Things I've learned as a recent grad

[kinkmode]

I've met plenty of people who were willing to network with me, an unemployed physicist. Actually, pretty much everyone I've reached out to has taken time out of their busy day to meet with me for lunch or coffee and brainstorm.

Unfortunately, it hasn't gone anywhere because no one is hiring, but I can see how it's a lot more effective than firing off resumes into the void.

My advice would be to take advantage of career fairs at university while you still have them, and intern/coop while you still can. And start reaching out to people to do 'informational interviews'. Google that phrase for more info.

 

[ZapperZ]

Every example you guys have presented me with is qualitative.

"Qualitative"? You mean they are ANECDOTAL, just like yours?

Your "evidence" is no different. You just chose to adopt one conclusion. It doesn't negate other conclusions. If this is how you draw up your conclusion, then no wonder your "world" is so skewed.

Again, I have no evidence that you're telling the truth.

This thread as degenerated into "The World According to Aero51". It is selfish and has neglected the OP's question.

Zz.

 

[Jamin2112]

I feel like employers who put a long list of impossible-to-meet requirements for a "Junior" or "Entry-Level" position are going to attract pathological liars and severely overconfident people. Who they want to attract are smart and capable people, but most smart and capable people are in fact honest and underconfident in their abilities. You can look at the studies that show intelligent people underrate their intelligence and non-intelligent people overrate their intelligence.

 

[kinkmode]

I graduated around the same time, but went to grad school afterwards, finishing in the late 90s. The job market was great - the .com bubble hadn't burst yet and I found it not so hard to find a good position, even though my specialty (in electrical engineering) was plasma physics.

...

These days I think it would be unlikely for someone exactly like me to get an offer from my company, at least for the kind of technical position I was hired into. Indeed, when my last boss asked a few details about my formal education, his comment was, "why did we hire you?"

I'm glad you brought this up. Not enough people who graduated pre-2008ish acknowledge or understand this point. Not enough people who graduated pre-2008ish recognize they got their start because someone gave them a chance, not because of all their hard work. Thus we get all the rants about the entitled generation.

Companies have the upper hand because the job market is so difficult. They sit around waiting for the perfect candidate instead of hiring someone like you who can learn the ropes in a reasonable amount of time and add countless value in the long term. But that's ok. They can afford to. Who cares about the people whose lives are being ruined because they don't have the requisite 2-5 years of experience in industry and Excel pivot tables.

By the way, with respect to Excel: At the last contract job I worked at, I had to help the group script up an Excel solution since they didn't know how to do it. Never mind that Excel is pretty much the only program the group used and I hadn't had it installed on a computer in 5+ years. Companies are so quick to discount skills that are transferrable (programming in this case) because they don't realize the applications. As a result, they end up with a group of engineers who can't program and thus don't know how to script Excel, or even figure it out.

 

[Locrian]

As a young professional,

What profession are you a member of, out of curiosity?

 

[ModusPwnd]

I am so sick of hearing this line of garbage from EVERYONE. We live in new times. The morals that worked 50 something years ago will fail today, fail! I used to be a believer of integrity and honesty, then I woke up one day after realizing how screwed I've been and how little my moral doctrines have been paying off.

Dont kid yourself:
*lying will get your foot in the door
*dishonesty makes for great networking, remember it is the image you can project not the project you must deliver
*politicians do it all the time and they are living great lives
*ceo's do it all the time and they have probably everything they've ever wanted

Some hippy might say "Well at the expense of others and your values, blah blah blah"
my response to those fools is "who cares"

Im so tired of being preached this old fasion morals garbage, it doesn't work. I don't know why so many people fail to realize this.

I agree to some extent. I sure don't think it was any different 50 years ago. Lying is a skill people use because it works. If it didnt work I doubt we would have evolved it. I lied to get my current job. I said I didnt have a degree and only completed some college, they bought the lie and hired me. People who are so dead set against lying simply want the world to be that way even though it isnt. Lying is tough to pull off and in many cases you are better off not lying. But sometimes it works, that's just how it is whether we like it or not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am so sick of hearing this line of garbage from EVERYONE. We live in new times. The morals that worked 50 something years ago will fail today, fail! I used to be a believer of integrity and honesty, then I woke up one day after realizing how screwed I've been and how little my moral doctrines have been paying off.

