- #1
EngWiPy
- 1,368
- 61
Hello everyone,
First off, the topic I'm about to introduce is a general one, and applies everywhere, not just in North America. The issue I would like to introduce is the experience requirement for every single position. Some people here responded to this as a secondary discussion to another thread I opened, but I would like to introduce it in a separate thread. It was said that these requirements are just wish lists. I think this is true because it's very difficult to find someone who meets all the requirements. However, it's also true that there will always be someone who has some experience in some of the requirements. So, I think companies select the best fit among the applicants, not the best fit that meets all the requirements; the selection is relative not absolute.
I've realized this issue as I'm making a transition from academia (as a postdoctoral researcher) to the industry where I have zero experience, and my PhD field isn't in demand. I'm trying to find a job in software development or hardware design because I have some background in computer (I'm also applying for data science because I'm relatively good at statistics from my PhD). I've been rejected even for entry level positions in software development, although some stated clearly that the employees will go through 3-4 months of training (I thought those people could select me, but I was wrong). They say entry level on C# for example in the title of the position, but when you read the details, you find that they need experience in SQL, JavaScript, JQuery, HTML, CSS, Linux, ... etc. It's frustrating.
I watched a documentary about jobs in Canada, and a specialist addressed this issue by saying that every dollar a company invests in an employee in training, the return will be on average $1.75. This is to say, a company which trains its employees will never loose. Of course, in an economy and a mindset where money is the sole driving force in the market, it's better to find someone who already knows than someone who needs to go under some training to maximize benefits.
Admittedly, I'm not the first one to experience this, but I think there should be some kind of systematic way (for example a collaboration between government and the job market) to absorb people with no experiences and give them quota so to speak. I was reading some experiences, and some people applied for jobs for 1 year, and even then some didn't find a job. I think 1 year to find a job is too much.
I'm learning by myself now, and it's very slow and scattered because I'm not sure what language I will be working on. There are many programming languages. I know a few, but I have no problem learning other languages because all have similar concepts. I just need to learn the syntax of the new language. For example I'm now learning Java, but I know C#, so Java for me is very easy, because both are very similar, even in syntax. I brought this up because I once looked to take a course on SQL for example, and the course costs around $1000 dollars for less than three months. Even if I take SQL, it won't be enough alone, because every position requires multiple languages and skills. Then I need to take other courses, which I cannot afford in time and money at this stage. On the other hand, if a company is willing to train me for a couple of months with a very narrow objective, that would be perfect and easy for me and affordable (I will accept minimal payment while training just to cover my living expenses just to get started). What I'm trying to say is that, I may not have the experience now, but I can learn what's needed very quickly. I believe this is true for many people as well, not just me.
Internships are one way to go, but I have to mention that I'm not young, and not a new graduate, so internships aren't options for me. Also, I read some employers say explicitly in their ads 3-4 years experience (no internships)! Even internships don't count sometimes.
I would like to hear what others think about this.
Thanks
First off, the topic I'm about to introduce is a general one, and applies everywhere, not just in North America. The issue I would like to introduce is the experience requirement for every single position. Some people here responded to this as a secondary discussion to another thread I opened, but I would like to introduce it in a separate thread. It was said that these requirements are just wish lists. I think this is true because it's very difficult to find someone who meets all the requirements. However, it's also true that there will always be someone who has some experience in some of the requirements. So, I think companies select the best fit among the applicants, not the best fit that meets all the requirements; the selection is relative not absolute.
I've realized this issue as I'm making a transition from academia (as a postdoctoral researcher) to the industry where I have zero experience, and my PhD field isn't in demand. I'm trying to find a job in software development or hardware design because I have some background in computer (I'm also applying for data science because I'm relatively good at statistics from my PhD). I've been rejected even for entry level positions in software development, although some stated clearly that the employees will go through 3-4 months of training (I thought those people could select me, but I was wrong). They say entry level on C# for example in the title of the position, but when you read the details, you find that they need experience in SQL, JavaScript, JQuery, HTML, CSS, Linux, ... etc. It's frustrating.
I watched a documentary about jobs in Canada, and a specialist addressed this issue by saying that every dollar a company invests in an employee in training, the return will be on average $1.75. This is to say, a company which trains its employees will never loose. Of course, in an economy and a mindset where money is the sole driving force in the market, it's better to find someone who already knows than someone who needs to go under some training to maximize benefits.
Admittedly, I'm not the first one to experience this, but I think there should be some kind of systematic way (for example a collaboration between government and the job market) to absorb people with no experiences and give them quota so to speak. I was reading some experiences, and some people applied for jobs for 1 year, and even then some didn't find a job. I think 1 year to find a job is too much.
I'm learning by myself now, and it's very slow and scattered because I'm not sure what language I will be working on. There are many programming languages. I know a few, but I have no problem learning other languages because all have similar concepts. I just need to learn the syntax of the new language. For example I'm now learning Java, but I know C#, so Java for me is very easy, because both are very similar, even in syntax. I brought this up because I once looked to take a course on SQL for example, and the course costs around $1000 dollars for less than three months. Even if I take SQL, it won't be enough alone, because every position requires multiple languages and skills. Then I need to take other courses, which I cannot afford in time and money at this stage. On the other hand, if a company is willing to train me for a couple of months with a very narrow objective, that would be perfect and easy for me and affordable (I will accept minimal payment while training just to cover my living expenses just to get started). What I'm trying to say is that, I may not have the experience now, but I can learn what's needed very quickly. I believe this is true for many people as well, not just me.
Internships are one way to go, but I have to mention that I'm not young, and not a new graduate, so internships aren't options for me. Also, I read some employers say explicitly in their ads 3-4 years experience (no internships)! Even internships don't count sometimes.
I would like to hear what others think about this.
Thanks
Last edited: