How Relevant is Graduate School Experience for a Position in Industry? 6

[UconnMaterials]

I have a year left in my Materials Engineering PhD program. Recently, I started looking for a job after graduation. Fundamental research doesn't appeal to me; I would rather be doing design and development type work or materials support jobs such as failure analysis. I had 2+ years of experience in industry before going back to graduate school, and that's the place I would rather be.

I talked to a recruiter the other day, and he said that my graduate schoolwork wouldn't count towards experience for a job unless it's in research. He said I was slightly above entry level. To me that was bogus. Many things that I do in graduate school are industry relevant such as FEA work, mechanical testing, failure analysis, and instrument operation/repair. Heck I've even did some NDT type work briefly. I work 100x harder in graduate school than I ever did in industry, and with no one looking over my shoulder telling me to work faster. Aren't the transferable skills that are learned in graduate school important?

Generally, how do companies view graduate school experience? Thanks for any input.

Uconnmaterials

 

[IRstuff]

Depends on how much salary you're asking for and what the job is. As a PhD, you will be steered towards jobs that are more in line with what people expect a PhD might want, namely research.

If I saw your resume submitted for an entry-level, journeyman engineer's position, I might wonder how long it'll be before you get bored and start looking for a new job and therefore, I might not even bother to interview you.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[zdas04]

That is the essence of the problem. Depending on how long since you worked in industry, if you don't want to do research you'll either start at a rank entry level or as a 1-2 year guy.

If I was looking for a mid-career engineer I'd throw your resume in the trash. I got my Masters (night school) when I had 13 years experience and my employer treated the graduate degree as a plus. I've seen a bunch of people with an entry-level Masters that couldn't get an interview.

The nonsense about how hard you worked in grad school will not play well in the job market. Employers tend to think that people go to grad school to satisfy some internal need of their own. Complaining about how hard it is plays much like complaining how much you sweat during sex--if you didn't like it you wouldn't do it.

David

 

[UconnMaterials]

zdas04,

I was just making a point that full-time graduate school isn't easy (as some people might think), and helps develops a good work ethic since you don't have a supervisor looking over your shoulder. In no way was I complaining because that doesn't change anything.

IRstuff,

I know that there are PhD engineers who don't do research. I'm sure that's not common. The ones that I talked to seemed happy. I'm not sure how much more they get paid above an MS, but it isn't so much that a company won't hire them.

 

[Twoballcane]

I agree with above. I do (and most on this board) what you have just mentioned and I only have my bachelors. What I have seen is that the PhD guys work on researching on ways to implement our technology into new fields. Once an idea is born, a team would be brought in to design and develop the new product while the PhD goes off on a new task. So with that said, you may be way over qualified for design and development work. You should have stopped at your masters if you wanted to do that type of work.

There is a big difference between academia experience Vs industry experience. In academia, your work will really affect you and how you will progress. If you fail, only you will receive a fail and not too much is lost from the university. In industry, your work will affect the company and how the company will progress. If we fail, the board and customers will loose faith and the company may loose business. You will have to understand that the manager is looking for how you have benefited a company on making more money for the company not on how you did things to benefit yourself.

“Many things that I do in graduate school are industry relevant such as FEA work, mechanical testing, failure analysis, and instrument operation/repair. Heck I've even did some NDT type work briefly. I work 100x harder in graduate school than I ever did in industry, and with no one looking over my shoulder telling me to work faster.”

All you have really showed was that you benefited by doing this to get your PhD, but you did not show how using these skills to make money for a company, two different experiences. If a hiring manager had to pick between a PhD with academia experience and a Masters who has industry experience, I’m sure he will pick the person with the masters with industry experience.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."

 

[KENAT]

I work in the nanotechnology field and a lot of folks around here have PHD's. A lot of them are more on the research side but they lead guy on my current development project is a PHD.

So, if it's in something relevant, it's highly valued round here, though more so in the more 'research' than 'design' roles.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[UconnMaterials]

Twoballcane,

The difference between academia and industry is that the nature of the work need not be useful in academia. Fortunately, Materials Engineering is very useful for industry. I'm developing surface-alloys for improved tribological properties, which will likely be a patent if everything goes right. How is that not useful? Also, a PhD student learns transferable skills, which would make him a very good engineer for a company.

In addition, the definitions of failure in graduate school and industry are different. However, a successful person will be able to succeed in either area if his mind is in the right place.

 

[KENAT]

Uconn, given that you appear to know all the answers, why did you ask the question?

The PHD folks tend to be weaker in some of the more 'practical'/applied aspects of things. I'm not gonna say it's universal and I'm trying not to be anti intellectual but it seems to be a bit of a trend.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[FeX32]

OP,
This is not a simple quantifiable question. You have to realize this is not a place to justify doing graduate work or not.


Fe

 

[UconnMaterials]

KENAT,

I don't pretend to know how the mind of a HR person works. My original question asks if work done as a graduate student counts as work experience if a PhD didn't want to go into research. In my case, I believe it should since I'm doing more industry relevant work rather than pure science. The techniques/skills I use in academia are the same as I would use in industry if I were a materials engineer.

I understand your sentiment towards PhDs. The notion that PhDs don't have practical knowledge is a stereotype, but I understand it. This may be true for theoretical physicists or computationalists, but to be a good experimentalist you need "practical skills".

 

[JStephen]

Way back when I was in school, I considered a PhD and was even on an NSF fellowship that would have funded most of it. However, as best I could tell, the main openings for PhD's in ME at that time were either in teaching or in the military. I didn't want to do either, so I got out of school and went on with life.

I'm sure experiences vary widely, but in my case, practically none of my master's work was directly useful for my employment. The main thing it accomplished was that a lot of material in the undergraduate programs, I knew real well instead of having a marginal grip on it.

