not that he was guilty across the board, but he did contribute significantly to me changing my major. Anyway, that's off topic for this thread.

 

[micromass]

Does it make sense to hire someone who is going to be better for only 6 months and then not as good for the X number of years?

Uh, what makes you think they will be not as good for the X number of years?

 

[homeomorphic]

Here is a question specifically for you -- what branch of math did you earn your PhD in?

Topology, the most useless subject of all. That's part of why I quit doing it, but also because it's so damn useless, I don't have that many skills to show for it. My friends doing doing numerical PDEs would be better off with all the programming experience they have.

Depending on your area of research, perhaps you could market yourself the skills that you have gained thus far, or at least proceed with teaching/private tutoring to make ends meet while you retool yourself.

Tutoring is what I'm doing. I'm under-employed, not unemployed. Teaching is too much work for me, that's why I don't want to do it. And don't think I'm lazy. If I taught, I would feel obligated to literally work 14 hours a day on teaching and not have time for anything else because that's how bad I am at teaching. In fact, that's pretty much what I did the last time I taught. I literally didn't do anything besides teach and basic stuff like sleeping and eating. I'm not kidding. And that was just to be an okay teacher, not a great one.

You stated above that you are working on programming and actuarial exams -- have you spent any time teaching yourself more on statistics and machine learning (similar to what ParticleGrl had done)?

I did sit in on some statistics my last semester and I was trying to start on a machine learning book, but the actuarial exams are taking up a lot of time because I wanted to get them out of the way, so I have one down, and a month and a half until I have two, at which point, I can put any more on the back burner because 2 exams is really all they want for entry-level, typically.

 

[homeomorphic]

Uh, what makes you think they will be not as good for the X number of years?

That's the hypotheses. The argument was "IF they will not be as good..."

Because the point I was making was just to argue against expecting people to hit the ground running.

It's quite obvious that the people who can do best at first will not stay that way, in general. People with 1 year less experience/training are identical, except being 1 year behind.

I'm only saying I'm better than SOME people who get jobs. I'm not making a comment about being the best, overall. I'm not the best overall. If I thought that, I'd be trying to get the best job. I'm not. I'm trying to get the worst job that will allow me to get my foot in the door. Even an unpaid internship, perhaps.

I have a lot of skills that would be useful to people out there, but they don't want it because they want the whole package right away, and I only have part of the package. Even if I did study on my own and fill in the missing pieces, I'm not sure if that would work because they like to see a degree. I could go back and finish mine, but it's just a beaurocratic/logistical/financial nightmare, so I'd rather just keep networking and applying to actuarial jobs or programming jobs or whatever until I get something.

 

[SteamKing]

Topology, the most useless subject of all. That's part of why I quit doing it, but also because it's so damn useless, I don't have that many skills to show for it. My friends doing doing numerical PDEs would be better off with all the programming experience they have.

That's your opinion, and it may be why you have become disillusioned with your education.

Topology is useful in many disciplines, not the least of which is physics. Your friends doing numerical PDEs are probably using mesh generators and other tools which relied on topology in order to be developed. Now, it simply could be that none of your professors had a practical bent and were focused exclusively on the mathematics.

If you look at this article, under the Applications of Topology section, you may come away with a different appreciation of your subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology

Perhaps some of the fields discussed in this article could help you focus your search for a job using your current skills and knowledge.

 

[homeomorphic]

By the way, if you think I'm just complaining and bitter about my situation, that's not the point. I messed up and was stupid and didn't prepare for the job market because I was too slow to admit that being a math prof was not for me. Yeah, it would be nice if there were more stuff in place to help career-changers, such as myself, but that's not the point. I'm trying to WARN, not complain. The point is not to say look at poor me, I can't get a job. The point is, "don't end up like me". Get some marketable skills. Have a back-up plan. And seriously consider your alternatives before studying math. Math is way oversold and overrated, especially if it isn't just a means to an end like engineering.

As for me, now that I am facing the job market and see the challenges, I'm doing what I need to do. I'm not very good at the job search. In a way, it's kind of a mutual problem for me and these employers. I could be an asset to them, but it's hard for them to find me because they have to be able to screen people out. Plus, it's more of a long-term investment, and it's hard for me to prove myself to them because I don't have an official degree, besides math. So, I'm not blaming the employers entirely. I do think they could be a little bit more open-minded and have better systems in place, like the one the actuaries have, to prove your credentials, besides just degrees. But that's not the point. It's my fault for not being prepared, and the only reason I'm talking about how bad it is is to scare other people into being prepared and to have back-up plans if they are going to do something stupid and risky like getting a PhD.