Dont kid yourself:
*lying will get your foot in the door
*dishonesty makes for great networking, remember it is the image you can project not the project you must deliver
*politicians do it all the time and they are living great lives
*ceo's do it all the time and they have probably everything they've ever wanted

Some hippy might say "Well at the expense of others and your values, blah blah blah"
my response to those fools is "who cares"

Im so tired of being preached this old fasion morals garbage, it doesn't work. I don't know why so many people fail to realize this.

You often post how sad your life is. Perhaps honesty for its own sake would improve things. Just sayin'.

 

[Lavabug]

I'm glad you brought this up. Not enough people who graduated pre-2008ish acknowledge or understand this point. Not enough people who graduated pre-2008ish recognize they got their start because someone gave them a chance, not because of all their hard work. Thus we get all the rants about the entitled generation.

Companies have the upper hand because the job market is so difficult. They sit around waiting for the perfect candidate instead of hiring someone like you who can learn the ropes in a reasonable amount of time and add countless value in the long term. But that's ok. They can afford to. Who cares about the people whose lives are being ruined because they don't have the requisite 2-5 years of experience in industry and Excel pivot tables.

By the way, with respect to Excel: At the last contract job I worked at, I had to help the group script up an Excel solution since they didn't know how to do it. Never mind that Excel is pretty much the only program the group used and I hadn't had it installed on a computer in 5+ years. Companies are so quick to discount skills that are transferrable (programming in this case) because they don't realize the applications. As a result, they end up with a group of engineers who can't program and thus don't know how to script Excel, or even figure it out.

Emphasis mine. This, a million times this.

Also, lies have a tendency to come back and irreparably tarnish your reputation in the long run.

We live in a world where hypocrisy is rife, but that doesn't mean you have to conform and "do it because everyone else (allegedly) does it". No one likes being lied to and they'll do their best to drown you in guilt if you get caught, but everyone's willing to give career advice that amounts to bold-faced lying on a CV or job interview. Since they're not the ones getting duped, it's ok.

IMO, the only thing you take to your grave is your integrity. Some people have a heavier conscience than others. Golden rule, and all that.

 

[atyy]

Every example you guys have presented me with is qualitative. As a young professional, I am really sick of hear the "hard work pays of..." line, because that isn't true anymore. Have any of you telling me I'm wrong been in the job search as a young professional within the last 5 years? "Hard work", "perseverance", "honesty", "do what you love" is a dead lie today. I wake up everyday and I ask myself if what I am doing will really pay off. I am told it will, but deep down I really don't think so. I review all the cover letters I've written, the resumes I've wrote, the shear number of job I have applied to and had...0 results! I even went to a career counselor and she loved my resume so much she wanted to put in the dorky book of sample resumes that career centers sometimes give out.

In going against everything I have believed since I was a child, I am starting to think those who take shortcuts in life know something I don't and I am missing out.

It's not new, look at Watson and Crick 50 years ago. I think the honest way has always been the been the hard way.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Every example you guys have presented me with is qualitative. As a young professional, I am really sick of hear the "hard work pays of..." line, because that isn't true anymore. Have any of you telling me I'm wrong been in the job search as a young professional within the last 5 years? "Hard work", "perseverance", "honesty", "do what you love" is a dead lie today. I wake up everyday and I ask myself if what I am doing will really pay off. I am told it will, but deep down I really don't think so. I review all the cover letters I've written, the resumes I've wrote, the shear number of job I have applied to and had...0 results! I even went to a career counselor and she loved my resume so much she wanted to put in the dorky book of sample resumes that career centers sometimes give out.

In going against everything I have believed since I was a child, I am starting to think those who take shortcuts in life know something I don't and I am missing out.

Exactly how is my example I gave you "qualitative"?

You had asked whether or not it would be a good idea for you to lie on an application form about whether you are a minority. Suppose for the moment you did this for a particular job you had applied for, and the HR rep or hiring manager contacts you asking you to come in for a face-to-face interview.

The moment you walk into that interview, you will be discovered that you had lied on that form. There's just no way around that. Once you have been exposed as a liar on that question, the hiring manager or HR rep will wonder what else you may have lied about. Tell me how that will help you out in any way whatsoever.

 

[kinkmode]

Frankly, even if you wanted to lie, I can't see how lying about your ethnicity would help you get the job. In my mind, it's fantasy land to think you are losing out on the job because you are white. You are losing out because you are 1) inexperienced, 2) the job isn't real, 3) you aren't related to someone in the company, or 4) many other reasons.

