Posts tagged as:

jobs

Picture 11Here’s another use of effective marketing on Twitter: someone called @AcademeJobs started following my tweets (@sabinehikel). I checked out theirs. There’s some good stuff there–not job postings, exactly, but links to articles on the politics of higher education. Then I clicked on the home page for this tweeter, and it turns out to be Academe Jobs, a site I’ve never heard of before (have you?). I’m not endorsing the site, but I am letting you know that it exists, because I know there is a segment of my readership that hasn’t yet given up on the academic job search. It appears as though there are listing for both the US and Canada, as well as for faculty, admin and “executive jobs” (what the heck is that in the context of a university?).

I have to say, though, that nothing I’ve ever seen in the world of academic job listings beats the nifty little Dual Career Search tool over at Inside Higher Ed. Sure, this doesn’t apply to everyone, but for those two-scholar households, this little search mechanism makes it a heck of a lot easier to find academic work in the same time zone for both of you.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled non-academic programming.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 0 comments }

The corner officeI’ve got a few things I want to draw to the attention of Leaving Academia readers, so it’s a link-roundup kinda Friday.

  • Canadians: are you aware that the federal government has re-opened their post-secondary recruitment campaign? Most job ads close October 8th, so you’ve got a week to whip your application together.
  • Thanks to @jovanevery’s introduction on Twitter, I’ve found out about the very busy Raul Pacheco-Vega (that’s @raulpacheco in Twitter-speak). I haven’t had a chance to talk much with Raul, but I thought you should know about him because he has managed to bridge the divide between scholarly research and consulting. And no, he’s not a computer guy. Water is his thing.
  • I’ve also been thinking about this piece over here at The Ladders which claims that “men have stronger professional networks than women.” This is based on research by two American sociologists who found that

“both men and women tend to build networks comprising people of their own gender — a process known scientifically as homophily and colloquially as “birds of a feather flock together.” But women tend to recognize the tendency and try to overcome it — building networks made up of about 50 percent men — while men’s networks included very few women, Torres said.

“According to Torres’ and Huffman’s theory of social networking: Because men hold 80 percent of the jobs in senior management (a figure that has been steadily declining), they are more likely to hear about job openings at the senior-management level. Men pass the news on to their mostly male social networks, and it is likely that news about the job opening reaches women only after it has reached and passed several men.”

And sociologist William Bielby adds:

“Women have tended to be better connected overall, but they and many of their female contacts tend to work in more female-dominated jobs,” Bielby said. “So their networks may be wider but not reach to as high a level as men’s, who tend to be better connected, particularly in getting professional news, to more high-status people.”

Hmmm. Something to think about when you’re cultivating your networks. The advice the article supplies in response to this problem?

“If women want to equal the effectiveness of male social networks, they need to emulate the men in those networks, said Torres. If male-dominated professional networks are passing jobs leads to other men before women, women should put themselves in the path of those leads, Bielby said. Women must add more men — especially high-status men — to their professional networks. Furthermore, they need to make their interests and competencies as clear as possible, he said.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 0 comments }

Moeraki Boulders by geoftherefIn an academic job search, the desirability of candidates is demarcated by certain categories understood by all. For example, the candidate who has published a scholarly book by the time she finishes her Ph.D. is ostensibly a stronger contender than applicants who have published book reviews in minor journals. The candidate who has proved she can draw in $1 million of external funding is going to be looked upon more favourably that she who wasn’t able to win any cash past her entrance scholarship. These indicators of scholarly achievement are clearly understood to be the standards by which hirings happen — though of course, what actually shakes down in a hiring committee is also subject to all kinds of human caprice, power struggles  and political jockeying.

In your non-academic job search, other, sometimes more elusive, criteria set the standard for your candidacy. Unlike academic achievements, which can be pointed to definitively as proof of your ability, non-academic employers are going to be looking for qualities that can’t be measured by a grades transcript or a list of publications. Sure, they’re going to need concrete qualifications like a university degree, or a knowledge of a certain software package, but they also need things like communication skills, writing skills, teamwork skills and multitasking. Fortunately, these are things the average Ph.D. has. Unfortunately, it’s up to you to demonstrate that effectively to potential employers.

