Finding a Math Job: Preparing Before Graduation

[homeomorphic]

There is a very famous saying: "Nothing happens until something gets sold." In business, everything is about sales, and marketing is first and foremost about selling ideas, not products. Deciding you want to be in the business world and not being interested in sales is like wanting to play baseball but not being interested in the little white ball.

The very first idea you have to sell is that it's better for Company XYZ to have you in a nice, air-conditioned office than in a hot warehouse moving boxes from one part to another - or working for another company entirely.

I didn't say NO sales ability, I said less than stellar.

I'll give you your first lesson in sales now. In all probability, the person that decides whether to hire you or not probably has a "non-mathematical mind". If you dial back the contempt a few notches, you will go farther.

There's really not any contempt, you just put it there. I was merely stating it's hard for me to fathom, which is just a cold, hard fact. Plus, I'm not sure I'll be talking to the person who hires me about math. I mean, I think non-mathematical minds are not that different when the subject is not math, which is obviously the context in which I have trouble understanding them.

 

[homeomorphic]

What is happening now is a special case of a more general phenomenon that you will encounter when you do get an interview. That phenomenon is as follows. At some point the interviewer will ask you something like "What are you looking for in a job?" If your answer contains phrases like "I'm looking for a job that doesn't involve doing X," then regardless of what X is, the interviewer will say "Well, actually, in this job, we do have to do X."

This assumes I am willing to take a job involving X. It's more a question of not too much of X, for most things. If it involves too much of X, it may very well be the case that it wouldn't even be a good idea for me to take the job. Of course, it is better to be a position where I get to decide, rather than them. However, I might not find out that it involves too much X until it is too late. So, it's probably better to not mention it, but I don't think that's completely one-sided, either. As I said, I'm willing to put a spin on my answers, but not to lie, even if it's a white lie. Maybe half-lie at most.

 

[eigenperson]

Plus, I'm not sure I'll be talking to the person who hires me about math.

Actually, I would suggest that you come up with brief descriptions of what kind of research you did that are suitable for job interviews, because people will ask. When they do, that gives you the opportunity to impress them with the fact that you can distill 4 years or more of advanced mathematical research into a 30-second-or-less sound bite that they can understand.

Of course, this is easy for me to say as a combinatorialist -- I could describe whatever problem I'm working on at the moment to the person in the next seat on the plane if I had to. You will have to work a bit harder, so prepare your blurb in advance. Remember, they're not really asking you to tell them what your thesis, specifically, was about, but rather to give them a flavor of what a topologist does all day, so if you have to tell them someone else's problem, or even a problem that was solved 100 years ago, that's fine. Heck, if you want, tell them about the Euler characteristic, or donuts and coffee cups. Just be sure to preface it with "Here's an example of the kind of thing I worked on" so you aren't lying.

 

[TMFKAN64]

In my long career in engineering, I think there are two important lessons that it took me a very long time to learn:
1) Sales and marketing rule the world. Those guys make the money, but as an engineer, you just spend it. You are necessary, but so are the janitors.
2) The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

 

[homeomorphic]

The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

Difficult isn't really the right word for me. Anyone who knows me would seriously probably be on the floor laughing about me being considered difficult. There are certain ways in which I can be difficult, but on the whole, no. Maybe not outgoing, not personable, and a little stubborn on the odd occasion, but not difficult.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Maybe not outgoing, not personable, and a little stubborn on the odd occasion, but not difficult.

Don't underestimate the importance of outgoing and personable though. These also win over "brilliant".

You have to fit into the group. No one wants to hire a square peg, brilliant or otherwise, if you need to fill a round hole.

 

[homeomorphic]

Don't underestimate the importance of outgoing and personable though. These also win over "brilliant".

You have to fit into the group. No one wants to hire a square peg, brilliant or otherwise, if you need to fill a round hole.

Absolutely. That's one of the challenges I face. I'm working on it, but at the end of the day, if I can only improve so much because it's just not my strong suit, I just have to make the best of what I have. I got close to being suicidal about it as a teenager because I foresaw all the difficulties that were ahead, which actually did come true to a large extent, but what I learned back then is that I just have to do what I can, but if I can only do so much, I just can't let it get to me. I have to say look at all the bad stuff that happens and say, "so what?"

Not be complacent, but never the less try to be happy with whatever happens because some challenges might just be too hard for me, even if I try my best. My thesis was so traumatic it made me lose my grip on that, but I think I'm getting it back.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In my long career in engineering, I think there are two important lessons that it took me a very long time to learn:
1) Sales and marketing rule the world. Those guys make the money, but as an engineer, you just spend it. You are necessary, but so are the janitors.
2) The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

As far as point (1) is concerned, this may be true in engineering but in the pharma/biotech industry where I've worked in, professional sales/marketing people were the very first people to end up being laid off whenever there was any form of corporate restructuring.

Agree completely with point (2) in virtually any industry.

 

[Lavabug]

In my long career in engineering, I think there are two important lessons that it took me a very long time to learn:
1) Sales and marketing rule the world. Those guys make the money, but as an engineer, you just spend it. You are necessary, but so are the janitors.
2) The best person for the job is a much different thing than the best person technically. "Good enough, and easy to work with" will get the job over "Brilliant, but difficult" every single time.

