Many rejections - Not knowing why

[Zap]

Try 100 applications per day for two weeks and see what happens lol.

You can even take the weekends off. So, that will be 1,000 applications in a very short span of time.

Let's look at the job hunt statistically. Let's say applying for a job is like sampling a random variable from some probability distribution, where some value of the variable corresponds to a job offer. The thing is, you're sampling a new distribution every month or so, because job posts only last about a month or so. So, you have to rapid fire applications so that you're sampling from a pseudo-static distribution, which will greatly increase your chances of getting the job offer. What it sounds like OP has done is sample 1,000 times from 1,000 different distributions.

The faster you sample, the more static the distribution becomes. Of course, the quality of your application will tend to decrease as the sampling frequency increases. So, that's something for you to try and manually optimize. I would focus on trying to make the job hunt as fast and efficient as possible without sacrificing too much of the application quality. Although, you must sacrifice some of the quality in order to increase speed and efficiency, I think that this is the optimal way. No application will be perfect, no matter how much time you spend on it, and you simply must move on with your life.

I realize that this is a crude model, but I stand by it.

 

[symbolipoint]

The faster you sample, the more static the distribution becomes. Of course, the quality of your application will tend to decrease as the sampling frequency increases. So, that's something for you to try and manually optimize. I would focus on trying to make the job hunt as fast and efficient as possible without sacrificing too much of the application quality. Although, you must sacrifice some of the quality in order to increase speed and efficiency, I think that this is the optimal way. No application will be perfect, no matter how much time you spend on it, and you simply must move on with your life.

I realize that this is a crude model, but I stand by it.

The part I made into bold is the part I think is the best.

 

[Zap]

You wish to put more weight on the quality and sacrifice efficiency and frequency. That's fine, if that works for you. It didn't work for me. That's why I am only suggesting that OP try different strategies, since he has went 3 years of his life with no success. Why not spend just two weeks testing a different strategy? It takes just two weeks to see if this works or not. If it doesn't work, then try something else. But doing the same thing for 3 years and getting nowhere with it is crazy.

In my opinion, the sacrifice in application quality is minimal, and the benefit of hyper efficiency is enormous. But I've spent a lot of time optimizing this strategy, so it works for me.

 

[russ_watters]

That's why I am only suggesting that OP try different strategies, since he has went 3 years of his life with no success. Why not spend just two weeks testing a different strategy? It takes just two weeks to see if this works or not. If it doesn't work, then try something else. But doing the same thing for 3 years and getting nowhere with it is crazy.

The risk is from the fact that you can only shoot one gun at a target. If you shoot the shotgun at 1,000 targets, now you can't shoot them with the sniper rifle.

However, what you could do is identify targets to shoot with the sniper rifle and then shoot everything else with the shotgun.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I like your analogy. Can you work in a bazooka?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't think you can even shoot a sniper rifle at most job applications. Your understanding of what they are looking for in a candidate is imperfect at best (and as evidence, simply observe the fact that if you have spent a year or more trying to get jobs and failing, you probably felt you were the perfect candidate for at least one and you still didn't get it), so at some point trying to spend time differentiating your applications for different jobs is just you wasting your time. It's easy to say sure I have a generic application, but if I spend a bit more time I could make two applications, and send one to the jobs that case more about my physics degree and one to the jobs that care more about my programming experience, but if you are only able to identify which is more important with 50% accuracy then there is not a lot of value in trying to do this.

 

[Joshy]

I don't know how true this is, but I heard some places they don't like when you apply there multiple times especially in a short amount of time. Could that be risky to apply to a bunch of places... that many places?

 

[analogdesign]

You're in a tough spot. Being years away from your research with no work experience is hard. Typically a PhD finds work through his or her network. I've never hired a PhD who wasn't either referred to me or who I was already aware of their group or advisor (at least). It could happen, but it hasn't.

Have you considered looking into a postdoc to get you back in the game? Have you reached out to your advisor? An advisor benefits when their students succeed so he or she is incentivized to help you.

Are you focusing your applications to the US? The US electronics industry is booming. I know multiple Canadians who are working as EEs in the US and they have all told me the Canadian EE market pales in comparison to the opportunities in the US.