 

[Choppy]

With respect to the issue of networking...

Recruitment nowadays for students and graduates is handled almost exclusively online, increasingly via long and drawn out application forms too. Attending said events does not allow you to bypass the system, or get a head start. None of the information presented or given will not be able to be found online quite easily on the company's students/graduates webpage. They only exist because companies are worried that if they don't run these types of events then the calibre of students/graduates they want to attract won't bother to spend several nights of their life filling out their application forms.

A lot of older people advise "networking" to students/graduates. Networking is about forming mutually beneficial relationships. As a student or graduate (i.e. not a professional) you can only take, not give back, and thus professionals have no reason to want to form a relationship with you over the hundreds or thousands of other desperate students there.

Instead you're far better off spending the time actually filling in the online application form. And when you do, make sure you use the same language as what is used in company literature, since software that picks out keywords is becoming increasingly common.

There is a disconnect between how "networking" is being portrayed here and in the original post compared to what most people mean when they advise "networking" as a component of successfully marketing yourself. For the record, I realize "networking" is one of those vaguely defined buzzwords that can mean a lot of different things.

I think it's important to point out though that simply going to a job fair, attending presentations and handing out your CV is only a tiny portion of what it means and how it can help you.

Networking means talking to people. It means gathering intelligence. You don't have to form a relationship with every person in the field you come across to "network." Just because someone isn't hiring does't mean that you can't learn something from him or her. Consider, for example, finding out what qualities were common to the candidates short-listed for a position the last time there was a job-opening, or finding out what the interview process was like, what questions were asked - all of that is gold for tailoring your resume.

Another key point to figure out is who will be hiring in the near future. Applying in response to a job posting get you to the back of the line. Applying just as a company creates the position gets you to the front. How do you figure this out? You ask questions.

Something else to keep in mind is that even posting in and reading these forums is a form of networking.

 

[Rika]

I'm reading a book by Daniel Kahneman right now called "Thinking Fast and Slow" and in it he talks about how people tend to select in favour of familiar, easy to understand things and select against difficult or abstract things.

But it doesn't mean that running successful big business is any easier or require less intelligence than physics. It just require different skills and approach but I don't want people to think - more abstract=more superior because that's nor true.

We have had very few entry level jobs lately. Thanks to HR policies, they're looking for experience and certification everywhere --even for ditch diggers. I'm not sure what to say to a new graduate except that you should attempt to acquire work experience that is relevant to your career while you're attending school.

It's pretty standard in my country. You study part-time/full-time only to get "pass" mark (employers don't care about grades) and dedicate yourself to work (interships aren't paid) in order to get valuable job experience. Networking is part of our "job market culture" too.

I think I can understand these kids through. My country is poor so we have never experienced american prosperity but still there were better times. Our parents have lived more comfortable, less stressful life. It was like going from "hard but ok living mode" to "very hard mode". We are frustrated that our generation needs to work much more for much less (money, benefits, career prospects) than our parents.

So I think american kids are even more frustrated because they went from "omg america is soo rich, prosperity, google and microsoft, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll" to "very hard mode" so for them shock is even bigger. Kids from my country are used to high demands for entry-level jobs, working and studying at the same time, networking, "lying" (not real lying bur rather selling ourselfs to employer) and fighting for jobs with all their might so I think american kids will be ok too.

Remmeber - "good, old times" are over. You need to get a grip and start to adapt. That's the only thing that you can do.

 

[jesse73]

Frankly, even if you wanted to lie, I can't see how lying about your ethnicity would help you get the job. In my mind, it's fantasy land to think you are losing out on the job because you are white. You are losing out because you are 1) inexperienced, 2) the job isn't real, 3) you aren't related to someone in the company, or 4) many other reasons.

yeah.

Lying about something that you will immediately be caught for during an interview is not just dishonest but dumb.

It is just dumb on so many levels. Couldnt you just as easily lie about possessing a skill that is relevant for the position and have a lower probability of getting caught. As if writing that you are a minority makes up for not knowing C++ when applying for a C++ position when you could just as easily lie about writing java code on your own time for years which is at least a tangentially related skill and be less likely to get caught after learning some java basics in a few hours.

uugh

 

[inotyce]

Résumé or CV to me is simply like a cover, if I am an interviewer, I wouldn't care about it much but it is necessary because I can learn what the candidates have been through (even when all are lies); I understand the current job, what I need to focus on, what to maintain and expand further in the project resources I am working on and thus I would question my candidates only those related things. There should be basic theoretical questions to qualify their background. Those interviewers who point out any lies in their candidate's CV during the meeting seem inexperienced in interviews, life and HR management and mostly still *young*, physically and mentally. Do you want to work for a single or narrow minded manager ?
I express a lot of my personal ideas here and too am looking forward to meeting and learning from any physicists of the same stand.