My brother is an engineer at a big teleco company. He hires people and agrees with this statement, but he also says that the 'easiest' person to hire (ie the people who pass the silly behavioral questions with flying colors) is not necessarily the best one for the company, especially when they lack technical expertise. He says there are at least a dozen people in his dept. costing the company a ton of money while being less productive than the lowest of the entry levels.

So the value system for hiring based mostly on 'people skills' and 'politics' at his job is inherently flawed and not something good for business in the long run. I presume this problem plagues most of the private sector and is the main reason PhD's have such a hard time transitioning into industry.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's really not any contempt, you just put it there.

OK, but why did I put it there? And why do you think the person who makes the hiring decision won't put it there either? You were the one who said their minds worked bizarrely, not me. Right?

 

[homeomorphic]

OK, but why did I put it there?

I admit it's not a far-fetched interpretation, but neither is it a correct one. I guess you have to anticipate people making assumptions.

And why do you think the person who makes the hiring decision won't put it there either?

Why would I be saying that to the person who makes the hiring decision? Some issue like this could come up. But I can't predict every little assumption everyone is going to make. Sometimes, I'm going to have to live with being misjudged.

You were the one who said their minds worked bizarrely, not me. Right?

So what? I was just trying to convey the idea that it's hard for me to understand how they work. I am not judging them for that. That's what you put there. I'm normally very patient and understanding with my students, although sometimes I come across someone who takes me out of my comfort zone that I have built up in their lack of math skills, and I can't help but be a little shocked. Even then, I keep my shock to myself, and it's not like I don't like them because of it.

 

[tyjae]

My brother is an engineer at a big teleco company. He hires people and agrees with this statement, but he also says that the 'easiest' person to hire (ie the people who pass the silly behavioral questions with flying colors) is not necessarily the best one for the company, especially when they lack technical expertise. He says there are at least a dozen people in his dept. costing the company a ton of money while being less productive than the lowest of the entry levels.

So the value system for hiring based mostly on 'people skills' and 'politics' at his job is inherently flawed and not something good for business in the long run. I presume this problem plagues most of the private sector and is the main reason PhD's have such a hard time transitioning into industry.

TMFKAN64 is right on for the most part but i disagree with your assessment that "behavioral" interviews produce less effective employees . As an engineer you have to step back and have faith that "Marketing" guys know more about making money than you. The behavioral interviews are VERY necessary IMO as they access your approach to solving problems and not your technical abilities. What makes you think a PHD proves you will be productive? if any thing it proves you would be less. Private sector views academia as slow and ineffective. The private sector wants results not PHDs. As far as "People Skills" and "Politics" its very simple it makes MONEY period point blank end of discussion.

I'm in Manufacturing field if i can form bonds with cable splicers,linemen, or engineers at the utilities companies we sell MORE products to them and if they are national rather than regional we gain more customers

 

[Lavabug]

TMFKAN64 is right on for the most part but i disagree with your assessment that "behavioral" interviews produce less effective employees .

Did I say that? I said ONLY people who are good at the behavioral aspect and have no technical expertise. And it's not my really my own assessment, rather that of someone who actually works in the field at a high level. Hiring mistakes like these are hurting his business, not making it better.

What makes you think a PHD proves you will be productive? if any thing it proves you would be less. Private sector views academia as slow and ineffective. The private sector wants results not PHDs.

And what makes you think a highly trained PhD cannot produce results? Perhaps faster ones and ones that are more quantitatively sound? This is a fallacy that seems all too common, unfortunately.

There are numerous examples here (kinkmode is the most immediate one that comes to mind) of people with PhD's who are exceptionally more qualified for many jobs than many of the senior personnel at companies, yet they were turned down, most likely because in some environments being more educated is seen as a hamperment instead of an asset, erroneously. (ie: read some of kinkmode's posts about his time at a nuclear power plant, where he was barred from advancing. There, many senior personnel were incapable of doing macro's in excel or engaged in dangerous practices on the job when they should really know better. I am hoping they were not engineers.).

As far as "People Skills" and "Politics" its very simple it makes MONEY period point blank end of discussion.

Nice interpersonal skills and conversational flexibility there.

I don't want to go into the details of a meeting my brother had to partake in recently for privacy reasons, but it exposed one person who made it through the ranks that they had literally no idea what they were talking about (technicality wise) and their assessments were completely demolished by the more technically savvy. Had the person's suggestions gone through, it would've cost the company a lot of money since it had a negligible chance of return on investment. Sounds a lot like a thesis evaluation panel to me, where world experts are flown into pick apart your arguments in vivo.

At the end of the day, it's my engineering bro with 2 decades in the field's assessment and not mine. FWIW, he said he would hire me if it weren't for the risk of nepotism accusations, because he claims I -a milk on his lips Physics graduate- am better qualified than many of the people he has to hire from the pool that made it through the HR filters, and it wasn't an attempt to flatter me. I can only imagine how much more productive I would be if I had the programming and experimental experience of a Physics PhD under my belt.

 

[tyjae]

And what makes you think a highly trained PhD cannot produce results? Perhaps faster ones and ones that are more quantitatively sound? This is a fallacy that seems all too common, unfortunately.