 

[homeomorphic]

That's your opinion, and it may be why you have become disillusioned with your education.

It's a little more than my opinion. There are topologists who take pride in it being useless. I'm skeptical of the applications. Maybe they are just force-fitting the math to it, rather than being a genuine contribution. I think the jury is still out on a lot of it. Yes, some topology is useful, but I'm not sure that any of the ultra-complicated research that is being done is good for anything. It's the simpler stuff that tends to be more useful.

Topology is useful in many disciplines, not the least of which is physics.

Yes, I actually did topological quantum field theory, and it was pretty far from actual physics. It's relevant to string theory, but string theory is also pretty much useless. And there may be condensed matter applications, too, but from what I've heard, the physicists tend to use the more basic stuff. Anyway, even if it is useful, it's almost all academic. Not useful in the sense of anything you can do in industry, except in so far as it builds your mathematical skills and intuition, which can be applied to other subjects (but getting a PhD in it is over-kill for that, just take a couple classes, if that's what you're after).

Your friends doing numerical PDEs are probably using mesh generators and other tools which relied on topology in order to be developed.

Possibly, but I doubt it's very advanced topology of the sort that people are doing research on today. It's fine to take a couple topology classes. It develops your higher-dimensional intuition. But to do research in it? I don't recommend it.

Now, it simply could be that none of your professors had a practical bent and were focused exclusively on the mathematics.

That's definitely true. My adviser claims to have some interest in physics, but discouraged me from studying it.

If you look at this article, under the Applications of Topology section, you may come away with a different appreciation of your subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology

Perhaps some of the fields discussed in this article could help you focus your search for a job using your current skills and knowledge.

Yeah, I kind of know about that stuff. As I said, it's mostly academic. Doesn't help you in industry. And I'm sick of academia. I know I'd be absolutely miserable there, at least for many, many years, until I could get enough teaching experience to keep myself afloat without working myself nearly to death.

If I could take it in a physics direction, that would be cool, but you know as well as I do, that's a dead end in terms of jobs, in my situation.

 

[Locrian]

the actuarial exams are taking up a lot of time because I wanted to get them out of the way, so I have one down, and a month and a half until I have two, at which point, I can put any more on the back burner because 2 exams is really all they want for entry-level, typically.

Congrats on passing your first exam!

I disagree about putting any exams on the backburner. My adivce:

Two exams is uncompetitive for the US, and nearly unhirable in Canada. Being uncompetitive in the exam area isn’t as bad as it sounds; you’re just going to have to make up for that lack in other ways. (Nearly unhirable is as bad as it sounds).

Start making contacts now. Go ahead and send out resumes to actuaries. Even if you don’t get a job, you may get a foot in the door, and that will help later. If you do it right, then when they get their opening for an analyst, you should come to mind.

Next, expect to go through three exams before your hire (we can always hope for fewer, but let’s be realistic). The third makes a big difference, because MFE/MLC have a much higher stump factor than P & FM. Managers know this and having 3-4 exams does give you a significant edge over those with 1-2 exams.

Finally, there have been times in the past where finding good candidates was so difficult that exams took precedence. These days a few exams just gets your resume read. Make sure it’s awesome.

And bring your A-game to the interview. One nice thing about there being plenty of candidates is that managers can actually hire people they want to work with (imagine that!). A lot of candidates at in interview make the mistake of worrying too much about the qualifications that got them there instead of the attitude that could get them the job.

Best of luck.

 

[homeomorphic]

Congrats on passing your first exam!

Thanks.

I disagree about putting any exams on the backburner. My adivce:

Two exams is uncompetitive for the US, and nearly unhirable in Canada. Being uncompetitive in the exam area isn’t as bad as it sounds; you’re just going to have to make up for that lack in other ways. (Nearly unhirable is as bad as it sounds).

