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

 

[KENAT]

The PHD I mentioned earlier, that is the lead on my current project, is a very good guy and a good engineer.

Still a bit week on the documentation side - and I don't just mean his drawing skills - and transition to production aspects but no worse than some around here who I don't think have PHD's.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[JStephen]

Don't confuse how the world should be with how the world is. And contrary to the opinion above, don't assume that businesses always carry out policies that make good business sense. Quite the opposite in a lot of cases, hence Enron and similar fiascos. Dilbert is not that far off in many cases.

Back a number of years ago, I interviewed with a company in Colorado Springs. There were two aerospace companies there. Each was looking for employees with experience in their particular specialty. And of course, the only place to get them was the other company across town. And neither company was willing to spend one nickel to bring anyone new into the industry. So they were complaining to Congress about the lack of qualified workers, but weren't willing to do anything to change it, either. Now, that doesn't make good business sense, but that kind of stuff goes on.

 

[graybeach]

Fe,
Not inferior - just humble. What we engineers do can be so complicated, we should always be open to the possibility that we may have made a mistake. Very sorry for generalizing.

 

[FeX32]

Don't be sorry. I didn't mean it in an offensive manner.
I failed to mention that it goes both ways. I know personally some uni. profs. that are quite the opposite. They think that they rule the universe with some kind of godly power. lol.

Generally, I think that no matter what background we have, we should learn to work together utilizing each others strengths without prejudices.
Unfortunately, this is not really the way the world works as others kind-of pointed out.



Fe

 

[metengr]

UconnMaterials;

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.

This is probably a correct viewpoint. Not necessarily directly applicable to your specific situation, when I was in graduate school full time for my MS in Met Engineering, I felt that I could work any job. When I started in the Power Generation business many years ago after the first week on the job I realized how much I didn’t know. However, I do credit my advanced degree with enabling me to think and work independently as I had to do my own research for my MS thesis.

He said I was slightly above entry level.

Probably true for most engineering jobs. Where you gain the edge is the ability to learn quickly, and future opportunities after you gain valuable OJT with an advanced degree.

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.

You want me to play the violin for you?

Aren't the transferable skills that are learned in graduate school important?

Yes.

 

[TheTick]

Recruiters are generally not well informed about such things. I wouldn't count on his opinion. It's not like he aso has a PhD, or even an engineering degree. For that matter, half the time recruiters are working from job descriptions published by an HR department that is equally clueless. Double whammy!

Unfortunately, it also means his (and others') ignorance may be a barrier. You will need to cultivate relationships with individual recruiters and take the time to for them to get to know you and your skills. If you can, find recruiters that are working with hiring managers, not just HR departments.

 

[materialsliz]

Consider working for IBM; they love PhD's (my fiancee works there). They don't just do research, there is much development as well.

 

[zdas04]

JSteven,
I guess your "contrary to the opinion above" was directed at me. I gotta say that any company that doesn't ask "how does this expenditure contribute to profitiblity?" doesn't stand much chance to stay profitable. I guess it is really easy to shout "Enron" "Dilbert", but the truth is a lot more complex. I absolutely stand behind the comment that "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

.

David

 

[moltenmetal]

Education is never a waste. But it certainly CAN be a poor economic investment.

I can't imagine spending two or more years in school and finding absolutely nothing in that time to be relevant to what one does later in life. To a life-long learner, every experience offers "transferrable skills", even if those are limited to "don't do that again!". But that is VERY different than saying that your education was essential to getting a particular job, or to obtaining higher than average compensation for a particular job.

We view a PhD as a risk factor more than a benefit when it shows up on a candidate's resume. In terms of pay for a fresh PhD grad, we'd give half credit for years spent in grad school since Bachelors grad versus years spent doing relevant work in industry. Our review of the industry stats tell us that we're not far off the mark in that assessment. I guess that tells you which we value more.

If you can find that narrow field to which your PhD work directly applies, you may achieve a very high level of success, compensation and satisfaction in that field. But narrowly-focused people have to be very willing to move from place to place and indeed even from nation to nation to find work.

 

[UconnMaterials]

moltenmetal,

Why would a PhD be a risk factor? I can understand the attitude that PhDs are more likely to jump ship if they are in a role they are deemed overqualified for. However, isn't this a trend for young engineers even with a BS or MS? It is quite common that young engineers only to stay at their jobs for 2-3 years (or less) before leaving. Many factors influence whether an employee leaves a job not just education. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is whether they have a family or not. Employees with families are more likely to stay with a company.