It's based on perception not fact. I don't know why it's there but it is. The engineers in private sector view academic professors or PHDed folks as not up being great at solving problems. I'm not saying i agree. There are technical fellowships that require PHDs but they aren't given to people who don't have real world experience. From my point of view, i love that there are MBAs and marketing guys who play a role in what we produce. They keep customer expectations in check a lot of times. As engineers, we sometimes get into the "Laputans" mind set of looking at things.

 

[Lavabug]

It's based on perception not fact I don't know why it's there but it is. The engineers in private sector view academic professors or PHDed folks as not up being great at solving problems. I'm not saying i agree.

I hope you don't. I know it's the perception, and it is unfortunate both for PhD's who want a job in industry and for industries that are missing out on very productive hires because of their narrow-sighted judgement.

Maybe we'll see a population inversion in the future and this will cease to be a problem for PhD's in 10 years time. Today, it looks like the MS/MA is becoming the new high school diploma for technical industries...

 

[TMFKAN64]

Did I say that? I said ONLY people who are good at the behavioral aspect and have no technical expertise. And it's not my really my own assessment, rather that of someone who actually works in the field at a high level. Hiring mistakes like these are hurting his business, not making it better.

Going back to my post, I will point out that I said "Good enough, and easy to work with" (with new emphasis). No one argues that if you are hiring technical people, technical expertise is important. A successful hire is going to have both technical proficiency *and* an ability to work as part of a team.

The point that I was trying to make is that I think that a lot of engineers and scientists suffer from the "build a better mousetrap" syndrome... that the technical side of things is the end-all and be-all of existence. This isn't surprising... it's why we are engineers and scientists in the first place. But it's only part of the equation... and not necessarily even the most important part.

 

[Locrian]

I liked math as an undergraduate and to some extent in graduate school, too, but I found that I wasn't that interested in research-level math. I also realized that I wanted to do something more practical.

That's a great answer. Make sure you can say it clearly and smoothly and with a smile. I like this because it doesn't talk down about what you've done, but it does talk up what you'd like to do. It's also good because you're turning the question back to what actually matters - the job. Your past is just a bump to get past.

If they keep probing you about what you did, have some things you're proud of ready. Obviously math didn't work out in the end, but surely you did some things you'd enjoy telling them about. Don't go into gory details - if you said something like "One week I made a connection between these two differing areas that really helped me with something I was working on that made me proud", it goes a long way. Again, you want to move the discussion forward, but if they ask you about the past, be positive.

I find teaching stressful, especially when it comes to lower-level math classes. It can be challenging to teach a subject to an audience that doesn't want to be there. Also, I find it draining to prepare for class several times a week with the whole class counting on you. It's also the kind of work that follows you home, and it never really feels like you are really done preparing for a class. You could always spend more time thinking about how to make things better. I'd rather have a job where I'm mostly free to do what I want when I get home.

This is a disaster and you should take responses such as analogdesign's seriously. You should try creating a response to this question again, but make the following changes:

• Remove all negative statements, such as it being too stressful
• Shorten it to two or three sentences
• Use the last sentence to turn attention back to the job

Here's how I would honestly answer this question: "I actually love engaging directly with people and teaching them something new. As strange as this sounds, that is not the majority of the work a teacher does. If I had the chance someday to help someone new at this company learn the ropes, I'd enjoy that, and I wouldn't have to grade any papers!"

That's just an example - rule #1 is to not say anything that's untrue. Maybe it will help you build a response.

I am more interested in putting things into practice in the real world than I am in academic research. I would like to accomplish something more concrete than publishing in math journals.

This is pretty good. Understand that people may make snarky comments about the work - it doesn't always feel like the work you're doing is concrete, even in jobs where it should be. Still, anything is concrete compared to publishing topology related papers in journals, so I guess it works.

Any interest I have in math and physics is best left as a hobby for me because I need to have complete freedom to pursue my curiosity wherever it leads, regardless of whether it yields any new ideas or publications. It's unlikely that I would have much to publish because I'm more interested in understanding things that we already know in a more intuitive way than I am in coming up with new results. It's very hard and not very fulfilling to do publishable research if you do not have a burning desire to answer the open questions in the field. Another issue is that to work in the field I studied, I would be required to also work in a different field which I have not studied, namely teaching.

Blah. Too long. Too wandering. Look, there are topics where some exposition is warranted. This isn't one of them. The reality is that your reasons for not working in that field don't actually matter. They don't even matter to the interviewer.

What really matters are questions like "Does this person really want to work at this company?" Or, "Is this person going to leave as soon as a job in academia opens up?"

Try this again but make the following changes:

• Reduce it to two to three sentences
• Try to bring the focus back to the job
• Make it clear that you are not working in academia, period (without even saying why)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I encourage you to see the interview as a test, with right and wrong answers. Any answer that is misleading or a lie is automatically wrong. However, most answers that are true are also wrong, too. You want the answer that is both true and right.

 

[Mark44]

It's taken me years of tutoring to even BEGIN to understand the bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds

I'll give you your first lesson in sales now. In all probability, the person that decides whether to hire you or not probably has a "non-mathematical mind". If you dial back the contempt a few notches, you will go farther.