Hmm. I'll have to think about the extent to which I should put it on the back burner. Perhaps, there's more advantage to having 3-4 exams than I've heard. My impression was that you end up with a mismatch of exams vs. work experience if you have too many. Also, I was hoping to get the 2 exams in, just to get myself in the game and then not put all my eggs in the actuarial basket.

Start making contacts now. Go ahead and send out resumes to actuaries. Even if you don’t get a job, you may get a foot in the door, and that will help later. If you do it right, then when they get their opening for an analyst, you should come to mind.

I've done a little of that, but I'm not very good at it. I'm still pondering how okay I am with living on the East Coast, so that limits my options a bit. Priority is to get a job, but still, I was going to try and apply out west for a little while.

And bring your A-game to the interview. One nice thing about there being plenty of candidates is that managers can actually hire people they want to work with (imagine that!). A lot of candidates at in interview make the mistake of worrying too much about the qualifications that got them there instead of the attitude that could get them the job.

Yeah, I'm not sure how well I'll do at that because I've never even had a job interview before. All I've done is be a TA and one internship at the end of high school with no interview for that, either. Thinking that I'll come off as arrogant is pretty clueless, though, in my opinion. I'm more afraid of being perceived as lacking confidence and being nervous about being interviewed and not knowing what I'm doing, as far as the interview itself. I'm trying to work on that stuff, too, but it's just a lot of stuff to work on. So, I may have to try to find something better than tutoring to keep myself afloat until I can get more of all these skills (or at least get more serious about my marketing for tutoring).

Best of luck.

Thanks, and thanks for the advice.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Thanks to an effort to be more even handed, we have created a new bureaucracy. In decades past, you posted an ad in the newspaper, you got a small pile of resumes and you asked some of them in for an interview. You looked them in the eye, asked them a few interesting questions to see how they deal with them, and then made a decision based mostly on the personality and knowledge the applicant showed.

But we don't do things that way any more. Today we need certifications and degrees, we need resumes and documented experience, we need all of this because people abused the earlier systems and rejected candidates they didn't approve of, especially women and minorities.

The problem is that the cure may be worse than the disease. Now we have very well documented employees who may be entirely inappropriate for the work --but whom we can not fire because that might look bad in a court of law.

Some people are really good at passing tests. Some people are actually adept at the work but really poor test takers. The problem is that an HR bureaucrat can not tell the difference and is very afraid of questions that might indicate some sort of aptitude that they can't document. So entry level jobs are really tough to get in to.

I don't have any answers. I only know what the problem is. Trust me, it chafes those who do the hiring too.

 

[AlephZero]

If a job applicant that I interviewed gave out the same messages that are in this thread, I would need a lot of persuading to recommend making a job offer. The basic reason is that everything is negative. You started an EE degree, and quit. You started a PhD, and quit. From what you discovered about academia, you want to quit that. I'm not getting any positive reasons why you want to be an actuary, either. It just seems to be the least worst thing you can think of right now.

Sure, people discover they made the wrong career choice, and change directions. But doing it 3 or 4 times in succession is a big "red flag".

There's no way to judge if your "talent is up there and given a little time, I could easily clobber a lot of the competition", or if that's just wishful thinking. But if you don't have any track record of sticking with a challenge till you get to the end of it, then from an employer's point of view it doesn't really matter how smart you are if they won't get any long term payback for the short term cost of hiring you.

BTW in the group of mechanical engineers I work with, one of them started out as a mathematician, and has a PhD in topology. Not that he uses it much on a day to day basis, but he's just as willing to get his head down and work on a different tough problem for several years on end, as he was to get the PhD.

 

[homeomorphic]

If a job applicant that I interviewed gave out the same messages that are in this thread, I would need a lot of persuading to recommend making a job offer.

That would be your loss, then. The point is to convince other people to not follow my path, so naturally, it's not a surprise if it isn't persuasive for giving me a job. Not the intent. This thread started in a thread about whether math is employable. I vote no, not really, unless you're a wiz at job-searching or get things going before you graduate.

The basic reason is that everything is negative. You started an EE degree, and quit.

Yes, at that point, it was actually a positive thing. I thought I had found math and everything was going to be great. It was hard to know I was going to be wrong about that. My undergrad profs thought I showed some promise. I now wonder what they were talking about. Sure, I'm good at math, and a lot of people struggle with math. But I'm not good at research.

You started a PhD, and quit.

No, actually, I finished that one.