It's a sad fact of life that it is much harder to get a job when you don't already have one. I would start treating applications like a job. You should be doing several thoughtful, targeted applications a day.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

You're in a tough spot. Being years away from your research with no work experience is hard. Typically a PhD finds work through his or her network. I've never hired a PhD who wasn't either referred to me or who I was already aware of their group or advisor (at least). It could happen, but it hasn't.

Have you considered looking into a postdoc to get you back in the game? Have you reached out to your advisor? An advisor benefits when their students succeed so he or she is incentivized to help you.

Are you focusing your applications to the US? The US electronics industry is booming. I know multiple Canadians who are working as EEs in the US and they have all told me the Canadian EE market pales in comparison to the opportunities in the US.

It's a sad fact of life that it is much harder to get a job when you don't already have one. I would start treating applications like a job. You should be doing several thoughtful, targeted applications a day.

Can I ask why you have never hired a PhD without referral or knowing their advisor?

I did 2 years postdoc also in Canada immediately after I graduated 6 years ago, and after that it was difficult to keep getting postdoc positions as there is a maximum limit when you graduated before applying for most universities. Also, I was interested in a more stable job, than keep having 6-12 months contracts all over the country, and keep moving cities.

I reached out to my PhD advisor (with whom my relationship was good during my PhD) more than once, the last of which was just a couple of months ago, but his response has always been "I cannot do anything. Keep applying. Don't give up". He didn't even help me get my first postdoc position, didn't give me any career guidance towards the end of my PhD, and he didn't help me whatsoever in my PhD dissertation other than editing it. I also asked him to introduce me to his former students who work in the industry in Canada, but he just ignored my request. I did the same with my 2-year postdoc advisor, with the same results. They all seem to think you need to earn it yourself without help.

I know the situation would have been different in the US had I graduated from a US university. The US job market is larger and more diverse than the Canadian job market, but currently I am applying in Canada.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Can I ask why you have never hired a PhD without referral or knowing their advisor?

I did 2 years postdoc also in Canada immediately after I graduated 6 years ago, and after that it was difficult to keep getting postdoc positions as there is a maximum limit when you graduated before applying for most universities. Also, I was interested in a more stable job, than keep having 6-12 months contracts all over the country, and keep moving cities.

I reached out to my PhD advisor (with whom my relationship was good during my PhD) more than once, the last of which was just a couple of months ago, but his response has always been "I cannot do anything. Keep applying. Don't give up". He didn't even help me get my first postdoc position, didn't give me any career guidance towards the end of my PhD, and he didn't help me whatsoever in my PhD dissertation other than editing it. I also asked him to introduce me to his former students who work in the industry in Canada, but he just ignored my request. I did the same with my 2-year postdoc advisor, with the same results. They all seem to think you need to earn it yourself without help.

I know the situation would have been different in the US had I graduated from a US university. The US job market is larger and more diverse than the Canadian job market, but currently I am applying in Canada.

I live in Canada (Toronto to be specific, so my experiences will likely be biased in that direction), and I can offer my perspective on the job market here:

1. Many immigrants, particularly those who come from outside of English-speaking countries (or, in the case of Quebec, from French-speaking countries) experience difficulty breaking into the job market in general. Some Canadian hiring managers place a great deal of importance on communication skill and "cultural compatibility" (i.e. someone who talks and acts like you, and have similar interests), and therefore many immigrants who come from other parts of the world face a barrier immediately. The upshot is that people who were born/raised in Canada have a much easier time being hired in any field.

2. Reaching out to your PhD advisor is, under most circumstances, a waste of time in Canada. Most PhD advisors here in Canada (outside of those in very specific fields at specific universities, e.g. University of Toronto or University of Waterloo) do not have sufficient connections to industry here in Canada.

3. As an immigrant, among the better ways of seeking employment would be to set up a start-up business, especially those that specifically cater to those in your immigrant community. After all, why is it that so many immigrants, for example, start up grocery stores or restaurants, regardless of what they were originally trained or educated in?

4. If you don't want to follow #3 and stay within your technical field, then you have to develop connections with those outside of your ethnic community. You stated that you asked one of your professors to introduce you to his former students. Why not just find out who his former students are, and search for them online and reach out directly? Networking directly (without going through intermediaries) will be crucial.