There's really not any contempt, you just put it there. I was merely stating it's hard for me to fathom, which is just a cold, hard fact. Plus, I'm not sure I'll be talking to the person who hires me about math. I mean, I think non-mathematical minds are not that different when the subject is not math, which is obviously the context in which I have trouble understanding them.

I have to agree with Vanadium - "bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds" is at the very least extremely patronizing if not actually dripping with contempt.

 

[AlephZero]

Any interest I have in math and physics is best left as a hobby for me because I need to have complete freedom to pursue my curiosity wherever it leads, regardless of whether it yields any new ideas or publications. It's unlikely that I would have much to publish because I'm more interested in understanding things that we already know in a more intuitive way than I am in coming up with new results.

I would say that's not just "Too long, Too wandering" but sending out completely the wrong message.

You are not going to be employed to "understand things in a more intuitive way", or "pursue your curiosity wherever it leads". In an entry level job you are employed to do what you are told to do - preferably done on time, and done right.

We once hired a guy who pretty much fitted the description of your quote - he must have been smart enough that we didn't pick it up in the interview. Most days, he came up with good ideas for two or three new PhD-level research projects. The only problems were

(1) He never actually accomplished anything, except coming up with lots of good research ideas.
(2) Most days, he took several hours of working time away from people who did accomplish things, explaining and asking questions about his latest idea.

Thankfully, he got bored and left before we fired him.

 

[homeomorphic]

Here's how I would honestly answer this question: "I actually love engaging directly with people and teaching them something new. As strange as this sounds, that is not the majority of the work a teacher does. If I had the chance someday to help someone new at this company learn the ropes, I'd enjoy that, and I wouldn't have to grade any papers!"

That's just an example - rule #1 is to not say anything that's untrue. Maybe it will help you build a response.

Well, I guess I'm kind of stumped on how to answer the teaching one, since the real answer is just that I don't like it. I like tutoring. Teaching, I just plain don't like and don't think I'm good at. It doesn't make sense for me to be doing something I'm not good at for a living.

I have to agree with Vanadium - "bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds" is at the very least extremely patronizing if not actually dripping with contempt.

You can think that all you want, but the fact remains that there was no actual feeling of contempt behind it. Puzzlement. Not contempt. You have to realize this seems innocuous to an insane degree to me. It's really hard for me to predict that people's reactions to me. It's just walking on eggshells all the time. No, I can't see all these coming. I'm sorry. People are going to have to just think I'm a jerk sometimes, if they are so over-sensitive because I guess I'm just not that discerning when it comes to this stuff. I mean, from my point of view, this seems extreme to take every comment I make so seriously. It's not even that I think that they are stupid. It's just that there current skill level is like puzzle to me. That's all it is. They might even be secretly good at math, for all I know. Doesn't mean it's not hard to understand their difficulties.

Indeed, in practice, it is only rather rarely that I make a remark that people take the wrong way. Doesn't everyone do that sometimes?

Most of my students that I tutor think highly of me and only on one occasion can I recall that one of them felt put down when I, out of concern for her, informed her that she seemed to be missing some of the prerequisite knowledge for the class (perhaps, there were a few who kept silent about it, but I highly doubt it was much more than that one). I tried to reassure her that I was not judging her, just trying to let her know what was normally expected, coming into the class, and maybe it worked, I don't know.

The only real contempt I have for the students (the ones I had to teach, not tutor) is for their readiness to complain to the department and make my life difficult, even though I was trying my best. They were just plain mean to me. Not without reason, but really a bit on the cruel side. If you want to see what REAL contempt looks like, look at my first teaching evaluations. That's contempt.

 

[homeomorphic]

Blah. Too long. Too wandering. Look, there are topics where some exposition is warranted. This isn't one of them. The reality is that your reasons for not working in that field don't actually matter. They don't even matter to the interviewer.

What really matters are questions like "Does this person really want to work at this company?" Or, "Is this person going to leave as soon as a job in academia opens up?"

Try this again but make the following changes:
Reduce it to two to three sentences
Try to bring the focus back to the job
Make it clear that you are not working in academia, period (without even saying why)

Well, I'll have to think about it. I suppose part of my reasoning is that it seemed more convincing to give a reason for leaving academia.

You are not going to be employed to "understand things in a more intuitive way", or "pursue your curiosity wherever it leads".

Yeah, but you have to understand that I am saying that very specifically in the context of math and physics. That's not really how I think of working in industry. I'm thinking of it more as a way to make a living, rather than an outlet for my intellectual curiosity, alone, so it's not the same as math and physics were. I could see some issues if there was too much stuff that I didn't understand for myself, but it's my suspicion that, even if that isn't "what I'm employed to do", I can still have what I want in that regard. If I have to, I'll just work that much harder to gain the understanding that I'd like and still have time to get the job done. It's also hard to pin down exactly what is going to get on my nerves in this regard. I think I'm somewhat flexible here, especially, given that, as I said, I'm thinking of it more as a job.

In an entry level job you are employed to do what you are told to do - preferably done on time, and done right.

That's fine with me. Anything sounds pretty exciting to me, as long as it's not math research at this point. So, for the next couple years, I think I'm good. Heck, if you paid me to memorize equations by rote and plug numbers straight into them without questioning, after that PhD, I'd be happy to oblige. I'd just be so thrilled that I'm not writing my dissertation. Beyond a couple years, though, I have to think carefully about whether I can go the long haul. I'm really starting to think this actuary thing could be a good gig for me. Just enough to keep me from being bored, but simple enough not to wear me out, plus the way the job seems to be structured, making great money.