One mistake that fresh-out-of-grad-school post-academics may make when entering the non-academic job market is to assume that your potential non-academic employer really gives a hoot about your Ph.D. Oh, sure, they care about your Ph.D. insofar as they care about someone who can set priorities, meet deadlines, work under pressure, exercise problem-solving skills, and so forth. But he or she may not actually know that getting a Ph.D. is actually proof of all of those abilities. So putting your degree proudly at the top of your cover letter and résumé, as though that alone were proof of your qualifications for the job, is not the way to go (for most sectors). But, I hasten to add, shamefully trying to tuck away the major accomplishment that is the Ph.D. is really no better.

A while back, I met with a client who told me that he felt as though his Ph.D. was a giant boulder he was trying to hide behind him. It was this huge liability, in his mind, that he couldn’t disguise. My response? I said that, from my point of view, there was no point in trying to hide having a Ph.D. Even if you wanted to, I can’t imagine how you would do that (short of actually lying on your résumé, which is SIN NUMBER ONE, in my books). Hiding a Ph.D. seems like a silly strategy when what you could actually do is leverage it.

My reply to this client was to tell him that we were going to take a big old pickaxe and smash it into that big boulder of a Ph.D. We’re going to break into its component pices and offer those pieces to potential employers. What are the pieces? Teaching, research, writing, to be sure, but everything else that I mentioned above, too: ability to juggle and set priorities, meet deadlines, work under pressure, and so on.

By foregrounding and offering employers the skills that they want, you are making it clear that you “get it” — you understand what they need. The Ph.D. (and all the activities you did while undertaking it) are proof of those skills. By using the Ph.D. as proof of those skills, you’re leveraging your degree — neither hiding it nor foregrounding it. Rather, you’re using it optimally to communicate your strengths as a candidate to your potential employer. And wow, it’s so much easier than hauling that big boulder around behind you.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 4 comments }

kid to do list by Carissa GoodNCrazy

We lucky Canadians have a national holiday on Monday, so my husband and I decided to make it an extra long weekend by taking Friday off, too. That means that, when you read this, I should be sitting in the sun in an undisclosed location, enjoying a gin and tonic. Actually, given that I usually set my posts to publish in the early morning, I’ll probably be stepping on Cheerios while chasing after my kid when this hits your inbox. Regardless, I just want to wish all the Canucks a happy long weekend, and to let everyone know I’ll be back to my bloggy goodness–not to mention my email accounts–on Tuesday.

I’ve spent the last two months working with clients who are on the post-academic job hunt, and I’ve learned a few things along the way about what people find the most troubling and confusing about the process. In the best tradition of Glamour magazine, I’m going to present a do and don’t list summarizing some real golden nuggest of wisdom.

DO contact someone inside the organization if you’ve got questions. Sometimes that might be the hiring manager, sometimes in might be HR. One of my intrepid clients found someone inside the organization who would be her peer, someone who had the same job title that she was applying for. She asked a few questions about the job, and got back a really fantastic, informative, helpful reply. Not only did she glean some clues for how she should position herself in her application, not only did she demonstrate initiative to her potential employer, she got her name front and centre with someone who, it so happens, is on the hiring committee.

DON’T underestimate your past experience. I’ve had clients casually mention accomplishments in passing that hadn’t appeared on their CVs because they felt like ancient history (i.e. before the MA) and weren’t relevant to their academic work. Sometimes that stuff ends up quite fruitfully on the résumé. Any kind of volunteering, internship or leadership roles you’ve had can be useful woven into a résumé or cover letter, providing proof of the strength of your skills.

DO demonstrate enthusiasm. Employers want to bring people on board who will have energy. They want people who can get excited about the work they do and that the company/foundation/organization does. Excitement does not equal a lack of professionalism. Excitement equals commitment, drive and teamwork. Can you answer the question, “Why do you want this job?” with enthusiasm? If so, your future employer is gonna like that a lot.