5. You did state that you were looking exclusively at Canadian employers. In this age of remote work, why are you restricting yourself only to Canada? Apply to employers from, say, the US, the UK, or mainland European countries (e.g. France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc.). Or if you are fluent speaker of non-European countries, consider applying to companies based in those areas (e.g. Chinese companies if you are a fluent Mandarin speaker; UAE or Saudi Arabia if you are fluent Arabic speaker, etc.).

 

[analogdesign]

Can I ask why you have never hired a PhD without referral or knowing their advisor?

Because they've never worked out. It isn't that I have anything against anyone who applies out of the blue, but most PhDs work in rather niche fields. I'm in the semiconductor area but I work in a niche. So, I know a good portion of the people who do what I do. So, if I don't know your advisor, you are likely switching subfields, or coming from industry. That's totally ok, but you have to have a story. Why would I hire someone who is switching fields over an available candidate who could hit the ground running? The cover letter is a good place to address this.

I did 2 years postdoc also in Canada immediately after I graduated 6 years ago, and after that it was difficult to keep getting postdoc positions as there is a maximum limit when you graduated before applying for most universities. Also, I was interested in a more stable job, than keep having 6-12 months contracts all over the country, and keep moving cities.

That's good you did a postdoc. The limit where I work is 5 years I think, but it varies. And, unfortunately, research is a worldwide job market. I had to move 3000 miles to get my current role (changed coasts of the US).

I reached out to my PhD advisor (with whom my relationship was good during my PhD) more than once, the last of which was just a couple of months ago, but his response has always been "I cannot do anything. Keep applying. Don't give up". He didn't even help me get my first postdoc position, didn't give me any career guidance towards the end of my PhD, and he didn't help me whatsoever in my PhD dissertation other than editing it. I also asked him to introduce me to his former students who work in the industry in Canada, but he just ignored my request. I did the same with my 2-year postdoc advisor, with the same results. They all seem to think you need to earn it yourself without help.

I'm very sorry to hear that. It is quite different from my experience. I'm still in relatively close contact with my advisor over 15 years on. As StatGuy2000 indicated this may be a cultural thing, as in the US this would be considered bad form on the part of your advisors.

I know the situation would have been different in the US had I graduated from a US university. The US job market is larger and more diverse than the Canadian job market, but currently I am applying in Canada.

The job market (right now) is better in the US than anywhere in the world. I think you're making a mistake limiting your job search to Canada. I work in a major institution and a huge percentage of the research staff is from outside the US. Some of them attended US universities but a lot of people attended US in other countries and moved to the US for the opportunity.

Especially in EE fields like DSP there are massive opportunities in Silicon Valley and Southern California (depending on what your focus is).

 

[symbolipoint]

3. As an immigrant, among the better ways of seeking employment would be to set up a start-up business, especially those that specifically cater to those in your immigrant community. After all, why is it that so many immigrants, for example, start up grocery stores or restaurants, regardless of what they were originally trained or educated in?

Amazing statement! How do we explore that suggestion more completely?

 

[Zap]

The risk is from the fact that you can only shoot one gun at a target. If you shoot the shotgun at 1,000 targets, now you can't shoot them with the sniper rifle.

However, what you could do is identify targets to shoot with the sniper rifle and then shoot everything else with the shotgun.

That's pretty much what I do. I just didn't go into that much detail. During the job hunt, you'll find posts that stand out that you really would like to put extra time in. The main point I was trying to get across was that most people don't send a lot of applications and give up, because they think you should find a job after sending 100 out. I want to stress that it took me at least a thousand before I started even getting call backs, and a few hundred is nowhere near enough, in my opinion.

 

[f95toli]

That's pretty much what I do. I just didn't go into that much detail. During the job hunt, you'll find posts that stand out that you really would like to put extra time in. The main point I was trying to get across was that most people don't send a lot of applications and give up, because they think you should find a job after sending 100 out. I want to stress that it took me at least a thousand before I started even getting call backs, and a few hundred is nowhere near enough, in my opinion.