At this time, I'm not only looking for a position that is related to my dissertation. I'm using ion beams to alloy Fe-based surfaces (and the near-surface region). This is an expensive technology so jobs in this area a few except in the semiconductor industry. At any rate, most PhDs that I talked to in industry are doing work unrelated to their dissertation. My adviser (who was also in industry) says that is common.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

If you don't want to work in research, consider failure analysis in a high tech field.

In my experience, a large percentage of people in FA in the semiconductor or photovoltaics industry has a PhD.

Of course, semiconductor, photovoltaics, or other high tech industries have a larger percentage of PhD in most departments. I work with a thin film solar company that has ~50% PhDs in their process development group as well.

 

[IRstuff]

It would be highly unlikely to:
> find a job that fits anyone's dissertation
> find someone that is still doing the same thing he started doing 10 years earlier.

The only jobs like that are academic, for the most part.

The reason PhDs are a risk, as are any other highly specialized discipline is precisely because of the specialization. We have had problems retaining good servo system designers, and other disciplines, because we do maybe one new servo design every 2-3 yrs. The rest of the time is spent rehashing old designs or helping production with production problems. A new BS is cheaper to start with, so his replacement cost is lower, and there is less invested intellectual property as well, both in terms of what the new engineer is working on, and what he takes away.

A PhD comes with a cache of intellectual property and would not be hired unless there were some critical need for his expertise. That means that when he leaves, he takes the large chunk of IP that he brought with him, and he'd leave a big hole in whatever project he was working on.

I'm puzzled as to why this thread has gone on so long with the same "I want credit for my academic years" responded with "You're probably not going to get any" theme.

It is what it is, and it's time to get over it and move on. Complaining to us is not going to help.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[UconnMaterials]

IRStuff,

I'm not complaining. My original question was why some companies may disregard graduate school experience when looking to hire an engineer. In my view, it doesn't make sense because the materials engineering stuff I do in academia is similar to what I would be doing in industry.

 

[KENAT]

How do you know what you would be doing in Industry until you get hired?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[jpankask]

As a new engineer at my company a BS degree would start at Engineer I, MS degree could start at engineer II (equivalent to 2 years experience), PhD degree could start at Engineer III (equivalent to 4 years experience).

 

[moltenmetal]

UConnMaterials: whereas a young engineer with a bachelors may be a "flight risk", depending on how you treat them, a young PhD hired for a job for which fresh grad bachelors candidates are also being considered is at least a flight risk SQUARED. This risk is quite understandable and arises from a fundamental mis-match between the expectations of the employee and the firm in terms of their value to the company and the level of responsibility and compensation they deserve. As strange as it seems, it IS possible to be over-qualified for a job, especially in a smaller firm which has limited opportunities for internal mobility.

Aside from the obvious flight risk, we've had other bad luck with PhDs at our firm, including a tendency toward analysis-paralysis (the inability to accomplish anything because they're not finished studying it yet), and a poorer response to mentorship and direction.

Obviously these are normative tendencies and do not apply to every single person who has a PhD. We don't throw the PhDs' resumes in the trash automatically- we interview and make our own assessment.

 

[UconnMaterials]

moltenmetal,

"analysis-paralysis" I have to remember that.

 

[FeX32]

"analysis-paralysis" LMAO! This is obligatory behavior in research...."if you don't know everything about something then you are leaving room for the unknown".
Anyone with a research oriented degree knows this!
Maybe hiring overqualified engineers for a job that any 'C' student (which knows almost nothing) can do... should be reconsidered.
This may lead to less tendency towards inferiority complex....to engineers that have higher degrees. This should not be the case, but will always be.

Remember that if it were not for pure research engineers (ie. PhD's) we would not progress at all with technological advancements and you CAD designer would draw bugs bunny at work.......
Accept it or not, it is true.


Fe

 

[KENAT]

Remember that if it were not for pure research engineers (ie. PhD's) we would not progress at all with technological advancements and you CAD designer would draw bugs bunny at work.......
Accept it or not, it is true.

Or, alternatively, we could call that type of thinking for the rank arrogant pretentious Bull $hit it clearly is.

Just thinking of my options here.

Then again, I guess I'm one of those C students who knows nothing and should be doodling WB cartoon rabbits.

We have some smart PHD's around here. We also have some very smart folks without PHD's who are on a par with them. The PHD's sometimes come and ask me questions about my area of "expertize", probably more often than I ask them questions about theirs. I don't think this makes me smarter than them. Just indicates to me it takes a mix of talents, education, skilss etc. to get it done.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[FeX32]

hmm. I wans't attacking you KENAT. And I clearly states that "This should not be the case, but will always be. "

The end 'par none' is that fact that those 'with' will be arrogant towards those 'without'...and those 'without' will be equally arrogant towards those 'with'.

I know it's sad. But few accept this.


Fe