 

[analogdesign]

I am so sick of hearing this line of garbage from EVERYONE. We live in new times. The morals that worked 50 something years ago will fail today, fail! I used to be a believer of integrity and honesty, then I woke up one day after realizing how screwed I've been and how little my moral doctrines have been paying off.

Dont kid yourself:
*lying will get your foot in the door
*dishonesty makes for great networking, remember it is the image you can project not the project you must deliver
*politicians do it all the time and they are living great lives
*ceo's do it all the time and they have probably everything they've ever wanted

Some hippy might say "Well at the expense of others and your values, blah blah blah"
my response to those fools is "who cares"

Im so tired of being preached this old fasion morals garbage, it doesn't work. I don't know why so many people fail to realize this.

I'm someone who hires STEM graduates (including physicists). If I learned that someone lied to me knowingly, I would never in a million years give that person an offer. If I had already made the offer I would cancel it. If I hired the person already and he or she was still on the probationary period I would fire them.

These are hard times, I agree. But the only thing you really have in this world is your integrity and your self-respect. if you lie to me (to get your foot in the door) how do I know you won't lie to me later about the status of your project, or about the results you are reporting, or if you're getting kickbacks from a vendor?

 

[Aero51]

I'm someone who hires STEM graduates (including physicists). If I learned that someone lied to me knowingly, I would never in a million years give that person an offer. If I had already made the offer I would cancel it. If I hired the person already and he or she was still on the probationary period I would fire them.

Do you have any friken idea how many people lie on their resumes? How many bad students do you think you've interviewed? What do I mean by "bad"? The kind that devoted and entire section to a project, when in reality they did maybe 15% of it while their group did the rest of the work. I hate to crash down on your reality but good resume writers can be pretty terrible students too.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I feel like employers who put a long list of impossible-to-meet requirements for a "Junior" or "Entry-Level" position are going to attract pathological liars and severely overconfident people. Who they want to attract are smart and capable people, but most smart and capable people are in fact honest and underconfident in their abilities. You can look at the studies that show intelligent people underrate their intelligence and non-intelligent people overrate their intelligence.

Exactly!

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Do you have any friken idea how many people lie on their resumes? How many bad students do you think you've interviewed? What do I mean by "bad"? The kind that devoted and entire section to a project, when in reality they did maybe 15% of it while their group did the rest of the work. I hate to crash down on your reality but good resume writers can be pretty terrible students too.

...and I know several people who did that and were fired as soon as it was discovered. In one case the discovery took a few years, but she was fired as soon as it came to light. (Note that by then there were other valid causes for dismissal; but the official reason, listed at the top of those documents, was lying on her resume and job application)

We depend on each other for our lives and our livelihood where I work. I wouldn't want to be anywhere that tolerated sub-standard ethics. Incompetence and mistakes are a fact of life. But lying about anything is a choice.

Choose wisely.

 

[Choppy]

Do you have any friken idea how many people lie on their resumes? How many bad students do you think you've interviewed? What do I mean by "bad"? The kind that devoted and entire section to a project, when in reality they did maybe 15% of it while their group did the rest of the work. I hate to crash down on your reality but good resume writers can be pretty terrible students too.

I'm sure there may be the occasional person who slips through, but in my experience it's not that difficult to spot the slackers and the liars. You may not catch someone in an overt lie, but you'll see inconsistencies between how they describe themselves, how others describe them, and the other evidence of work they've done.

 

[analogdesign]

Do you have any friken idea how many people lie on their resumes? How many bad students do you think you've interviewed? What do I mean by "bad"? The kind that devoted and entire section to a project, when in reality they did maybe 15% of it while their group did the rest of the work. I hate to crash down on your reality but good resume writers can be pretty terrible students too.

Yes. Many people lie on their resumes. I usually find out, I believe. I lot of MS students can't actually describe in detail the work they claim on their own resumes or answer simple technical questions based on their background.

You have not crashed down on my reality. Yes, lying on a resume may get you through the door but a liar is usually caught on a phone screen and almost certainly filtered out in an on-site interview.

