Candid Chemistry - 2014 Edition

Occasionally, readers will send me funny pictures that somehow capture the chemistry cultural zeitgeist. Here's some from the last few months:

At MIT, you can apparently chain your bike to a caffeine molecule!

Seen at UC-Berkeley: the ultimate chemical Doom tribute
(...to this guy)

Still frame from LeVar Burton's charity read of Go the #*&@ to Sleep
Does anyone recognize the (fake) elemental symbol poster? Geordi would never approve.

Attn, Chemjobber: from Austria, a promotional poster extolling the virtues of chemical employment!
(and a hip song to go with it!)

Heartfelt thanks to everyone who sent one in. Keep 'em coming!

(seearroh_AT_gmail)

An Observation

Looking back through ChemBark's and my own surveys for new chemistry faculty, I'm a bit gobsmacked.

Sunlight through leaves, 2014

Unless I'm miscounting, 86 faculty were hired in the general chemistry space over the past year, and 86 again for last season. Now, I'm willing to admit that we haven't caught everyone hired over the past 2 years; heck, I'm even willing to suggest that the actual figure might double.

So, let's say that, according to our bloggy survey, 172 new faculty start every year in Chemistry-themed fields. Is that a lot? No, not according to the 2012 NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates. This study claims that U.S. schools graduated 2,418 Chemistry doctorates. Of those, only about half knew what they were going to do after graduation - their "definite commitment."

According to some more NSF numbers, almost a third of all physical science students go on to careers in "Academe." Perhaps this category catches new professors, adjuncts, non-tenure-track, and postdocs alike? (Leigh did this analysis much better than I!). For chemistry, NSF heard only 113 definite commitments in 2012 for non-postdoctoral academic employment. Even if we (generously) assume that they're all professors, that's only 5%!

Sadly, this number jives well with what our bloggy "New Hires" survey* captures. I'm seeing 7%, which is still a far cry from the 20% Ethan Perlstein suggests for the life sciences, or the NSF's 26% for chemistry.

Compare that against the 800 or so folks (33%) reporting postdoc landing spots. Or the 712 (29%) reporting that they're "seeking employment or study."
I guess professorships truly are the new alternative career.

-----
*I'm fully willing to admit that NSF has statisticians, education specialists, and a tried-and-true method, whilst we have folks chiming in over the Internets. Still, I'd be typing a lot more if I'd've received 600 names instead of just under 100.

State of Scientific Hiring, 2014

The question I've been asked the most lately isn't "How's your family?" or "Did you have a nice Christmas?" Nor was it " How was your weekend?" or even the mundane "How's things?"

Nope. "How's the job search going?"

Well, truth be told, it's been a very busy few months. I've logged 1100 round-trip miles (1770 km) by car and train from Dec-Jan. I've spent a mint out-of-pocket (vide infra) and been privy to more "follow-up calls" than I can count.

Here are a few truths I've uncovered about the science job hunt along the way:

1. It's Going to Take Awhile: If you're a grad student thinking about looking for jobs in June, start now. I've noticed a significant lengthening between application submission and invitation to an on-site interview: in many cases, it's two or three months before they decide to stage your visit. If money's tight, you might have to line up a temporary gig (postdoc, consulting, Kelly Services) to fill in the gap time.

On a more sobering note: I began my job search on 11/10/2012, and accepted an offer on 1/24/2014. Those aren't typos. #chemjobs
— See Arr Oh (@SeeArrOh) January 25, 2014

Update: Chemjobber recommends this NYT Economix blog entry, showing the ever-increasing interview cycle.

2. Jumping Through Hoops: Know the hiring stages? Application, phone interview, on-site, decision, right? Wrong. For this cycle, my interview process has gone through more hands than ever before. Take this example from one recent campaign:

• Application [start clock]
• Initial email survey to gauge interest [+two weeks]
• Follow-up screening email, set phone interview [+one week]
• Phone interview #1 (HR) [+one week]
• Phone interview #2 (hiring manager) [+one week]
• Emails to arrange on-site [+one week]
• Full Day On-Site [+three weeks]
• Telephone debrief #1 [+one week]
• Followup emails [+two weeks]
• Telephone debrief #2 [+one week]
• Decision [+two weeks]

(If you're keeping score, that's 15 weeks from start to finish - nearly 4 months!)

3. Tweak that CV: With so many applicants for so few chemistry positions, companies screen your CV even more intensively. They're not just looking for keywords now; some recruiters have told me that certain phrases could hurt your chances. For instance, if your current job title (Senior? Lead? Fellow? Head?) doesn't translate over to the next organization, it may be best to transmute it to "Researcher" or "Chemist." This time around, I've found myself making almost as many curricula as cover letters - different professional "versions" of the same candidate!