We once hired a guy who pretty much fitted the description of your quote - he must have been smart enough that we didn't pick it up in the interview. Most days, he came up with good ideas for two or three new PhD-level research projects. The only problems were

(1) He never actually accomplished anything, except coming up with lots of good research ideas.
(2) Most days, he took several hours of working time away from people who did accomplish things, explaining and asking questions about his latest idea.

Thankfully, he got bored and left before we fired him.

Yeah, I don't have lots of good research ideas. I'm sure I can get results. As I said, I'm not going into it with the same idea that I had going into academia at all. It's a fresh start, for me.

The thing about engineering is that it's hard to picture what the actual job is like because, even though I studied EE a lot more than CS, there seems to be a bigger gap between engineering school and actual practice. In the context of programming, I really don't see myself having any of these kinds of issues at all because I know what it's like to write code. The understanding I like to have would all be in place already. All that remains is to apply it. That goes for anything. If I already understand it, I'm good. So for example, probably something like 50% of the undergraduate EE curriculum is already taken care of in that regard. Already got the understanding. No one can take it away. So, I'd be good to go. I don't need to understand it better than I do, already. I'm happy to apply what I know. That's a very different thing from some crazy subject like the topology of 4-manifolds. I already understand electrical circuits or Maxwell's equations and a lot of stuff. My work is done there and that's the point. And if it's not done, it's not that hard. It's not the Poincare conjecture. No need to probe deeper, no need to prove everything rigorously. Already understand or can understand.

 

[jesse73]

Yeah, but you have to understand that I am saying that very specifically in the context of math and physics. That's not really how I think of working in industry. I'm thinking of it more as a way to make a living, rather than an outlet for my intellectual curiosity, alone, so it's not the same as math and physics were. I could see some issues if there was too much stuff that I didn't understand for myself, but it's my suspicion that, even if that isn't "what I'm employed to do", I can still have what I want in that regard. If I have to, I'll just work that much harder to gain the understanding that I'd like and still have time to get the job done. It's also hard to pin down exactly what is going to get on my nerves in this regard. I think I'm somewhat flexible here, especially, given that, as I said, I'm thinking of it more as a job.

I think he understood the context but your answer sounds like you "just want to make a living" which is fine but not really the answer they are looking for. I would just avoid the topic.

 

[homeomorphic]

I think he understood the context but your answer sounds like you "just want to make a living" which is fine but not really the answer they are looking for.

Looks to me like he missed the context because he thinks I'm like the guy he hired (I find the thought that I would be like that mildly amusing--can't picture it).

I would just avoid the topic.

Well, I am going to have to rethink it, but maybe I could add that I actually WANT to apply the stuff I ALREADY understand, rather than having to understand more and more stuff.

 

[Mark44]

Tip: when you quote someone, include who said it, like this:
quote=Bob Blah, blah, blah. /quote

I have to agree with Vanadium - "bizarre workings of non-mathematical minds" is at the very least extremely patronizing if not actually dripping with contempt.

You can think that all you want, but the fact remains that there was no actual feeling of contempt behind it.

Whether there was or wasn't a feeling of contempt, it still comes across that way. If you come across an obese person, and you say -- "You're really fat." -- you might rationalize this as a neutral observer merely stating a fact, but it would come across as very insulting.

Puzzlement. Not contempt.
You have to realize this seems innocuous to an insane degree to me. It's really hard for me to predict that people's reactions to me. It's just walking on eggshells all the time. No, I can't see all these coming. I'm sorry. People are going to have to just think I'm a jerk sometimes, if they are so over-sensitive because I guess I'm just not that discerning when it comes to this stuff.

Which will make it that much more difficult to get a job that involves working with other people.

I mean, from my point of view, this seems extreme to take every comment I make so seriously. It's not even that I think that they are stupid. It's just that there current skill level is like puzzle to me. That's all it is. They might even be secretly good at math, for all I know. Doesn't mean it's not hard to understand their difficulties.

Indeed, in practice, it is only rather rarely that I make a remark that people take the wrong way. Doesn't everyone do that sometimes?

Several times in this long thread I've noticed that people respond to something you've said, and your reply to them is something like, "I'm not really like that. It's only rarely that ..."

Most of my students that I tutor think highly of me and only on one occasion can I recall that one of them felt put down when I, out of concern for her, informed her that she seemed to be missing some of the prerequisite knowledge for the class (perhaps, there were a few who kept silent about it, but I highly doubt it was much more than that one). I tried to reassure her that I was not judging her, just trying to let her know what was normally expected, coming into the class, and maybe it worked, I don't know.

The only real contempt I have for the students (the ones I had to teach, not tutor) is for their readiness to complain to the department and make my life difficult, even though I was trying my best. They were just plain mean to me. Not without reason, but really a bit on the cruel side.

"Not without reason" makes me suspicious. I taught math for 21+ years, one year as a college TA, two years in a very small high school, and eighteen years in a community college, teaching the first two years of college math. My classes were generally five days a week, three quarters per year plus a couple of classes in summer school. In most of those classes students had the opportunity to provide feedback of my teaching. I have to wonder what you were doing to get your students so angry that they would complain to the department head or whatever.