DON’T be afraid to mine language and information for all different parts of your life. Clients have sent me grant applications, various cover letters, CVs, old résumés, some publications, lists of likes and dislikes–things that we wouldn’t use directly in their applications, but that give me a sense of their skills and that they can use as proof of their skills.

DO be yourself. Let your freak flag fly. If you act like someone you’re not, you’re going to be in a real pickle if you actually land the job. But more to the point, what you might perceive as a weakness or liability can actually be an asset. For some of you, you might feel like your Ph.D. is a liability. I had one client who had a hidden disability, one that she could hide very, very well. But instead of doing that, she was open about this disability, thereby demonstrating how her knowledge of and experience with disability issues actually makes her a strong candidate for the job.

DON’T confuse a CV with a résumé. They are two totally different docs. A CV is a list of all your accomplishments in one part of your life. It is read by people who have those same accomplishments, too. A résumé is an argument. It is a carefully crafted argument for why you are the best person for that job, with proof indicating why you are exactly what the employer needs. The company needs someone with  good communication skills? You’ve got good communication skills! And you can prove it, too!

What have you learned along the way about the job application process?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 0 comments }

Save Sesssional JobsOh, man. You know things are bad when you’re advocating for the shitty jobs that you ordinarily complain about. I’ve been getting notes from CUPE local 3913 in my inbox about this:

Enrolment at the University of Guelph is up, provincial funding is up but the administration plans to cut more than 100 sessional lecturer positions. Fewer sessional instructors means:

bigger class sizes
less time for individual students.

University of Guelph sessionals have won the undergraduate student association’s teaching excellence award five times in the past decade. Students value the experience and personal support sessionals provide. Sessionals are hired on four-month contracts and must apply for their jobs each semester. The university using the economic downturn as an excuse to target workers already in precarious positions.

Fore more info, go to the CUPE local’s site.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 2 comments }

Briefcase Cake by DahliascakesBy now, my philosophy of career search/job hunting is probably starting to become pretty clear on this blog: I’m all about doing what you’re interested in and passionate about, not restricting yourself to lines of work that are dictated by the confines of your scholarly discipline. That’s why I haven’t spent a lot of time writing about companies that hire Ph.D.s. To me, most medium-to-large companies and organizations probably have a whole host of MAs and PhDs running around, simply because those people were drawn to that work, and happened to have some solid skills to make them a good fit.

But I do want to draw your attention to McKinsey & Company, a global consulting company. McKinsey doesn’t just hire MBAs; in fact, according to their website, 22% of their workforce are PhDs and MDs. They actually make a point of hiring people from a broad range of backgrounds. Yes, your PhD is an asset here.

I mentioned McKinsey to a client last week, and she drew my attention this super handy little section of their website: videos that actually spell out for you how to do well in an interview with McKinsey. How cool is that? And there’s a bit of humour in there, too–I think around the 2-minute mark in the “Experience interview” video, a PhD (or HR person playing one) starts talking about his grant application as proof of his leadership skills and…let’s just say there are some lessons in there!

And as per my previous post, McKinsey also has flexible work arrangements for good performers. (Though I do believe they also have a reputation for their people working incredibly long hours, so maybe the flexi stuff happens after you’ve established yourself. I’m not sure).

I do not know how McKinsey has fared in the global economic meltdown. But I do believe this little paragraph (by subscription) I read over at The Ladders last week:

When companies tell you they aren’t hiring because of the recession, don’t believe them. What they mean to say is that during a recession they are very, very discerning about who they hire and who they keep on their team. However, every company is always hiring as long as they believe they are getting an amazingly talented person who fits well within their culture.

Is management consulting you would consider doing?  If you’ve watched the McKinsey vids, what did you think?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 6 comments }

Colour Your Life by Capture QueenOne thing that’s been obvious to me since I started this project was how much the academics I’m in touch with having a longing to be relevant and useful in the world. So many of us have gone into higher education because we thought the world needed more great ideas, or because teaching was a way of creating social change, or because we ourselves wanted to understand the world’s problems better before trying to tackle them.