There is an old saying that you you learn more and more about less and less until you become an expert and know everything about nothing. This is one of the problems with a PhD in general engineering work where it isn't required. You have a lot of very specific knowledge and experience and can easily wind up in a position where it is of little or no use.

How some of this plays out, for example, is that your employer won't ask, "Do you know anything about FEA?" They'll ask, "Do you have experience with the Acme FEA program?" And if you don't, it doesn't really matter what you did use or how much you know about it, because he's got a stack of resumes from guys that sat there and used it 8 hours a day for months on end. While you're developing surface alloys for improved tribological properties, your prospective employer will ask "So what do you know about cast iron?"

You're doing well to start looking now. You may in fact find high-tech openings that are just perfect for you, but don't be too surprised if that is not the case as well. You mentioned failure analysis; in connection with that, looking into consulting companies that do that kind of work. Look into getting your PE as soon as possible as well. Generally, you need 4 years experience, but you may be able to count some of your graduate work towards that- check your state rules and see.

 

[KENAT]

Practical skills of setting up a lab experiment or one off test rig etc. are somewhat different from practical skills of developing & documenting a production ready product that's possible to manufacture cost effectively etc.

That's what I mean when I mentioned being weaker in some of the more practical/applied aspects.

Now of course, with the right team of more applied engineers, drafters, technicians, project managers etc. around them this isn't an issue. They are freed up from the mundane stuff to do relatively blue sky's thinking, complex analysis etc.

However, given that you mention wanting to be more in development than research, it may be more of an issue for you.

Many govt or large company jobs allow you to substitute PHD for a few years of experience in the job description. Doesn't necessarily mean the person actually looking at the resumes that get through the HR filter actually want a PHD though.

As I tried to imply from my first post, hi tech industries are more likely to value a PHD from what I've seen.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[UconnMaterials]

JStephen,

Thanks for the input. I am considering getting my PE. Hopefully my graduate experience counts; my adviser who is also a PE thinks it should, but I have to check CT state regulations.

It's interesting though that employers want a specific type of knowledge. For instance consider FEA software, I know Ansys and Abaqus. Who is to say I couldn't learn Nastran/Patran in a timely fashion. One of the most important things I've ever learned in graduate school is how to learn on my own. I would hope that employers would want to challenge their employees to learn new things, but I guess that a separate issue.

 

[KENAT]

"I would hope that employers would want to challenge their employees to learn new things"

This is sometimes true for a proven current employee, or at least many play lip service to the idea at least.

However, especially in the current tight market, they'd probably rather hire someone with all the immediately required skills.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

EMPLOYERS WANT EMPLOYEES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. If you can demonstrate that the vast knowledge you've gotten in a cloister is relevant to a company's profit margin then they may be interested. The rest of this is just tripe. The statement

I would hope that employers would want to challenge their employees to learn new things

is the rankest kind of wishful thinking I've ever read. An employer will only encourage (or pay for) developing an additional skill if you can make a BUSINESS case for your improved knowledge helping his profitability. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. The very best employers will look at how a new skill will impact your ability to do next year's job (or the one in 10 years). Most will say "you don't need that on this project and you being gone from the project will hurt the schedule, no you can't go" and they would be right.


I once paid for two people to learn ARCView (3 weeks at the publisher's place) 6 months before they needed to start a big GIS project for me. When the project came around, one was doing GIS in another state (same company, different group) the other couldn't remember a damned thing they had learned. My "foresight" cost me dearly on that project. Never did it again.

David

 

[GregLocock]

In Australia, until recently, every year of higher ed above your BEng REDUCED your starting salary.

PhDs earned less than MEngs earned less than Bengs, which considering the disparity of starting ages was quite significant.

I vaguely remember that the line has flattened out now.

Rather than blathering on about how things should be, it might be worth thinking about why things are the way they are. Why don't most engineering industries value engineers who have been at uni for 8 years more than engineers who have been at uni for 4 years?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

Greg,
When an entry level engineer comes through the door the assumption is that he is going to be worse than worthless until he learns how to do his job, and that that learning period is going to: (1) be 2-3 years; and (2) suck up a bunch of the time of valuable engineers mentoring and training him. Then the further liability is that most of them will leave your company in 3-4 years (just about the the time they are starting to contribute so their net contribution is significantly negative).

If you throw MS's and PhD's into that mix it is even worse since the people with advanced degrees and no relevant experience are several times more likely to walk after 3-5 years than BS's are. An MS with over 7 years relevant experience is generally a useful contributor. A PhD with 10 years relevant experience is generally a useful contributor. People with advanced degrees but less relevant experience are generally marking time till they can profitably jump ship. None of this is true for everyone, generalizations never are universally applicable, but it is true often enough to be reflected in salary surveys.

David

 

[graybeach]

Uconn,
You could probably work in the power industry, especially once nuclear comes back full steam. You could do failure analysis, QA, testing, specification writing, etc. You kind of need a PhD to deal with all the different metals and processes we use.

Anyway you really need to stop being so defensive. The truth is that PhDs can be difficult to work with. The guy that sits next to me for example - he just refuses to be practical. He latches on to lofty ideals and won't listen to reason. Yes it's a stereotype, but he's the only PhD around here so we are all a bit prejudiced now. But you can certainly be a welcome exception to the rule. Be humble and realize that you have much to learn from more experienced engineers.

 

[FeX32]

gray,
There is a difference between stereotypes against someone that has a PhD and outright prejudices and negativity towards someone with a PhD.
It is not hard to see that a lot of the engineers without a PhD feel inferior in some form or another so they have to reduce them selves to this kind of negativity.
..... typical humans......


Fe

 

[FeX32]

What I said doesn't go for all engineers. There are some here that don't have this negativity.....


Fe