I suspect this depends on the job. When we hire people as researchers we generally look for fairly specific (and sometimes unusual) skills, meaning a CV which hasn't to some extent been tailored to the role we are advertising is extremely unlikely to go down well.
Also, our HR department will always do the initial screening meaning any any incomplete/or "strange" CVs will get rejected by them before they ever reach me.
I guess the "shotgun" approach might work if you are applying to more "standardised" job roles, but probably not for R&D positions.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I suspect this depends on the job. When we hire people as researchers we generally look for fairly specific (and sometimes unusual) skills, meaning a CV which hasn't to some extent been tailored to the role we are advertising is extremely unlikely to go down well.
Also, our HR department will always do the initial screening meaning any any incomplete/or "strange" CVs will get rejected by them before they ever reach me.
I guess the "shotgun" approach might work if you are applying to more "standardised" job roles, but probably not for R&D positions.

@f95toli , let's say, hypothetically, that someone managed to find out who you are (whether through LinkedIn, or through mutual acquaintances, or possibly through your academic network, or possibly even through PF here) and was interested in seeking employment opportunities at your organization, and gave you their CV directly to you.

Then it would be possible for a "strange" CV to still reach you without HR automatically rejecting it.

 

[f95toli]

@f95toli , let's say, hypothetically, that someone managed to find out who you are (whether through LinkedIn, or through mutual acquaintances, or possibly through your academic network, or possibly even through PF here) and was interested in seeking employment opportunities at your organization, and gave you their CV directly to you.

Then it would be possible for a "strange" CV to still reach you without HR automatically rejecting it.

That does not work. I can't "feed" any CVs into the system; it all has to go through the same process meaning our HR will screen all candidates. Also, decisions about who to hire have to be approved by several people.
I can of course suggest to people that they should apply to an open position and if a name pops up on the list of candidates that I recognise that can play a role when we then decide who to invite to the screening interview.
However, someone sending a CV straight to me would probably be a red flag; our HR people would not be happy. Fortunately, that has never really happened (sometimes students who are looking for unpaid internships/work experience over the summer will send me a CV).

It could be that the system might be a bit more formal here in the UK than in the US, at least in big companies/organisations; so this might not be relevant to the OP

 

[symbolipoint]

It could be that the system might be a bit more formal here in the UK than in the US, at least in big companies/organisations; so this might not be relevant to the OP

NOW we can understand something of why you said what you said.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I suspect this depends on the job. When we hire people as researchers we generally look for fairly specific (and sometimes unusual) skills, meaning a CV which hasn't to some extent been tailored to the role we are advertising is extremely unlikely to go down well.
Also, our HR department will always do the initial screening meaning any any incomplete/or "strange" CVs will get rejected by them before they ever reach me.
I guess the "shotgun" approach might work if you are applying to more "standardised" job roles, but probably not for R&D positions.

What does constitute a strange CV to the HR and/or hiring manager for a person with a PhD?

 

[f95toli]

What does constitute a strange CV to the HR and/or hiring manager for a person with a PhD?

Someone who hasn't answered questions about eligibility properly (=do you need a work visa?), someone applying for a job with the "wrong" qualifications (e.g. someone who is just about to graduate with a BSc but is applying for a position as a senior researcher), "weird" CVs that dot not list experience/qualifications anywhere (surprisingly common).
I can probably think about a few more, mostly it is about people who haven't actually answered all mandatory questions properly.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Someone who hasn't answered questions about eligibility properly (=do you need a work visa?), someone applying for a job with the "wrong" qualifications (e.g. someone who is just about to graduate with a BSc but is applying for a position as a senior researcher), "weird" CVs that dot not list experience/qualifications anywhere (surprisingly common).
I can probably think about a few more, mostly it is about people who haven't actually answered all mandatory questions properly.

Nothing here really tells me the shotgun approach is a bad idea. It's not like someone with a BSc could have gotten the senior researcher position if only they had spent two hours crafting their cv a bit better. Instead they would have just wasted two hours of time.

 

[f95toli]

Nothing here really tells me the shotgun approach is a bad idea. It's not like someone with a BSc could have gotten the senior researcher position if only they had spent two hours crafting their cv a bit better. Instead they would have just wasted two hours of time.

I guess that depends on the situation and what yo mean by "shotgun", Many of the mandatory questions do not have a "right" question (if you need a visa we will help you get it if you think you are the best candidate, but you need to answer the question properly) but you do need to spend some time answering them; I don't think that could be easily done by a bot as was suggested above.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

Someone who hasn't answered questions about eligibility properly (=do you need a work visa?), someone applying for a job with the "wrong" qualifications (e.g. someone who is just about to graduate with a BSc but is applying for a position as a senior researcher), "weird" CVs that dot not list experience/qualifications anywhere (surprisingly common).
I can probably think about a few more, mostly it is about people who haven't actually answered all mandatory questions properly.