 

[atyy]

Lying can help you get ahead. So it's difficult not to do it. It's too easy to say, and hard to do, but I'll say it anyway: be honest because it's right.

http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/labs/WhatisScience/section_08.html
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/dna_13

 

[ZapperZ]

I find this whole issue of lying on resume rather amusing. One can lie on one's resume, but it doesn't mean that it will work all the time!

When we usually short list candidates either for postdocs or assistant physicist, we have a set of criteria that we are looking for. This can be (i) a set of knowledge; and or/ (ii) a particular skill set. So these candidates that we will call for an interview are the ones who have such things that we are looking for. They are interviewed by several people who are not only in the administrative part of the division, but also physicists who are involved in the group that will hire this person. You can be damn sure that specific and detailed questions about those knowledge and skills will be asked of the candidate. I've asked detailed questions to candidates that we were looking for for our detector projects, especially on their knowledge of ultra-high vacuum systems, thin film fabrications, thin film diagnostics, etc... etc. And trust me, I can spot someone faking their ability VERY quickly!

Not only that, these candidates are required to present a seminar to the entire division/department of the work they had done. And again, the questions that they have to answer during such a presentation can easily reveal how much they know and how much they don't know.

So sure, maybe lying on one's resume and getting away with it might occur in many areas. But it is awfully difficult to get away with it in many scientific hiring, and I know for a fact that it is very difficult to get away with it in physics.

Zz.

 

[AlephZero]

Do you have any friken idea how many people lie on their resumes?

We usually start by assuming the answer is "all of them". And we don't believe applicants write their own CVs either.

But we only hire those who convince us they are honest. And unless you have an A* grade in lying, the easiest way to do that might be to actually be honest.

How many bad students do you think you've interviewed? What do I mean by "bad"? The kind that devoted and entire section to a project, when in reality they did maybe 15% of it while their group did the rest of the work.

It's easy enough to see the difference between a general description of the whole of a group project, and a description of what the person in front of you actually did.

Maybe you forgot something here: candidates maybe get to do 3 or 4 interviews on average. Interviewers get to do hundreds. And they get to read thousands of applications, to select those interviewees. Whatever cunning plan you come up with to fool us, we've probably seen it lots of times already.

 

[analogdesign]

It's easy enough to see the difference between a general description of the whole of a group project, and a description of what the person in front of you actually did.

Sometimes this intuition fails. I had a high-performing co-worker recently applied for a job doing board design at Microsoft. The interviewer thought he was lying about his contribution but it was true! The guy did a whole ATCA communication node interfacing with a high-speed imager by himself! The interviewer was convinced the candidate was taking credit for a group project.

I imagine 9 times out of 10 the interviewer is right though.

 

[jesse73]

I've asked detailed questions to candidates that we were looking for for our detector projects, especially on their knowledge of ultra-high vacuum systems, thin film fabrications, thin film diagnostics, etc... etc. And trust me, I can spot someone faking their ability VERY quickly!

Adding on analogdesigns comment.

To play devils advocate on experienced professionals being better at lie detection.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection

 

[jesse73]

Sometimes this intuition fails. I had a high-performing co-worker recently applied for a job doing board design at Microsoft. The interviewer thought he was lying about his contribution but it was true! The guy did a whole ATCA communication node interfacing with a high-speed imager by himself! The interviewer was convinced the candidate was taking credit for a group project.

I imagine 9 times out of 10 the interviewer is right though.

Sounds like he didnt potray his answers confidently. Engineers and physicist arent known to be the most confident people so I would say "9 times out of 10" is likely an overestimate.

 

[analogdesign]

Adding on analogdesigns comment.

To play devils advocate on experienced professionals being better at lie detection.


http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2006/10/just-how-good-are-police-officers-at.html

This is very interesting but not entirely applicable. I don't claim to be superhuman and I'm not able to detect many lies based on facts. However, if you're lying about capabilities I am able to dig in and expose that lie since I happen to be a subject matter expert.

I can't tell if the applicant is lying about where they were last weekend or if they robbed 7-11 but I can tell whether or not they took a lead role in an Ethernet PHY implementation.

 

[analogdesign]

Sounds like he didnt potray his answers confidently. Engineers and physicist arent known to be the most confident people so I would say "9 times out of 10" is likely an overestimate.

You could be right. This guy was very capable but a bit shy and perhaps not as confident as he should have been.