But when the realities of academic life sink in–that there is little time for activism when funding proposals need to be written, little time to engage students meaningfully when you’re limited to 50 minutes a week of dull curriculum–ambitions to change the world get thwarted. But that longing to make a social contribution doesn’t go away. It just gets buried.

For those who do dream of/think about/consider leaving academia, it’s often that call to be useful in the world that leads the way. Working in isolation on research papers that no one will read is the antithesis, for many, of making a social contribution. As a result, I hear from clients and blog readers who are looking for the right kind of work where they can make an impact (right now, actually, I’m working with two different U.S. clients who are applying for really cool sounding jobs that are precisely in the field of knowledge mobilization, even though that phrase isn’t explicitly used in the job ads).

Some people look to the government (local, provincial/state, federal) to do that kind of work. Others look to think tanks. Some try entrepreneurship. And there are gobs of grassroots nonprofits and highflying NGOs, too. (NB: If you’re Canadian and are interested in this kind of work, check out CharityVillage.com. If you’re American, try out Idealist.org. And if you’re not from North America, please let me know of any resources that serve as clearinghouses for jobs available in the non-profit sector).

Lately, I’ve been hearing more and more about two really interesting areas for people who want to have and make an impact. One is “social innovation” or “social entrepreneurship.” The other is “knowledge mobilization.” Here in Toronto, we have something called the Centre for Social Innovation, an incredible (and incredibly beautiful) shared workspace for over 180 different organizations, each of them committed to creating positive social change. We’re not talking about armchair activists, here–we’re talking about organizations like Bikes Without Borders, the Pembina Institute, and the David Suzuki Foundation. These are the people who put their money where their mouth is and make change happen. They are, in the parlance I am only now learning, change agents.

Social entrepreneurs, I have also learned, are entrepreneurs who are interested in makign a profit, sure–but doing so through social innovation. Their work lies not only in making money, but in creating value like trust, connections, community, capacity-building, and so forth. The first time I’d heard the phrase social entrepreneur was from someone I met at Congress who runs this company.

This brings me to this thing called knowledge mobilization. The more people I talk to about this, the more I learn that either you work in a sector where knowledge mobilization (or knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, and apparently endless variations on the same) is a given, or you’ve never heard of this crazy thing. When I was at Congress, though, and heard knowledge mobilization defined as “making what we know ready for service or action to build value,” my ears pricked up. How appealing this would be, I thought, to so many of the academics I’m in touch with who have a longing to take their knowledge and research and make it meaningful and useful to the world.

Social innovation and knowledge mobilization are fields that need people who understand the ins and outs of research, but who are interested in applying it to the world. And that might be you. There is so much research that has already been done that could make a difference–but instead, it sits in journals, not being, well, mobilized. Maybe you are someone who could work with others to bring that research to life.

Now, if you’re getting excited about this as a possible career trajectory for yourself, that’s awesome. But I’m going to link to kind of a downer of an article about social entrepreneurship. The only reason why I’m doing that, though, is because although the piece complains that a lot of people are excluded from the “social entrepreneurship club” (and that includes people who don’t have M.B.A.s), the piece (and the comments section) includes a litany of organizations who do this kind of work. It could be a starting place for those who are interested in researching the people and places who have the money to create social change (and perhaps some organizations to avoid). And seriously, in my world, not having an M.B.A. means nothing. With the right networking, the right resume and an endless source of persistence, a Ph.D. can absolutely be leveraged where you’d assume an M.B.A. would be preferred. M’kay? The link to the piece is here.