Does years of employments gaps fall into the "strange" category in your experience? Also, I haven't worked in my field for at least 3 years before now, and I am honest about this in my CV. Would my CV be flagged because of these information?

 

[Choppy]

Does years of employments gaps fall into the "strange" category in your experience? Also, I haven't worked in my field for at least 3 years before now, and I am honest about this in my CV. Would my CV be flagged because of these information?

I'd call that a minor flag, not a major one.

By that I mean it's unlikely that in and of itself a 3 year gap would keep you from being short-listed. Life can happen. People take time off from their career for a wide range of reasons, many of which are un-related their ability to perform on the job. You will likely be asked about it though, and potential employers will want to know what you've been doing to keep up with the field.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I'd call that a minor flag, not a major one.

By that I mean it's unlikely that in and of itself a 3 year gap would keep you from being short-listed. Life can happen. People take time off from their career for a wide range of reasons, many of which are un-related their ability to perform on the job. You will likely be asked about it though, and potential employers will want to know what you've been doing to keep up with the field.

This is the thing, I haven't done anything in my field. I don't have access to IEEE papers to do any research and publish papers, and second, I couldn't find a job to apply my knowledge and gain experience. What I have been doing instead, was taking programming courses to find an alternative option somewhere down the road, and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field. Now, I am not sure how to recover from this. Can I mention the above explanations, and be OK and considered?

 

[Choppy]

This is the thing, I haven't done anything in my field. I don't have access to IEEE papers to do any research and publish papers, and second, I couldn't find a job to apply my knowledge and gain experience. What I have been doing instead, was taking programming courses to find an alternative option somewhere down the road, and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field. Now, I am not sure how to recover from this. Can I mention the above explanations, and be OK and considered?

I can't tell you what will get you considered and what won't - it depends on the specifics of the position and how many other people are applying for it, and what experience they're brining to the table relative to yourself.

You have to figure out how to market what you've got. For one thing, taking the time to learn programming is not something to "recover from." You're learning a new skill. What can help though is to think about ways that you can demonstrate that skill to potential employers. I'm not a professional programmer, but I would think you could come up with some sort of project portfolio at least.

Similarly, just because you're not working in your field doesn't mean the experience you're developing is necessarily a write-off. Even if you've been an Uber or delivery driver, customer service is a skill.

The other thing is to keep sharpening yourself. Look for opportunities to improve and ways that you can demonstrate that improvement. Volunteer. If you have engineering skills, get involved with your local maker group, start a YouTube channel, tutor students... find something that you enjoy and have a passion for and pursue that.

 

[symbolipoint]

get involved with your local maker group,

What is a maker group?

 

[Choppy]

What is a maker group?

Makers
makerspace
https://makezine.com/
https://maker.pro/

A lot of universities and community groups are starting to provide space, tools and other equipment to their communities for people to work on DIY projects. Some have an entrepreneurial slant toward fostering startups, others are just groups of people who want to learn how to build really cool stuff.

I would think that getting involved or even starting your own group like this would be a great way to build a network outside of university while following your passions.

 

[russ_watters]

...and working sporadically to pay the bills, none of which are even remotely related to my field.

The "working sporadically" part is much worse than "not related to my field". Before anything else, an employee needs to be reliable and a continuous/consistent work history is how you prove reliability. My advice here is you need to get a job - any job - and keep it for a long time.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

The "working sporadically" part is much worse than "not related to my field". Before anything else, an employee needs to be reliable and a continuous/consistent work history is how you prove reliability. My advice here is you need to get a job - any job - and keep it for a long time.

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree, and that proves I am reliable as a researcher, and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

 

[russ_watters]

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree, and that proves I am reliable as a researcher, and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

Is that really the best you can say about your work history?

 

[Choppy]

So, if I work as a Pizza delivery person, then I should include it in my resume when applying for an R&D position based on my PhD degree, and that proves I am reliable as a researcher, and this is better than not having a paid job but doing some professional development through courses and personal projects?