If you want to see what REAL contempt looks like, look at my first teaching evaluations. That's contempt.

Or maybe, what goes around, comes around.

 

[homeomorphic]

Several times in this long thread I've noticed that people respond to something you've said, and your reply to them is something like, "I'm not really like that. It's only rarely that ..."

Maybe it's something about the thread that is making me come under fire. I'm not used to this. I'm generally known as one of the nicest guys around.

Not without reason" makes me suspicious. I taught math for 21+ years, one year as a college TA, two years in a very small high school, and eighteen years in a community college, teaching the first two years of college math. My classes were generally five days a week, three quarters per year plus a couple of classes in summer school. In most of those classes students had the opportunity to provide feedback of my teaching. I have to wonder what you were doing to get your students so angry that they would complain to the department head or whatever.

Hint: it took them like 1-2 weeks. One time, my recitation students complained on the first day. I'm just that uncharismatic, boring, and not understandable when I lecture. If you want something more specific, they said I was nervous, didn't finish my sentences, didn't explain things well. Not one person said that I was arrogant or put them down or any such nonsense because that didn't happen. I just didn't know what I was doing.

Or maybe, what goes around, comes around.

I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't know how to teach them and that's all there was to it. In the second class I taught, someone even said "he's a nice guy and it's not his fault, but..."

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hint: it took them like 1-2 weeks. One time, my recitation students complained on the first day. I'm just that uncharismatic, boring, and not understandable when I lecture. If you want something more specific, they said I was nervous, didn't finish my sentences, didn't explain things well. Not one person said that I was arrogant or put them down or any such nonsense because that didn't happen. I just didn't know what I was doing.



I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't know how to teach them and that's all there was to it. In the second class I taught, someone even said "he's a nice guy and it's not his fault, but..."

I have a question for you; what is the tone of your voice when you speak publically? Do you have a tendency to speak in a monotone? Do you sound tired or weary? Do you have a nasal voice or a quiet voice? Because the complaint of being "uncharismatic, boring, not understandable" could have a lot to do with how you speak publically. And this is going to be a problem for you in the working world, because at some point or another you will have to give presentations to working groups explaining your work and you need to keep them engaged. Some people have a natural tendency in the tone of their voice to sound exciting or charismatic, while others do not.

The good news is that these things can be mitigated or corrected through practice. Ask someone (a friend, fellow grad student, someone you know, etc.) to hear you present on a topic, any topic (even reading out of a book) and ask for honest feedback and constructive criticism. Then consider taking a public speaking course or join Toastmasters and work on your public speaking skills. Working on such skills can do wonders in both boosting your confidence when giving speeches and making yourself more presentable in a work setting.

 

[Mark44]

homeomorphic, please use the Quote button so that whom you're replying to is identified. It looks like you are using just [ quote ] and [ /quote ] tags. To put a name with what you're quoting, add "=<user_name>" right after the word quote in the first tag, with no spaces between "quote", "=", and <user_name>. With over 900 posts to your credit in this forum, I'm surprised that you don't seem to know how to do this.

... I have to wonder what you were doing to get your students so angry that they would complain to the department head or whatever.

Hint: it took them like 1-2 weeks. One time, my recitation students complained on the first day. I'm just that uncharismatic, boring, and not understandable when I lecture. If you want something more specific, they said I was nervous, didn't finish my sentences, didn't explain things well. Not one person said that I was arrogant or put them down or any such nonsense because that didn't happen. I just didn't know what I was doing.

When you mentioned the student complaints earlier, you didn't provide any details about the nature of the complaints, saying only that they were full of contempt, and "not without reason." I could only conjecture about what the reason possibly could be.

From your description, your experience at teaching was certainly disastrous. Aside from having mastery of the subject, a teacher has to be something of an actor giving a performance. You need to speak in a voice that can be heard, with sentences that can be clearly understood. Being nervous at first is understandable, but practice can help to overcome nervousness. I can see that students would pick up on your not being able to explain a concept or equation in different words, or leaving a sentence unfinished. If this happened only rarely, I doubt that students would notice, but if it happened a lot, I'm not surprised that they would comment on it.

Was this the only experience you had at teaching? I would assume that you were in your doctoral program for 5 years at the very least, and probably longer. Often students in these programs are offered TA positions where they teach a class, and earn a stipend to help offset the cost of the degree. When I was getting my master's, I had a TA for the three quarters of my second year, and taught classes in two of those quarters. I had something of an advantage in having already taught in a high school for two years, so standing at the front of a class wasn't alien to me.

 

[Locrian]

Well, I'll have to think about it.

Why? What exactly needs thinking over?

These are (a few of) the easy questions used to cull the unprepared. You don’t need a day or even an hour to think of a reply. It should take you a few minutes to knock out a solid answer, post and move on.

PhD candidates' ability to turn the tiniest tasks into research projects is a weakness, not a strength.

 

[homeomorphic]

I have a question for you; what is the tone of your voice when you speak publically? Do you have a tendency to speak in a monotone? Do you sound tired or weary? Do you have a nasal voice or a quiet voice?

Not nasal or quiet, but the rest might apply.