From what you discovered about academia, you want to quit that.

Well, who wouldn't want to quit? Grad school was awful. Most of my friends in grad school feel the same way. Even some of the people who went on to do postdocs thought it sucked, but did it anyway. There was no way to know that it would turn out that way. Everything was great back when I applied to grad school.

I'm not getting any positive reasons why you want to be an actuary, either. It just seems to be the least worst thing you can think of right now.

Well, it might be the only thing I can do that's not flipping burgers for all I can tell. But the thread isn't about reasons to be an actuary, so naturally, I didn't give reasons for being an actuary. They are not relevant to the thread.

Sure, people discover they made the wrong career choice, and change directions. But doing it 3 or 4 times in succession is a big "red flag".

3 or 4 times? Engineering. Math. One. Two. I'm not sure where you got 3 or 4 from. Unless you want to count tutoring, but that's obviously a temporary kind of stop gap job. Although, I wouldn't mind doing it for a living, I guess. It's just hard to get enough customers for that. There's a very logical story behind my career mistakes. I thought math was great, ditched engineering for it, and was horribly wrong because research and teaching is nothing like taking classes. That's the story. Pretty short and sweet. Maybe it should be a red flag, I don't know. It's hard to know what I'd be happy with. But really, the issues I have with math are so extreme, there's just not even the tiniest doubt in my mind that I should leave. With engineering, I think it might have been a mistake to leave, but it was REALLY hard to see that at the time. My math classes were just a smashing success, and I was really enjoying them. It just felt so natural. At the time, it seemed like an easy choice.

There's no way to judge if your "talent is up there and given a little time, I could easily clobber a lot of the competition", or if that's just wishful thinking.

I have a PhD in math. That's not evidence? Sure, there's probably a lot of people who could clobber me, too. I was just being emphatic. I'm talking about just being good enough to be better than some of the people who get jobs. That's not saying very much. It's not wishful thinking. Maybe for the employers, yes, they might not be able to tell. But for my part? No. I'm sorry. I know I'd be better than some of the people who get jobs. They were my classmates. The only variable is the difference between school vs practical engineering.

But if you don't have any track record of sticking with a challenge till you get to the end of it, then from an employer's point of view it doesn't really matter how smart you are if they won't get any long term payback for the short term cost of hiring you.

Well, I did get the PhD and stuck with that until the bitter end. I can give them their payback. I'm confident of that. That's clear in my mind. Let everyone else think what they will. If they disagree, they are the ones who are wrong. Say what you will. Now, of course, the problem is how do I convince them of that?

BTW in the group of mechanical engineers I work with, one of them started out as a mathematician, and has a PhD in topology. Not that he uses it much on a day to day basis, but he's just as willing to get his head down and work on a different tough problem for several years on end, as he was to get the PhD.

Wonder why he left topology. Good man.

You know, I think the trick might be to either be really interested in the work or else not to have such big motivational issues to power through because the work is just easy enough for that not to be an issue. If I was interested in the work, I'd have no trouble sticking it out. I feel confident I could tutor for the rest of my life, for example, if I could make enough money at it because I know what I'm getting into. Or something like grading. Kind of sucked, but I could do it and not get stressed out about it. The trouble is that I kept going down certain paths and not knowing what I was getting into. So, if I knew what I was getting into, I could be really confident that I could stick it out, at least long enough for it to be worthwhile to the employer. With the actuarial stuff, I think I am okay with the exam part of it, at least up to getting ASA or ACAS status, but I could take more of a sneak peak into the later exams to make sure. If I don't like the later exams, they are optional, so I think that's fine. And finally, I am planning to try some spreadsheet projects.

As long as I know what I'm getting into, I really don't think it's a problem. Except that it's sometimes hard to know what I'm getting into. And that's why I'm doing the research and finding out about it.

I mean, PhD in math. What do you want me to do? Work at Walmart? Is that a good use of our society's resources to send someone to study math for 7 years? Really?

 

[micromass]

I mean, PhD in math. What do you want me to do? Work at Walmart? Is that a good use of our society's resources to send someone to study math for 7 years? Really?

Nobody "sent" you to study math for 7 years. You chose that path.

And, really, it's not exactly a secret that a PhD in topology isn't very employable. A little bit of research and common sense should have told you that. So this is not exactly the fault of society here.