Have you thought about the path of social innovation? What kinds of foundations or organizations have you researched that appeal to your social justice instincts? Would you ever consider social entrepreneurship for yourself?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 1 comment }

Oh, good lord. I spent the last three days at Congress 2009 (the annual Canadian academic love-in) doing interviews, attending sessions on non-academic careers and meeting an array of really interesting people. I’ve also been vexed by problems with the wireless connection (so much for my live blogging idea), so between the schmoozing, the traipsing across Carleton’s campus and internet problems, I have not been able to get on Leaving Academia and keep you apprised of all the great stuff I’ve been learning. I’m heading back to Toronto today, though, so regular daily posts will resume next week. I’ve got lots and lots of information to share with you about what I learned at Congress (not to mention finishing off my transferable skills series), so be sure to come back next week (or make it even easier on yourself by clicking on the subscribe button up there in the right hand corner, to make sure you’re informed of each new post that goes up).

What I’ve got for you today is my first summary from a session I attended at Congress on Wednesday at the “Career Corner” (which I really want to type out as “Kareer Korner,” for some reason). I wasn’t able to live blog the session, but even though this material is now two days old, it’s still tasty fresh. The talk was with David Ainsworth, who works in the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity for the United Nations. David gave a really great overview of the work he does, how he got in to the UN, and suggestions for MAs and PhDs to get into the UN system. Obviously his talk was addressed at a room full of Canadians, so keep that in mind while you’re reading my summary post here.

Working for the UN can involve a vast array of work, ranging from high-level policy articulation to working on the ground doing international aid. There are a number of different UN agencies that have different mandates. The UN website has descriptions of different jobs. David explained the job classification system:

•    internships
•    short-term contracts and consultancies (contracts usually last a year and don’t pay a lot but are a good way to make contacts usually last a year; consultancies mean being hired for specific skills you have like writing a document; these are short, specialized and lucrative)
•    general service staff (aka locally recruited staff. These are people who do everything from clerical to backup work. They are permanent jobs located in UN member nations, good for someone with an MA, but because there’s a career ceiling, it’s not ideal for someone with a PhD)
•    professional staff (PhD or professional degree is required. These are well-paying permanent or limited-term jobs that are internationally recruited. You get involved in program management)
•    management staff (director-level and above; these are political appointments)

David argued that the subject of your dissertation is important to getting into the UN because your dissertation is your expertise and your calling card. It’s evidence of your link into the UN system. He suggested that if your goal is to work in a UN agency, then think about designing your research and thesis on a topic that is of relevance to particular agency. Do a bit of advance research to make sure that the topic you’re selecting is of relevance to the UN organization you want to work for, and then craft your thesis deliberately. But David also acknowledged that not all grad students are going to want to write a document to fit someone else’s work. You just need to ask yourself: are you doing a PhD to get a job, or is the research itself your passion? Make your decision about how instrumental you want to be based on that.

David emphasized that part of the reason why he found this job was because he was in the right place at the right time—and this has to do with networking. He kept his ear to the ground, listening for opportunities. He had had a contact who worked at the CBD who, years later, called him about working for them. Networking, then, made the difference for him. But David emphasized that networking means more than just collecting business cards. He defined it as the ability to talk about yourself and what you want. You need an elevator pitch that, in just a few sentences, explains what you do and what you’re interested in. This is a presentation skill, which you learn to cultivate in grad school.

To get a UN job, David advised, you’ve got to know somebody. Get to know people who work in the agencies, people who can tell you what’s going on and what the skill needs are. Interview processes are formal but the informal connections make a difference. If someone knows you or knows of your work, it helps to get your foot in the door, but it also helps you perform better in an interview. One way of meeting people is to attend their conferences.

Getting an internship is another way to make those connections and get experience. Internships, though, are hard to come by. Instead, you can find organizations that work with a UN agency and get an internship with them.

You can contact program officers by email, followed up by a phone call. But before you make contact, do your research on the organization. And try to meet people at conferences. Another way of finding people to talk to would be finding contacts for the various UN agencies within your own country. For example, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO can be your first contact into getting into UNESCO.

There is, in some instances, a way of getting into the UN through a process where you write an exam and you become a part of a pool of applicants. The problem is that this process is organized at the national level, and Canada doesn’t do this every year. Moreover, some parts of the UN don’t accept people through this process—including the CBD, where David works.