Because the complaint of being "uncharismatic, boring, not understandable" could have a lot to do with how you speak publically.

That wasn't from the students directly. That's just my own self-deprecation.

The good news is that these things can be mitigated or corrected through practice. Ask someone (a friend, fellow grad student, someone you know, etc.) to hear you present on a topic, any topic (even reading out of a book) and ask for honest feedback and constructive criticism. Then consider taking a public speaking course or join Toastmasters and work on your public speaking skills. Working on such skills can do wonders in both boosting your confidence when giving speeches and making yourself more presentable in a work setting.

Well, at least I don't really get nervous anymore, so that's one thing I gained from teaching and giving talks. There's a lot of stuff for me to work on. Kind of overwhelming.

When you mentioned the student complaints earlier, you didn't provide any details about the nature of the complaints, saying only that they were full of contempt, and "not without reason." I could only conjecture about what the reason possibly could be.

Conjecture away, but whatever it is, I can almost guarantee it's wrong. I told you the concrete things they said in their complaints, at least from what I remember. I was never angry or yelled at them or anything. At least as far as I could tell, there wasn't anything that I did wrong, except not know what to do. The complaints to the department were not full of contempt. That was the complaints on the student evaluations. I have been a student, too. There was a math teacher I had who people didn't like too much in high school. I think he wasn't a bad guy. He might have gotten angry a few times or something. He just came across as kind of lame and nerdy or something and people judged him for it (that, and perhaps not being the best teacher). It's not like you have to commit a high crime for them to judge you.

From your description, your experience at teaching was certainly disastrous. Aside from having mastery of the subject, a teacher has to be something of an actor giving a performance. You need to speak in a voice that can be heard, with sentences that can be clearly understood. Being nervous at first is understandable, but practice can help to overcome nervousness. I can see that students would pick up on your not being able to explain a concept or equation in different words, or leaving a sentence unfinished. If this happened only rarely, I doubt that students would notice, but if it happened a lot, I'm not surprised that they would comment on it.

I don't have a problem with what the students did, except, first of all, they should have complained to me first, not the department, and secondly, all the insults on the evaluations were inappropriate and nonconstructive by any standards. My voice could be heard, but was a little flat and monotone, and that's one reason why they didn't like me.

Was this the only experience you had at teaching?

Two classes in a masters program. One summer class later in the PhD program. And recitations.

I would assume that you were in your doctoral program for 5 years at the very least, and probably longer.

Seven.

Often students in these programs are offered TA positions where they teach a class, and earn a stipend to help offset the cost of the degree. When I was getting my master's, I had a TA for the three quarters of my second year, and taught classes in two of those quarters. I had something of an advantage in having already taught in a high school for two years, so standing at the front of a class wasn't alien to me.

Some people in the program taught every semester. I only taught one summer. Partly by choice because I wanted to do different things sometimes, but they wouldn't let me teach anything besides recitations. The time I taught my own class it actually went reasonably well. What didn't go well was the insane amount of work I put into do that. No matter how hard I tried, I still suffered from a lack of charisma and my evaluations didn't get much better than lukewarm.

Why? What exactly needs thinking over?

Clearly, this is more difficult for me than it is for you. I'm kind of just procrastinating on it, I guess. The actual thinking might not take that long. The teaching one is really pretty difficult, though.

These are (a few of) the easy questions used to cull the unprepared. You don’t need a day or even an hour to think of a reply. It should take you a few minutes to knock out a solid answer, post and move on.

Well, a job is not on the line right now, and I can take advantage of that, so I did.

PhD candidates' ability to turn the tiniest tasks into research projects is a weakness, not a strength.

This is a procrastination thing, not a research thing. Also, there's other stuff in my life besides this thread. Right now, for example, I still haven't had breakfast, so I'm going to go do that.

 

[psparky]

I just skimmed through this thread and I can't help but ask myself...what SKILLS do you possesses besides your Math degree? Then I was thinking, an employer might just ask the same question. I'm not implying you don't have skils, just stating that revealing your overall skills may help with this thread.

Are you handy with fixing cars?
Home construction/remodeling?
How about fixing/trouble shooting computers?
Any good with art work?
People skills...are people drawn to you?
Performed any surgeries?...lol, kidding.
Speak more than one language?
etc...etc...etc...

If I were an employer, I would ask these questions. The things I mention above tend to help people in the workplace. And if the answer was no to all of them...I would say...ok...what do you do?

Also, you may want to consider some CHANGE...you seem very stuck in your ways. Almost everyone needs some sort of CHANGE to help them succeed in life. Especially when unemployed.

 

[homeomorphic]

I just skimmed through this thread and I can't help but ask myself...what SKILLS do you possesses besides your Math degree? Then I was thinking, an employer might just ask the same question. I'm not implying you don't have skils, just stating that revealing your overall skills may help with this thread.

Are you handy with fixing cars?
Home construction/remodeling?
How about fixing/trouble shooting computers?
Any good with art work?
People skills...are people drawn to you?
Performed any surgeries?...lol, kidding.
Speak more than one language?
etc...etc...etc...

I have a few other skills, but I'm not sure anyone cares. I play piano and draw pretty well. I'm just not sure anyone cares about that. They want to see programming or database stuff or something like, plus maybe people skills or communication skills. They might think it's nice that I can play Chopin, but I don't think that's going to be a priority for anyone. How's that going to help with the job? Might give me something to talk about if there are classical music fans around, but beyond that, I don't know.

