Finding a Math Job: Preparing Before Graduation

[Vahsek]

The only thing I know enough about to publish on is spin-offs on my thesis, which I am not really interested in.

I thought that throughout one's time in graduate school, one learns that mathematical research is a real pain which is rarely fruitful.

Also, I'm pretty sure that one is supposed to move away from his/her research topic when carrying out later research, and this is supposed to be quite do-able by a phd-holder. Learning new techniques and exploring new areas in your field of research is part of what mathematical research is, so you would not be limited to working on spin-offs from your thesis only.

 

[Physics_UG]

So homeomorphic, what exactly did you envision yourself doing after you got your PhD? What are your career dreams? You must have had some sort of foresight while in school. I think you should pursue your dream.

 

[homeomorphic]

I thought that throughout one's time in graduate school, one learns that mathematical research is a real pain which is rarely fruitful.

And yet, few PhDs emerge with zero publications. "Rarely fruitful" is fine. It's "rarely fruitful" with the contrary expectation of being fruitful due to pressure to publish that is the problem.

Also, I'm pretty sure that one is supposed to move away from his/her research topic when carrying out later research, and this is supposed to be quite do-able by a phd-holder.

Supposed to be. I'm capable of learning new things, but I don't see publications coming out from me at the rate that they seem to be expected--not even close. It's a question of speed. I can do it, it's just going to take me 5 times as long as the next guy. Also, I'm interested in actually going quite far from PhD, not just moving to neighboring things. I'm more interested in physics than topology.

While I don't think my PhD is a pity-PhD, it's a real PhD, it's more of a case of being on the borderline and deserving credit for what I did, rather than a good PhD, given with the confidence that I am actually capable of succeeding at research. I can do it, but only just barely. It may be the case that there is no such thing as a good researcher, just people who are the least terrible at it. However, I am one of the people who is the MOST terrible at it. The least terrible people are still much better than I am.

Learning new techniques and exploring new areas in your field of research is part of what mathematical research is, so you would not be limited to working on spin-offs from your thesis only.

I would, if I expect to get any more publications in the near future. I'd have to stick to what I know for my speed to be anywhere near competitive. Learning new areas takes time.

 

[Physics_UG]

As a professor, you personally are not generating ALL of the ideas. You presumably have some PhD students to help carry out projects and generate ideas too.

 

[homeomorphic]

So homeomorphic, what exactly did you envision yourself doing after you got your PhD. What are your career dreams? You must have had some sort of foresight while in school. I think you should pursue your dream.

I saw myself being a math professor, but the reality of being a math professor is nothing like the dream. The dream was fake. I think I just need to make a living. Turning something into a job makes it a chore and takes all the fun out of it. I'd rather do something that I was just interested in enough to get something out of it and not be totally bored. If I'm really passionate about it, that is probably going to just make it too hard for me to live up to people's expectations because it makes me want to do it my own way, not someone else's way. I care about it too much. If I don't care about it, it's so much easier for me to do it someone else's way.

You are not paid to do things your own way. You are paid to do things someone else's way, unless you are one of the lucky few whose own way happens to coincide with other people's way. Even if you are self-employed, this is still true because you are still at the mercy of your customers.

So, my dream, now, if you want a dream, is just to save up enough money that I can spend the rest of my life, doing as I please, without the burden of having to make a living. Doing artwork and selling it, playing piano, writing about math and science, a little tutoring. The things that it's too hard for me to make a living at by themselves. It would just be extremely risky, if not suicide to expect to make a living at this sort of thing, as it stands. Plus, I'd actually like to try some of these jobs I've been mentioning out, like being an actuary or engineer or programmer, long enough for it to be worth someone's while to pay me to do it.

 

[Vahsek]

homeomorphic,

all what you've said so far seem to be justified. However, I still think that the academia route was worth a try. You could have taken up a post-doc position and see where it would have led you to. Maybe it could have worked out, and maybe you would like it. If it didn't, then you would have no choice but to give up. All I'm saying is that you seem to have made some rash decisions.

 

[homeomorphic]

all what you've said so far seem to be justified. However, I still think that the academia route was worth a try.

Already tried. That was grad school. Didn't work out.

You could have taken up a post-doc position and see where it would have led you to.

I doubt I could get a postdoc. Community college is more like it. My adviser isn't going to give me the best recommendation, and even if he did, I have no publications. And as far as a teaching recommendation, I think, as I said, my best bet would be to take an adjunct position here because I'm not sure anyone would write me one, particularly not a good one.

Maybe it could have worked out, and maybe you would like it.

Well, anything is possible. But you have to bet on the odds, using the information you have.

If it didn't, then you would have no choice but to give up. All I'm saying is that you seem to have made some rash decisions.

I think it's a quite a rational decision. I didn't like grad school. Being a post-doc or professor is a lot like grad school. I sort of feel as if I am a graduate school drop-out, whose drop-out date just happened to land a little after finishing than before. I finished just to show that I could, rather than because I wanted to continue. In a way, I already quit math a year before finishing the PhD. The rest was just going through the motions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Vashek, your profile says you're in High School. I think that you might need to accept that you might have to defer to the perspective of those farther along the career path than you are. And the fact that the OP says he is uninterested in these careers.

 

[Vahsek]

Vashek, your profile says you're in High School. I think that you might need to accept that you might have to defer to the perspective of those farther along the career path than you are. And the fact that the OP says he is uninterested in these careers.

Yeah, I agree. And I apologize if my perspective was too naive.

 

[homeomorphic]

Okay, I'm going to try to take a crack at the two problem questions again.

"Why aren't you teaching?"