 

[ParticleGrl]

You started an EE degree, and quit. You started a PhD, and quit. From what you discovered about academia, you want to quit that.

It sounds to me like he started an EE degree, switched to math, and took math all the way to a phd, which he successfully finished (he refers to himself as a recent phd). Leaving academia post-phd is more common than staying in academia post-phd.

I'm not getting any positive reasons why you want to be an actuary, either. It just seems to be the least worst thing you can think of right now.

I think a lot of math and physics types end up in actuarial type positions because no one at an engineering company will even interview them. I had a physics phd, and spent more than a year applying to everything I could find, attending every job fair I could find, cold calling all the people I could find,etc. Even getting a company to interview me was like pulling teeth, and once I landed an interview I had to convince people who think that science jobs are super-plentiful that I wouldn't leave for the (non-existent) job offers.

At some point, you got to eat, and you take the least bad thing that will feed you. Thats how I ended up in "big data." I don't hate the work, but its certainly not nearly as fun as physics was- but hey we can't all be rockstars and astronauts.

BTW in the group of mechanical engineers I work with, one of them started out as a mathematician, and has a PhD in topology.

I'm surprised he got an interview, let alone got hired. In my experience, having a phd in a totally unrelated discipline is a kiss of death (over qualified and underqualified at the same time- no engineering background/experience but a whole lot of totally unrelated math experience).

 

[homeomorphic]

Nobody "sent" you to study math for 7 years. You chose that path.

And, really, it's not exactly a secret that a PhD in topology isn't very employable. A little bit of research and common sense should have told you that. So this is not exactly the fault of society here.

Oh, come on. You're being a little bit hard on me. I told my story. I was absorbed in math at the time when I made that decision. I was trapped in my little happy math bubble. Things could have turned out differently. Easily. I thought I had everything going for me. And topology is employable. It's just outside of academia that we're talking about. When I first taught, that was when the problem appeared. But I was applying for the PhD program as that was unfolding. It was my first time teaching. I didn't want to be discouraged by failure at teaching my very first time. But then, in the PhD program, they only let me teach my own class once, aside from recitations, so I wasn't given the chance to overcome my difficulties. And then the double-whammy of research not being what I thought it was going to be. How could I know what was going to happen?

It wasn't a certainty. It was stupid not to have a back-up plan, but how could I know?

The plan was to be a professor. It wasn't to get a PhD and then do something else. That's the problem with what you're saying. I never planned on this. My "research and common sense" at the time was that being a math professor would be great. I wasn't thinking it wouldn't work out.

A PhD in topology does give you some skills that you can apply, just not the full package of what employers would like.

 

[ParticleGrl]

And, really, it's not exactly a secret that a PhD in topology isn't very employable. A little bit of research and common sense should have told you that. So this is not exactly the fault of society here.

I will say this- it IS societies' fault that we are so bad at hiring. I've been working for a "big data" type consulting company for a few years now, and I've noticed that smart, motivated people are worth a lot money (thats essentially the service we are providing). Given the choice between hard working and capable of learning vs. already trained most companies hire already trained, even though the former might be better for the business in the long term. Those same companies end up paying exorbitant amounts of money whenever they need hard-working and trainable (even though the consultants no literally nothing about the day-to-day specifics of their business) because their in house staff isn't capable of getting the job done.

 

[micromass]

Oh, come on. You're being a little bit hard on me. I told my story. I was absorbed in math at the time when I made that decision. I was trapped in my little happy math bubble. Things could have turned out differently. Easily. I thought I had everything going for me. And topology is employable. It's just outside of academia that we're talking about. When I first taught, that was when the problem appeared. But I was applying for the PhD program as that was unfolding. It was my first time teaching. I didn't want to be discouraged by failure at teaching my very first time. But then, in the PhD program, they only let me teach my own class once, aside from recitations, so I wasn't given the chance to overcome my difficulties. And then the double-whammy of research not being what I thought it was going to be. How could I know what was going to happen?

It wasn't a certainty. It was stupid not to have a back-up plan, but how could I know?

The plan was to be a professor. It wasn't to get a PhD and then do something else. That's the problem with what you're saying. I never planned on this. My "research and common sense" at the time was that being a math professor would be great. I wasn't thinking it wouldn't work out.