4. Bankrolling: Have some cash squirreled away to meet expenses. Depending on the company's policy, you may receive a check up front, or it may take 4-6 weeks to return your investment. My average expenses in 2013 (mileage, meals, parking, flights, taxi, hotel, etc.) ran $168 per interview. Importantly, confirm with the recruiter that they will cover you; some companies (shockingly) do not cover interview expenses. 

5. Adventures in Dialogue: Nothing's sacred anymore, folks. Here's some bon mots I've been asked and told during this interview cycle:

• "You aren't going to tell me your current salary?"
• "How do you account for having so many jobs in such a short time?" (grad school, pdoc, job 1, job 2)
• "We were waiting to hear from the other candidate before we told you no."
• "We're worried that, if we offer you this position, you might leave for something better."

Best of Luck for Job-Searching in 2014,

See Arr Oh

Reconciliation

A few days ago, I made a sardonic comment on Twitter about the never-ending scientific job quest:

An odd thought: if major diseases aren't cured in my lifetime, it may be because my entire generation spent its time applying for jobs.
— See Arr Oh (@SeeArrOh) October 18, 2013

So, was I just being over-the-top? Let's do some math.

In the past 4 years, I've held 3 different jobs; I'm currently looking for Job #4.

Jobs Applied To, by cycle: 184, 43, 126 (so far!) = 353 jobs
@ 1 hour per job (discovery, cover letter, emails, recommendations, etc.) = 353 hours

Phone Interviews, by cycle: 13, 3, 10 (so far!) = 26 phone calls
(Just 15 minutes? In my experience, they last 45): 26 * 0.75 hour = 20 hours

On-Site Interviews, by cycle: 7, 2, 3 (so far!) = 12 on-sites
@ 8 hours per interview + avg. 4 hours travel = 144 hours

Miscellaneous: Job fairs, reformatting CV, career events, webinars, networking events, ACS meetings, cold-calls, personal development, continuing education = 100 hours

Grand Total: 617 hours spent on some aspect of job-hunting.

Let's put that number into perspective. 617 hours is 25.7 days. Not working days, mind you. Actual 24-hour days. Many U.S. companies start entry-level employees at 2 weeks' vacation, or 80 hours of earned time. That's 320 hours over 4 years.

I have spent nearly twice as long applying for jobs as I have taking vacation in the last 4 years.

(Bonus irony: Several of those vacation days were taken to attend on-site interviews.)

If we measure a "standard" industrial chemist working week at ~50 hours, then I've spent 12.3 working weeks looking for jobs. That's 3 weeks' time, annually.

How much science could you do with an extra 3 weeks? Or if you actually used your vacation to relax, as opposed to looking for work?

Final thought: I'll bet you good money that I'm underestimating the time I've spent searching.

Any leads? I'm willing to listen. Drop me a line, seearroh_AT_gmail

~ Still no new job. Resume radio silence ~

Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

Yesterday morning, I heard an NPR report that detailed more strife in a typically white-collar profession. Whose field do you suppose we're discussing?

"...schools routinely said that 90 percent or more of their graduates had jobs nine months after graduation. It turns out they were including barista positions, low-level marketing gigs, or just about anything else you could call a job." [Emphasis mine]

"At some schools, less than a third of their graduating class were obtaining long-term, full-time jobs" 

"A new study reveals that since 2009, the median starting salary...has fallen 35 percent." 

Any more of these posts, and I might
have to rename the blog!
Credit: Arrested Development

Give up? It's not chemists, it's lawyers (This story does seem to spring eternal, given earlier posts by Chemjobber and myself). The comparison's just too apt to pass up: young grads consider financial security, invest their time towards an advanced degree, and later awaken to an economy facing a glut of overeducated professionals.

To their credit, at least the American Bar Association (ABA) seems aware of the risk, and wants to inform newly-admitted legal students of the economic dangers. Their Nero, unlike ours, isn't fiddling while Rome burns. So, what lessons could Ph.D.-granting chemistry departments learn from the legal profession? 


Honesty - Brian Vastag's Washington Post article from two weeks ago really struck a chord, amassing nearly 3700 comments and prompting discussion up and down the blogosphere. Although it's a political talking point (STEM STEM STEM!), chemical graduate departments must take a page from the ABA and inform new recruits that the salad days of secure scientific employment have passed.

Transparency - As Janet Stemwedel recently mused: What does a chemistry Ph.D. get you? Are alternative careers really playing out? How are pharma salaries adjusting to the recession? Are stock options, benefits, or retirement plans really going away? Where will the jobs be in 10 years?

CJ's correct to call for career tracking; after all, we have the technology! Through a combination of email surveys, social network mining, digital IDs, online CVs, and employer reporting, we should be able to paint a more complete picture of the sci-employment landscape. Using data from past students, new grads could adequately prepare themselves, and younger students could better assess their decision to attend grad school.