Also, you may want to consider some CHANGE...you seem very stuck in your ways. Almost everyone needs some sort of CHANGE to help them succeed in life. Especially when unemployed.

That's not really fair to say. I'm making quite a few changes. If I get defensive sometimes, that doesn't mean I'm not taking some of it into account, in spite of how it may appear. It just might take it a while to sink in, and not everything is going to be something I can just wake up the next day and magically make it different. And for some things, I'm just not going to be able to change because I'm simply not capable of it. I'm not particularly stuck in my ways. It's easy to misinterpret what I say, and I've spotted some clear-cut errors that people made in this thread in that regard, not all of which I bothered to point out.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If there is one theme in this thread, it's a lack of putting yourself in the employer's shoes: What can you do to make her money? You have complained that you've been misinterpreted or misunderstood several times in this thread: why do you think it is that people are drawing these conclusions?

 

[psparky]

I'm not sure why you don't just teach math at a university with your PHD. Good money, good hours, summers are off, etc. Yes, there is certainly work involved, that's why they pay you.

What could possibly be better than molding young minds into intelligent adults.

When you are 80 or 90 years old, you can look back and think about all the thousands of people you have helped. What could be better or more satisfying? Isn't that really what life is all about?

 

[ParticleGrl]

I'm not sure why you don't just teach math at a university with your PHD. Good money, good hours, summers are off, etc. Yes, there is certainly work involved, that's why they pay you.

Full time jobs at universities are very hard to get. This is like telling a musician "I'm not sure why you don't just become a rockstar. "

 

[homeomorphic]

If there is one theme in this thread, it's a lack of putting yourself in the employer's shoes: What can you do to make her money?

Well, I do think I could do more of that, but I also have a limited ability to do so, not being that familiar with what it's actually like to do these jobs. I just know that I'm capable of doing stuff in classes and learning things on my own. Some of that will directly translate into tasks I could do on the job, but a lot of it is just a big unknown to me.

You have complained that you've been misinterpreted or misunderstood several times in this thread: why do you think it is that people are drawing these conclusions?

Well, sometimes, I get lazy about fleshing things out, and maybe at times, I try to be brief when it's not called for because I do value being concise, even if I am not always good at it. Also, I'm just not that discerning when it comes to stuff people are offended by because, personally, I don't get offended very easily, and I tend not to judge people that much (I do, but my judgments are usually pretty soft ones), so I can't understand it when other people do.

I'm not sure why you don't just teach math at a university with your PHD. Good money, good hours, summers are off, etc. Yes, there is certainly work involved, that's why they pay you.

I'm so bad at it that it's not just work. It's not having any life outside work. That's how hard I will have to work to not even do a good job, but to just barely squeak by with the students having a lukewarm opinion of me as a professor. I wanted to be a mathematician, not a teacher. And it turned out that at least as far as today's research is concerned, I'm astoundingly bad at research and not really interested in it, anyway. The only thing I know enough about to publish on is spin-offs on my thesis, which I am not really interested in. That's one of the things that made my PhD so painful. What am I expected to do as a math professor? Research and teaching. And both of those things, I not only failed at, but failed miserably. I still don't have any publications. I could do it if I wanted to, I think. The university here will give me an adjunct position because they know me, and then I could work really hard on it and get someone to watch me and give me a teaching recommendation, and maybe I could publish my thesis work. But why fight for something that doesn't sound that great anyway?

Being an adjunct is not an enviable position, and as a tenure-track professor, I could almost guarantee I would not get tenure. If I did get tenure, I would be miserable for many, many years doing boring research I am not interested in, just to be able to have something to publish (those thesis spin-offs). Interesting, for me = no publications, as we have seen so far.

What could possibly be better than molding young minds into intelligent adults.

Well, I do that right now. I'm a tutor. I find that far easier and more rewarding because it's easier to get immediate feedback. It's a conversation, not a monologue.

When you are 80 or 90 years old, you can look back and think about all the thousands of people you have helped. What could be better or more satisfying? Isn't that really what life is all about?

Well, in engineering, I could build cool stuff. To me, that could be more exciting. In software, I could write cool programs. As an actuary, I would be helping to provide a necessary service. As a quant, I'm not sure how necessary I would be, but I think someone ought to do it, and I'd be making so much money, I could just quit and do what I want after a few years.

As for teaching, as I said, it's kind of like asking me to be a ballet dancer. It's not what I signed up for, and I have no particular talent for it or anything (in fact, I'm particularly bad at it). It just doesn't make sense.

Full time jobs at universities are very hard to get. This is like telling a musician "I'm not sure why you don't just become a rockstar. "

It's a valid point that I might not actually be able to do it, but I think I'd have a good shot at it, if that is what I wanted. In math, I think it's a little bit easier. I might end up at a community college or something, but it's not quite as competitive as physics, from the statistics I've seen. Anyway, it's all a moot point because I don't want to do that. I'm considering taking an adjunct position temporarily to buy myself more time, but it might not be a very good way to buy time because I'm not sure that I'll have much time left to work on my other marketable skills, as I've been doing.