A PhD in topology does give you some skills that you can apply, just not the full package of what employers would like.

Sure, I do get all that. And your story doesn't leave me totally apathic. You were young and naive and you had big dreams. Nobody can blame your for this. I certainly don't blame you. All I'm saying is that it's a bit cheap right now to start blaming society for what happened. I don't think there's anybody to blame here. Sure, everybody (you, your professors, your friends, society,...) have their flaws, but nobody intentionally lied to you or anything. Everybody just did what they thought was right. That's what's sad about the whole situation. And it isn't just you, there are a lot of people dropping out of academia and who only now realize the harsh reality. Maybe the universities need to take more responsibility and have to start with being realistic about the possible careers and stuff.

 

[homeomorphic]

Sure, I do get all that. And your story doesn't leave me totally apathic. You were young and naive and you had big dreams. Nobody can blame your for this. I certainly don't blame you.

That's good to hear.

All I'm saying is that it's a bit cheap right now to start blaming society for what happened. I don't think there's anybody to blame here.

I don't think I was blaming society. I was responding to someone telling me what I perceived as, "you're worthless, go work at Walmart, you'd be a **** engineer."

So, I was basically just saying, if I can do a PhD, am I really worthless, and all I'm good for is Walmart? Yeah, no one cares about my topology. But maybe they care about other things that I can easily learn because they are all easy compared to topology.

I don't think there's anybody to blame here. Sure, everybody (you, your professors, your friends, society,...) have their flaws, but nobody intentionally lied to you or anything. Everybody just did what they thought was right. That's what's sad about the whole situation. And it isn't just you, there are a lot of people dropping out of academia and who only now realize the harsh reality.

Well, for the most part, I'd agree with that, although who knows all the intricacies of how the job market got to where it is now. I don't.

Also, I'm not convinced that everyone is doing the best job hiring people, like ParticleGrl says.

Maybe the universities need to take more responsibility and have to start with being realistic about the possible careers and stuff.

Exactly. But they are in the business of selling themselves and attracting students, so that's hard. Which is why it's good that there are lots of things on the internet now, telling all the graduate school horror stories. Without the internet, it wouldn't be so easy for the word to get out.

I'm sure I'll sort it out eventually. The situation isn't all that bad yet. As long as I get a job within another several months. The end of the PhD was really torture, and I still feel down about it from time to time. And it's not fun putting so much into something and realizing it was a mistake. So, it was painful, but it's still going to be a while before it gets to the point of me being homeless and out on the street, so it's not yet a complete disaster. I think I'll sort things out by then.

 

[jesse73]

I will say this- it IS societies' fault that we are so bad at hiring. I've been working for a "big data" type consulting company for a few years now, and I've noticed that smart, motivated people are worth a lot money (thats essentially the service we are providing). Given the choice between hard working and capable of learning vs. already trained most companies hire already trained, even though the former might be better for the business in the long term. Those same companies end up paying exorbitant amounts of money whenever they need hard-working and trainable (even though the consultants no literally nothing about the day-to-day specifics of their business) because their in house staff isn't capable of getting the job done.

I never understood this why so many companies have such awful hiring strategies. They do absolutely no talent development. In sports terms they are using the "New York Yankees / Lakers " strategies while being the Tampay Bay or Toronto. It isn't going to work.

 

[gravenewworld]

Try to break into business and maybe earn a master's in finance. No one in the private sector is going to pay you to do math problems all day, you need marketable skills which can be combined with a quantitative degree. (edit: just saw you were going down the actuary path)

I hate how colleges and universities offer very little career development DURING your time there. If you end up having to do actuarial work, then what was the point of doing the PhD in the first place? You could have done that right out of undergrad and saved 5 or 6 years.

There really does seem to be a clash of opinions on these boards when it comes to employment when you compare the older posters here to the younger grad students/recent PhDs. It is bad out there for younger STEM grads. Sometimes I wonder if some professors really understand just how bad it is.

My salary and employment prospects continually went DOWN in STEM as I gained more experience. I'm tired of the chronic underemployment, unemployment, temp jobs, and low salary. I'm looking to jump into business as soon as I get out, which is a shame, since I really like what I do and the science is very interesting. Unfortunately putting bread on the table and trying to retire has to come first.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I hate how colleges and universities offer very little career development DURING your time there. If you end up having to do actuarial work, then what was the point of doing the PhD in the first place? You could have done that right out of undergrad and saved 5 or 6 years.