Teaching would only allow me to pass on what I know to other people and wouldn't allow me to put it into practice in the real world. I enjoy explaining things to people, but my preference is to be able to have a conversation about it, rather than just lecturing or talking to the same two students that participate in class most of the time, although I do enjoy occasionally giving presentations on topics that interest me.

(This answer isn't quite the real answer, but it's still true, and it's about as close to I can get without being negative.)

"Wouldn't you rather be working in the field you studied?"

Adapting to things I haven't studied is something I would have to do if I worked in math, anyway. As for what I did study, I had a change of heart when I saw the research that was actually being done, in contrast to what I had seen in my classes. Studying advanced math taught me things about how to motivate myself, how to manage a big project, as well as a lot of practice with more basic math that could be useful in other careers, so I hope to use some of what I learned in an indirect way.

 

[Locrian]

Teaching would only allow me to pass on what I know to other people and wouldn't allow me to put it into practice in the real world. I enjoy explaining things to people, but my preference is to be able to have a conversation about it, rather than just lecturing or talking to the same two students that participate in class most of the time, although I do enjoy occasionally giving presentations on topics that interest me.

I like that much better. As you practice this response, you may see ways to boil it down even further – that would be helpful. But I think it’s perfectly presentable as is.

Practice this answer and be sure that when you say it live, you don't wander or add to it.

(This answer isn't quite the real answer, but it's still true, and it's about as close to I can get without being negative.)

Well sure. You’re not lying on a bed next to your psychologist, nor are you a witness on the stand. You’re trying to convince them you 1) would like to work for them (and would stay there if hired) and 2) that you will perform well. They’re going to ask you questions that don’t address those two topics, and you’re going to politely move the conversation back to those topics if possible.

Well, some questions are just going to be to get to know you; don’t redirect those. But the whole “why aren’t you doing X” line of inquiry deserves to be managed appropriately.

Adapting to things I haven't studied is something I would have to do if I worked in math, anyway. As for what I did study, I had a change of heart when I saw the research that was actually being done, in contrast to what I had seen in my classes. Studying advanced math taught me things about how to motivate myself, how to manage a big project, as well as a lot of practice with more basic math that could be useful in other careers, so I hope to use some of what I learned in an indirect way.

I like this, and I think the first sentence is especially true.

Think about changes you made to these interview questions and see if they need to be made to your cover letter. Your cover letter follows the same rules: be positive, be polite and be on message. The cover letter needs to get them to open your resume, and the resume needs to get them to give you a call.

Many people who will interview you have wildly incorrect notions of what a PhD means and what opportunities are available to them. (I often tell the story on this board about the actuarial hiring manager who didn’t consider an astrophysics PhD because he was sure they could get six figures in academia, and so wouldn’t want the low entry level salary). At the end of the interview, asking what concerns they have is a great way to dig these up and address them. You might even phrase it as “My background is a little unusual, I’d love to address any questions or concerns you have.”

I just got done doing a job search last fall and suffered through over two dozen interviews. If you want to go over more interview questions let me know. My experience is that you need a pretty big bank of carefully crafted answers to not get tripped up.

 

[homeomorphic]

If you want to go over more interview questions let me know. My experience is that you need a pretty big bank of carefully crafted answers to not get tripped up.

Yeah, maybe some more examples would be good.

Big news: I seem to have a possible interview, finally. I don't know that it's an extremely promising one, so maybe it isn't actually such big news. I don't expect to get the job. It's a programming/finance type job.

I'm going to be extremely busy the next couple weeks because they want me to take a programming test in a language that I don't really know, and I also am a bit behind on my studying for the actuarial exam. So, things are about to become INSANE. I think I will need a tiny bit of down time to keep from going crazy, but I plan to make a schedule and follow it to the letter and maybe work 12 hour days until this is over.

So, I don't know how much I will be on here, but on the other hand, I could probably use a little preparation for the interview or else all the studying could be pointless, anyway.

 

[chiro]

If it is programming and the interviewers are looking for experience (given that they have it as well), it will probably be difficult, if not impossible to fake.

The years of debugging alone is the kind of thing that will give you real working knowledge in this field.

Obviously if they don't get expect that then ignore what I am saying but otherwise, be aware of this.

 

[homeomorphic]

If it is programming and the interviewers are looking for experience (given that they have it as well), it will probably be difficult, if not impossible to fake.

The years of debugging alone is the kind of thing that will give you real working knowledge in this field.

Obviously if they don't get expect that then ignore what I am saying but otherwise, be aware of this.

They already know I'm new to the language, so I'm not really trying to fake anything. Just trying to actually learn it. I don't really expect to get the job, but if I pick up another thing to put on my resume along the way, that will be good.

 

[chiro]

Good luck with the interview - what you are saying sounds like some quant jobs where they want smart people with a lot of mathematics knowledge that can pick up advanced concepts quickly.

Given your PhD and assuming the above, I think you have more of a shot than you think.

 

[AlephZero]

They already know I'm new to the language, so I'm not really trying to fake anything. Just trying to actually learn it.

If you already know how to program, picking up a the basics of a new language in 2 weeks isn't impossible, assuming it uses the same programming paradigm that you already know. If you only know a procedural language, a functional programming language like Lisp or declarative language like Prolog will look like Chinese compared with English!

If you don't already know how to program, then good luck ...

 

[homeomorphic]

If you already know how to program, picking up a the basics of a new language in 2 weeks isn't impossible, assuming it uses the same programming paradigm that you already know.

That's sort of what I'm finding so far. I'm surprised at how easy it is. All I knew was C++. Java is what I'm learning, and already, my Java is almost caught up to my C++. Maybe my C++ isn't what it could be. But I know the basics.