David emphasized how important it was to have a strategy. Just applying for jobs on the UN website will not be very efficient. It takes a lot of time to fill out the forms (they want your work experience dating back to when you were merely a speck in your mother’s eye). Without meeting people first, doing the online application may not be the best use of your time. You can look at the site to see what jobs are there as a part of your research.

There are a few other minimum requirements, like having experience working abroad and knowing at least two UN languages (the more the better). You also need to make sure your CV is put together—and not an academic CV, but one crafted for your non-academic professional life.

How do you go about crafting one of those? I attended a session by Carolyn Steele on the topic of CVs and resume, and I’ll post my notes from that session for you on Monday.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 2 comments }

Career advice by quinn.anyaNow that I’ve started cruising the Leaving Academe forum over at the Chronicle of Higher Education on a regular basis (it’s kinda become an essential part of keeping this blog relevant to readers), I’m reminded all over again why I started Leaving Academia in the first place. Back in 2006, when I was struggling with what direction to take for my career path, I used to haunt those forums, trying to get information that resonated with me.

As you may know, there is an oft-repeated question at the forum, one that just takes many variations on, “I have a X degree in discipline Y. What kind of jobs does that qualify me for?”

And I always felt really surprised that the answers were so narrow, and sometimes nasty. People with English or literary backgrounds were advised to pursue writing, editing or going back to school to study library sciences; people in poli sci were advised to go the government or NGO route.

At the time, I always felt really suspicious of this kind of feedback because it seemed an awfully narrow view of the kinds of skills we cultivate as academics. And yet, I didn’t have any information to back up my feeling that grad students can and do end up in a wild array of fields, and that, moreover, lots of people in any given field don’t have specific training in that field. Well, now I’ve got that information, as a result of my interviews, and I’m pleased to say that I was right!

Have you ever been at a party and met someone who had a cool job? Did you ask them how they got that job? There’s a good chance that the person had a long and winding story about how they landed there.

Take television, for example. A lot of people who work in TV (in front of the camera, behind the camera, on the technical side, in post-production, etc.) have never set foot in a community college or other TV-related training program. They come from all over–including academia. So far, I’ve interviewed an English Ph.D. who ended up as an executive in charge of television drama for a major Canadian broadcaster because of the work he did researching for a research-heavy TV network after his Ph.D.. I’ve also met an ABD TV producer who works on reality shows and loves it. One of my first podcasts was with Polly Washburn, who quit her linguistics Ph.D. after a year, worked for a while as a TV producer and is currently in the midst of shooting her first feature film. And I recently interviewed an English Ph.D. who ended up in television sales (you’ll meet her in an upcoming podcast).

In other words, it’s not just non-academics who end up changing careers 2, 3, or 10 times in their lifetimes. Former scholars do it, too. So why do people continually receive and dispense advice that suggests that the only thing you can do with your career has to somehow directly relate to the topic you studied in school? That’s complete hogwash.

Most of the former academics I’ve met and interviewed apply their doctoral experience in many ways except in relation to the actual topic of study. Instead, they apply their teaching experience to do public speaking, coaching or personal training; they apply their writing experience to producing reports, blogging, or writing marketing materials; they apply their time-management skills, their ability to show up, and their perseverance to a whole host of job tasks.

A really great example of this is a resource I found recently at the American Psychological Association’s website. The Non-Academic Careers for Scientific Psychologists page may not sound too enticing for those of us who didn’t study psychology, but it’s a very telling resource. It features a series of articles with Ph.D.s who have found non-academic careers, and just their job titles will tell you that, in many cases, their psychology background was not the main asset that brought them into their new careers. You can read about psychologists who became an acquisitions editor, research director for a non-profit, medical error consultant, science writer, technology consultant, public sector analyst, highway safety research analyst, international market research consultant, university provost, human resources researcher, and so on.

Take heart, potential school leavers: the job market is in no way limited by what you studied in school. So let’s stop spreading that myth.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

{ 5 comments }