People who get a Ph.D in ANYTHING are rarely ever doing it for money. They're doing it to scratch an intellectual itch. They would like to prove to themselves that they can study all the way to the very edge of what humanity has achieved in the arts and sciences, report it, and reach a conclusion.

That's not what college is for. YOU are supposed to have that notion in your head before you go to any effort to educate yourself after high school. And no, nobody tell high school graduates this, though I think we'd both agree that someone should.

 

[homeomorphic]

I hate how colleges and universities offer very little career development DURING your time there.

They do offer career development, typically, but you have to take it upon yourself to go the career center or apply to those internships. I just think the professors should be better about encouraging students to take advantage of it. In my case, I was too busy struggling to finish my dissertation, so I only made it there once. But if I would have gone more, the guy I met could have helped me with interviewing skills, job search, lots of things. As it was, he just got me started.

If you end up having to do actuarial work, then what was the point of doing the PhD in the first place?

Well, there is a point to the PhD for me, but it probably wasn't worth it. The PhD teaches you some things about how to tackle a really big project (though there are better ways to learn about that, if you aren't going to end up working in the same field). Also, you get to pursue your interest in whatever subject it is. So, I gained something from it, but it came at a big cost. I'm not sure that there was any other way to find out, at least not easily, that I wouldn't like it without trying it. If you are an undergrad, it probably doesn't do you much good to try to look at the research papers because you are not in a position to judge them. The easiest way to find out the pitfalls would be to talk to someone like me. People ask me about what it's like to do a PhD, and I warn them, but often they don't seem to fully appreciate the pitfalls. Hopefully, I can at least convince them to have a back-up plan, so I think I am accomplishing something.

Math and physics is still a hobby of mine. I'm no longer interested in being at the cutting edge, but I am still interested in trying to understand what we already know on a deep level and writing about it. So, the PhD will contribute to this hobby of mine.

Incidentally, I asked my dad about some of his bad students who get jobs, and he said ALL of their EE graduates got jobs last year, and this is no Harvard, we're talking about, either, just a run of the mill university. Even the lousiest students. He agreed that it would make more sense for them to hire me than some of those students, but they want to see an EE degree for those jobs. All I have is BS math with EE and CS minors, PhD math.

 

[eigenperson]

Maybe math departments should require every graduate student to demonstrate mastery of at least one "marketable skill" (e.g. programming, numerical analysis, financial mathematics, statistics, etc...). The reasoning is that those who don't become professors will need to do this anyway in order to get a job, and those who do become professors should do it in order to be on the same wavelength as their calculus students (and, in general, the rest of the world).

In addition, right now most math departments seem to view their mission as pumping out new professors. So they give a lot of career support to people who are trying to become professors, but it is rare for anyone to have even the slightest clue what it takes for a math PhD to get any kind of job other than a postdoc or a professorship. That needs to change. Every department should provide resources to helping students find jobs outside of academia, just as they now do to help students find jobs in competing ivory towers.For what it's worth, If I were a hiring manager, I'd hire you, based on your posts here, because I'm pretty sure no company has ever regretted hiring someone who can (1) get a math PhD and (2) write well. (Though it is true that some of your posts on this thread make a bad impression. You probably would outperform the majority of engineers within 6 months of being hired, but if I were hiring you to work with a bunch of engineers, that would not be a productive attitude.)

 

[homeomorphic]

Maybe math departments should require every graduate student to demonstrate mastery of at least one "marketable skill" (e.g. programming, numerical analysis, financial mathematics, statistics, etc...). The reasoning is that those who don't become professors will need to do this anyway in order to get a job, and those who do become professors should do it in order to be on the same wavelength as their calculus students (and, in general, the rest of the world).

I was thinking something like that, too.

For what it's worth, If I were a hiring manager, I'd hire you, based on your posts here, because I'm pretty sure no company has ever regretted hiring someone who can (1) get a math PhD and (2) write well. (Though it is true that some of your posts on this thread make a bad impression. You probably would outperform the majority of engineers within 6 months of being hired, but if I were hiring you to work with a bunch of engineers, that would not be a productive attitude.)

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence.

