Could anyone copy the text for us paywalled peasants?
sigmoid10
I've seen people like this before. The problem is not the job market, which merely happens to be fucked as well right now. But with a summa cum laude degree from Rice and a PhD from Princeton you usually knock at any big firm remotely interested in STEM and you will at least land an interview with someone important. There is only one reason you can fail from that point: You're a complete social inept. A double PhD from Oxford will not save you if you can't hold a conversation. This stuff doesn't matter that much in school, but it is absolute paramount in the real world. To quote the late Professor Winston from MIT: Your success in life will be determined by three things, 1. Your ability to speak. 2. Your ability to write. 3. Your ability to think. - in that order! If you suck at social communication, you basically have to be an era-defining genius like Newton in the thinking department if you want to make it. And even he almost didn't get his most famous work published if Halley (yes, the guy from the comet) hadn't seen beyond his social quirks and realized his genius.
syngrog66
He entered the STEM job market in the US at the worst possible time, between BigTech layoffs and the current US exec branch attacks on domestic STEM employment in general. And having a PhD can be a turnoff to many potential employers and hiring managers.
sublimefire
The article does not talk about numbers. It is hard to understand competition in the field he is applying to. Then having the opinions of his parents does not help, it’s odd I need his mom telling me the CV looks good. It would have been better to question Princeton here as it is in their interest to make sure alumni get the jobs. It would be useful to ask some recruiters about the possible red flags for this guy, just to be sure. In any case sure I understand and sympathise, anyone would be mentally broken after that many job applications.
lancebeet
I find myself really disliking articles like this one, because it seems they don't present any information that can challenge people's perceptions. The image they want to paint is that this individual is extremely talented and still can't get a job, so what are the chances for those who are not? Yet this is one data point, and many of us have seen people with much less impressive resumes get jobs. There's no reason for this one data point to carry any more weight than your personal anecdotes, and we're not even seeing his resume. We only hear what he (and his parents) say. Not exactly independent observers. So it seems to me that the article only serves to confirm your biases. After reading the article, you might feel that the job market is impossible, or you might feel that there's something important left out about the subject of the article. Or even both. Either way, I don't see anyone reading this article with their view of the world challenged.
ratsimihah
Meanwhile big firms are fighting for AI/ML phds for hundreds of thousands dollars.
0xbadc0de5
Your credential is only one factor that determines your employability. Others include things like: competence, experience, personality, culture fit, and qualifications. Having a 10/10 credential is nice, but having a 0/10 in any other area is often still disqualifying.
feverzsj
He can still go for gig jobs like 320 million Chinese do.
fooker
This feeds off a misconception people have of the idea of a PhD. A PhD is not something you get by studying more, taking a few years more in advanced courses. It is something you get by specializing on a topic so much that you are pretty much THE expert on that specific topic. (The inside joke is that at the end of your PhD you must know everything about nothing) This fundamentally makes the usual job search strategy of casting a wide net completely useless. A PhD is typically a worse employee than a normal malleable undergrad you can train unless you really need an expert on the topic the person has a PhD on. It’s not uncommon for top tier Phds to land good jobs regardless of, but that’s more because of willingness to do different things, give up on solving problems you have invested half a decade into, and the general availability of researchy jobs. The last one is the least important.
pythonRon
This just confirms what I've suspected all my life... I should have been a plumber.
rfgplk
Every single job requires many YoE at this point. Every. Single. One. And the worst part is that they really mean "years of employment" and not experience. Pursuing a PhD full time effectively _is_ employment, yet most companies and HR departments don't see it this way. Likewise for independent research, open source work, self-employment etc. My guess is he has dedicated his life to his PhD studies, meaning he has little "ReAl ExPerIeNcE" so no one wants to hire him because... reasons? Who knows, hiring is broken.
GlibMonkeyDeath
The job market is tough, and the entry-level hiring process is pretty broken for general applicants. But still, it feels like there is some missing information here. Surely, with a summa cum laude from Rice and a Ph.D. from Princeton in ChemE, he has impressed someone along the way. He needs to concentrate on places where he has a connection, however tenuous. Especially at the relatively rarefied Ivy STEM Ph.D. level... If he is having trouble getting people to make connections for him, well, that would definitely be an important piece of the puzzle...
HackerThemAll
> applied to 2,300 jobs This is precisely the problem. Until people were applying manually, the amount of resumes to read was manageable. But if 2300 people apply each to 2300 jobs, then every company receives 2300 candidates, presumably for one position. How would a company manage this other than blindly discarding 2290 and interview 10 people?
MobzDerek
Why not say the wage he is willing to work for. Chances are he would be hired in a second if it was reasonable.