That said, communication and confidence are important real-world skills for engineers. I wish more engineers had guidance in these areas.

 

[jesse73]

You could be right. This guy was very capable but a bit shy and perhaps not as confident as he should have been.

That said, communication and confidence are important real-world skills for engineers. I wish more engineers had guidance in these areas.

Problem is that the interviewers didnt come out with that impression but rather with the impression that he didnt actually do the work he described. This means the interviewers themselves had a defective ability at discerning confidence from capability and not even realizing it.

Exactly why I wouldn't take anyone's self proclaimed ability at telling "who actually did the work" at face value.

 

[jesse73]

Lying can help you get ahead. So it's difficult not to do it. It's too easy to say, and hard to do, but I'll say it anyway: be honest because it's right.

http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Biofundamentals/labs/WhatisScience/section_08.html
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/dna_13

Aside from the links between psychopathic characteristics and success in the workplace.

Books about this.

Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Paul Babiak
No A**hole Rule by Robert Sutton

 

[D H]

Problem is that the interviewers didnt come out with that impression but rather with the impression that he didnt actually do the work he described. This means the interviewers themselves had a defective ability at discerning confidence from capability and not even realizing it.

No, it doesn't. You're missing something important: The cost of mistakenly rejecting a viable candidate is *tiny* compared to the cost of mistakenly hiring a non-viable candidate. A company that is hiring can always find someone else to interview for a job opening. Getting rid of a hiring mistake? That's extremely expensive, even for a big company.

The hiring process is extremely risk averse. Any perceived risk pretty much spells the end of a candidate's hiring prospects, and suspected lying ranks way up there as a risk.

 

[meanrev]

• The best job boards, in descending order, are Indeed, LinkedIn and, believe it or not, CraigsList. But none of these are good for a recent college grad. Any position that is listed is "Entry-Level" will have 20 requirements including 5-10 yrs professional experience. There do exist truly entry-level jobs at good companies, but you'll only be able to find them through your university or other connections. Apply for the jobs with "require" experience even if you don't have it. If they give you a call, that means they think you're a good potential candidate in spite of the fact that your resume doesn't show you have experience. I've gotten calls from several places after applying for jobs for which I didn't meet the "requirements."
• Don't bother going to any "networking events" or "open houses". It'll be you and 1000 other desperate people trying to suck up to the company while their managers give an info session and gloat over how great their jobs are and how they pick up only the greatest talent on Earth and that you should apply online if you think you're elite enough.

I disagree about these two. I, among many others, have found networking events and open houses to be more useful than any other in the job application process.

1. For one, working at a firm is a two-way process of you interviewing them as well as them interviewing you, so whether or not it facilitates getting employed, meeting other employees before you even send out your application is something I recommend everyone to do.

2. Secondly, it's a great way to learn what others are doing. You may be a math major looking for a job at Google, but find out that HP is doing some elegant things with network distribution in their Vertica acquisition; that Yahoo is trying to replace their employee base with 80% recent college grads to remove their old image; or that they're actually recruiting math majors at D.E. Shaw; or that there's a new medical imaging startup that needs experts at wavelet decomposition.

I noted a few posts describing recruiters who have to go through hundreds of applicants and get bored of it - well, it's partly true that standing on the spot for 8 hours straight, repeating the same stories about your firm, is very exhausting - but it's not boring. People love to talk about themselves - if you lower your sense of entitlement and give them a chance to, you can get a lot out of it even if it doesn't end in a job offer. I've never come across a recruiter who was unenthusiastic to pursue a conversation with me and follow up via email after that.

 

[jesse73]

No, it doesn't. You're missing something important: The cost of mistakenly rejecting a viable candidate is *tiny* compared to the cost of mistakenly hiring a non-viable candidate. A company that is hiring can always find someone else to interview for a job opening. Getting rid of a hiring mistake? That's extremely expensive, even for a big company.

The hiring process is extremely risk averse. Any perceived risk pretty much spells the end of a candidate's hiring prospects, and suspected lying ranks way up there as a risk.

Thats justification for why the mistake in perception doesn't matter. It is not reasoning for why the interviewer was not making a mistake in perception in that scenario.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The hiring process is extremely risk averse. Any perceived risk pretty much spells the end of a candidate's hiring prospects, and suspected lying ranks way up there as a risk.

Which is why its very hard for physics phds to get many jobs at engineering companies, especially in a crowded market. Its easier to hire the normal candidate over the outlier candidate.