I do have certain traits that could be a disadvantage. I'm an iconoclast, headstrong, and a non-conformist. Some people might see that as arrogance. If they want to think that, let them think that because I think it's harmful for me to be any other way. I don't just sit there and take it if I know something is wrong. I'm still going to stand up for what I believe in, no matter how many people disagree.

If you want some yes-man who doesn't think for himself, don't hire me. I'm very eager to please and actually will do what I'm told, but I have a mind of mine own, and I may get upset if you want me to do things in a way I don't like. I'll do it. I just might get sick of it if you push me too far, and that's what happened with math. On the inside, I'm like a wild beast. Hard to tame, but powerful if you know how to use me.

 

[Evo]

I do have certain traits that could be a disadvantage. I'm an iconoclast, headstrong, and a non-conformist. Some people might see that as arrogance. If they want to think that, let them think that because I think it's harmful for me to be any other way. I don't just sit there and take it if I know something is wrong. I'm still going to stand up for what I believe in, no matter how many people disagree.

If you want some yes-man who doesn't think for himself, don't hire me. I'm very eager to please and actually will do what I'm told, but I have a mind of mine own, and I may get upset if you want me to do things in a way I don't like. I'll do it. I just might get sick of it if you push me too far, and that's what happened with math. On the inside, I'm like a wild beast. Hard to tame, but powerful if you know how to use me.

But intelligent people know when to keep their mouths shut and how to slowly bring others to their way of thinking. It's a skill combined with the intelligence of how to work with people.

Belligerence and spouting off may feel good but it's not the intelligent way to handle situations, it's not going to get you hired. You need to have sophistication and savvy, as well as intelligence and social skills. From your posts, I find you lacking in all of these areas. You may have book smarts, I don't know, but I can tell you don't have the other crucial elements to succeed.

I don't mean any of this as a put down, but as constructive criticism in hopes that you can change and maybe get a job.

And yes, I do have the credentials to put me into a position to advise.

 

[Choppy]

I hate how colleges and universities offer very little career development DURING your time there. If you end up having to do actuarial work, then what was the point of doing the PhD in the first place? You could have done that right out of undergrad and saved 5 or 6 years.

But the mandate of a university is to provide the student with an education. If the student chooses a non-professional, academic field of study to pursue, is it really fair to turn around and blame the university for not focussing on the development of the student's career?

 

[Choppy]

Maybe math departments should require every graduate student to demonstrate mastery of at least one "marketable skill" (e.g. programming, numerical analysis, financial mathematics, statistics, etc...). The reasoning is that those who don't become professors will need to do this anyway in order to get a job, and those who do become professors should do it in order to be on the same wavelength as their calculus students (and, in general, the rest of the world).

But that undermines the point of a graduate degree and in many cases would require the department to assess students along a dimension that they are not qualified to assess the student in.

 

[Locrian]

because I'm pretty sure no company has ever regretted hiring someone who can (1) get a math PhD and (2) write well.

Oh, they so have. The stigma didn't come out of nowhere. I agree it's unfair to paint everyone with the same brush, but the you know what they say about the fair. The first step any PhD holder needs to take is to understand what the biases are and develop simple plans to nullify them.

 

[Locrian]

Homeomorphic, when you begin interviewing, you'll need to be prepared for the following questions:

"Why are you changing careers?"

"Why aren't you teaching?"

"Why leave academia?"

"Wouldn't you rather be working in the field you studied?"

You need two to three sentence answers to these that are clean, positive, and move the discussion away from the topic. You might consider posting your planned responses here.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Oh, they so have. The stigma didn't come out of nowhere. I agree it's unfair to paint everyone with the same brush, but the you know what they say about the fair. The first step any PhD holder needs to take is to understand what the biases are and develop simple plans to nullify them.

The problem is that math phds are still very rare- so a lot of companies are relying on biases that aren't based on first hand experience. For a consulting project, I recently had to work fairly closely with several HR members to find out what they look for in a candidate. Two of them told us explicitly they think too much education is bad (the examples used were hiring a programmer who lists "too many" programming languages on his resume, and someone with a stats phd in a specific analytics role). When I asked why they had these rules, neither could point to someone they hired that didn't work out- they just had platitudes "you hear stories."

The phd rule ended up not being meaningful anyway- searching through their data, they'd never even had any phd apply for any positions.