I think the point here is that when your resume (or if it comes up in your interview) seems to indicate that you do any given job for a month or two and then move on, that will come across as a flag. Interviewers will want to know if you have a pattern of not getting along with people or quitting when you come across a challenging situation. Obviously, that's not the only reason for sporadic work, but you'll want to think about how to demonstrate to any potential employer that you're a solid long term investment.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

I think the point here is that when your resume (or if it comes up in your interview) seems to indicate that you do any given job for a month or two and then move on, that will come across as a flag. Interviewers will want to know if you have a pattern of not getting along with people or quitting when you come across a challenging situation. Obviously, that's not the only reason for sporadic work, but you'll want to think about how to demonstrate to any potential employer that you're a solid long term investment.

I have never worked for less than a year for a job, and when I left it wasn't my decision. But I don't take any job just to demonstrate I am reliable. They can inquire about my reliability from the references I provide. I prefer to work on my skills instead and develop personal projects to get better chances than stacking the shelves for 8 hours a day and then left with no time and energy at the end of the day to do anything else.

 

[PeroK]

I have never worked for less than a year for a job, and when I left it wasn't my decision. But I don't take any job just to demonstrate I am reliable. They can inquire about my reliability from the references I provide. I prefer to work on my skills instead and develop personal projects to get better chances than stacking the shelves for 8 hours a day and then left with no time and energy at the end of the day to do anything else.

We have 65+ posts and it seems the whole situation remains an enigma. There's some good general advice in this thread, but I can't see any sign of positively identifying what has gone wrong over the past four years (especially the lack of interviews - which is the real puzzle). Why does someone with a PhD in a specialist area who applies to jobs in that area not even get an interview? I see no evidence that anyone has an answer to that. And, perhaps, how can anyone on here answer that?

Moreover, four years is a long time and the reasons why you didn't land a job in your first year after graduation may be truly unfathomable now.

If you want to work in your specialist field then I believe you need to apply to positions that are most suited and follow through and understand why you are not being considered. And then decide whether the problems are fixable. For example, we don't now whether your applications have been rejected by the initial HR review or the specialist teams that you would be working for.

I did quite a bit of IT recruitment and I have to say that we interviewed anyone who looked likely. We were not overwhelmed by possible candidates and I find it unimaginable that you haven't had many interviews. I can think of no plausible reason for this. You need to find out where the application process is failing - although I fear that now it is the four-year gap.

 

[ProbablyNotMe]

We have 65+ posts and it seems the whole situation remains an enigma. There's some good general advice in this thread, but I can't see any sign of positively identifying what has gone wrong over the past four years (especially the lack of interviews - which is the real puzzle). Why does someone with a PhD in a specialist area who applies to jobs in that area not even get an interview? I see no evidence that anyone has an answer to that. And, perhaps, how can anyone on here answer that?

Moreover, four years is a long time and the reasons why you didn't land a job in your first year after graduation may be truly unfathomable now.

If you want to work in your specialist field then I believe you need to apply to positions that are most suited and follow through and understand why you are not being considered. And then decide whether the problems are fixable. For example, we don't now whether your applications have been rejected by the initial HR review or the specialist teams that you would be working for.

I did quite a bit of IT recruitment and I have to say that we interviewed anyone who looked likely. We were not overwhelmed by possible candidates and I find it unimaginable that you haven't had many interviews. I can think of no plausible reason for this. You need to find out where the application process is failing - although I fear that now it is the four-year gap.

I did get a job for almost two years as postdoc almost immediately after I graduated, but things went south from there.

I believe my resumes are rejected by the HR directly, because I don't get enough interviews compared to the number of applications, but I am not sure if the HR consults the hiring managers before moving forward with the screening.

I try to follow with the HR after I am being interviewed, but all I get (if any) is general feedback. After the interview in the US, I tried to follow with the recruiter after I was rejected, but I got no response at all.

That's what I am thinking, the gap is now snowballing. Recruiters/hiring mangers see the gaps and think "OK this guy is not employable/looks suspicious. Next". As someone else mentioned, it's easier to get a job while having a job. It's appealing to recruiters/hiring managers to be employed.

 

[Dale]

With no experience I feel companies don't give my PhD a significant weight. I was told by a recruiter once we don't look for PhD but for experience.

The years in your PhD are counted as experience. So you should have about 6 years of experience, not 0.