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 99.7ms across 9,867 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
Discussion Highlights (14 comments)
aswegs8
Could anyone copy the text for us paywalled peasants?
sigmoid10
I've seen people like this before. The problem is not the job market, which merely happens to be fucked as well right now. But with a summa cum laude degree from Rice and a PhD from Princeton you usually knock at any big firm remotely interested in STEM and you will at least land an interview with someone important. There is only one reason you can fail from that point: You're a complete social inept. A double PhD from Oxford will not save you if you can't hold a conversation. This stuff doesn't matter that much in school, but it is absolute paramount in the real world. To quote the late Professor Winston from MIT: Your success in life will be determined by three things, 1. Your ability to speak. 2. Your ability to write. 3. Your ability to think. - in that order! If you suck at social communication, you basically have to be an era-defining genius like Newton in the thinking department if you want to make it. And even he almost didn't get his most famous work published if Halley (yes, the guy from the comet) hadn't seen beyond his social quirks and realized his genius.
syngrog66
He entered the STEM job market in the US at the worst possible time, between BigTech layoffs and the current US exec branch attacks on domestic STEM employment in general. And having a PhD can be a turnoff to many potential employers and hiring managers.
sublimefire
The article does not talk about numbers. It is hard to understand competition in the field he is applying to. Then having the opinions of his parents does not help, it’s odd I need his mom telling me the CV looks good. It would have been better to question Princeton here as it is in their interest to make sure alumni get the jobs. It would be useful to ask some recruiters about the possible red flags for this guy, just to be sure. In any case sure I understand and sympathise, anyone would be mentally broken after that many job applications.
lancebeet
I find myself really disliking articles like this one, because it seems they don't present any information that can challenge people's perceptions. The image they want to paint is that this individual is extremely talented and still can't get a job, so what are the chances for those who are not? Yet this is one data point, and many of us have seen people with much less impressive resumes get jobs. There's no reason for this one data point to carry any more weight than your personal anecdotes, and we're not even seeing his resume. We only hear what he (and his parents) say. Not exactly independent observers. So it seems to me that the article only serves to confirm your biases. After reading the article, you might feel that the job market is impossible, or you might feel that there's something important left out about the subject of the article. Or even both. Either way, I don't see anyone reading this article with their view of the world challenged.
ratsimihah
Meanwhile big firms are fighting for AI/ML phds for hundreds of thousands dollars.
0xbadc0de5
Your credential is only one factor that determines your employability. Others include things like: competence, experience, personality, culture fit, and qualifications. Having a 10/10 credential is nice, but having a 0/10 in any other area is often still disqualifying.
feverzsj
He can still go for gig jobs like 320 million Chinese do.
fooker
This feeds off a misconception people have of the idea of a PhD. A PhD is not something you get by studying more, taking a few years more in advanced courses. It is something you get by specializing on a topic so much that you are pretty much THE expert on that specific topic. (The inside joke is that at the end of your PhD you must know everything about nothing) This fundamentally makes the usual job search strategy of casting a wide net completely useless. A PhD is typically a worse employee than a normal malleable undergrad you can train unless you really need an expert on the topic the person has a PhD on. It’s not uncommon for top tier Phds to land good jobs regardless of, but that’s more because of willingness to do different things, give up on solving problems you have invested half a decade into, and the general availability of researchy jobs. The last one is the least important.
pythonRon
This just confirms what I've suspected all my life... I should have been a plumber.
rfgplk
Every single job requires many YoE at this point. Every. Single. One. And the worst part is that they really mean "years of employment" and not experience. Pursuing a PhD full time effectively _is_ employment, yet most companies and HR departments don't see it this way. Likewise for independent research, open source work, self-employment etc. My guess is he has dedicated his life to his PhD studies, meaning he has little "ReAl ExPerIeNcE" so no one wants to hire him because... reasons? Who knows, hiring is broken.
GlibMonkeyDeath
The job market is tough, and the entry-level hiring process is pretty broken for general applicants. But still, it feels like there is some missing information here. Surely, with a summa cum laude from Rice and a Ph.D. from Princeton in ChemE, he has impressed someone along the way. He needs to concentrate on places where he has a connection, however tenuous. Especially at the relatively rarefied Ivy STEM Ph.D. level... If he is having trouble getting people to make connections for him, well, that would definitely be an important piece of the puzzle...
HackerThemAll
> applied to 2,300 jobs This is precisely the problem. Until people were applying manually, the amount of resumes to read was manageable. But if 2300 people apply each to 2300 jobs, then every company receives 2300 candidates, presumably for one position. How would a company manage this other than blindly discarding 2290 and interview 10 people?
MobzDerek
Why not say the wage he is willing to work for. Chances are he would be hired in a second if it was reasonable.