4. Interviews
A. Chemistry or Qualifications?
Darryl Stevens:
I would like to offer one final reality check about venturing into the Non-Academic Job Market. As incredulous as it may seem, I am actually a fairly nice guy. I am sometimes considerate of others, often an active listener, occasionally supportive, and usually engaged with and attentive to the process around me. This engagement does not mean that I do not err in my judgments, but it does mean that I can usually go back and be self-reflective about my interpersonal process. By this, I mean that I can general recall or retrieve what my intentions were when I said or did this or that. This has been very helpful in defining the arc of my career.
Because I understand that I know only my own intent, I am frightfully curious about others attributions. Thirty years ago, when I was turned down for my first ever "real job," I called to find out how I could do better. I had imagined that I must have said or done something wrong. Turns out that had talked too much...imagine that!...moi?...talk too much. I am sure that you can anticipate the irony that in later years, I heard feedback that said I did not talk enough. Throughout my career, I always sought information to make me a stronger candidate...and that is what I ask for. Not, "Why didn't you hire me?" but "Can you tell me what to do to be a stronger candidate?" I have tried to integrate the answers that I have heard with the process in which I was involved.
It took another decade or so before I began to ask the more obvious question. "Why was I such a strong candidate?" I have been told a variety of things. "Our first choice turned us down." "We had too many women here...we really needed a man." "You were the most confident sounding." "We liked you." and my personal favorite, that resonates with Jeff's post...."I don't know. You just sort of clicked when you interviewed."
And here is the reality check. When I have gotten feedback about how to be a stronger candidate (ie....Why didn't you hire me?), the responses have typically been thoughtful and concrete...easy to work on. Responses to my strengths (ie...Why did you hire me?) have been vague at best and can be lumped into a generic response of "We just liked you better." Think about what that means. You can be skilled, articulate, erudite, and competent, but if they do not like you, then you are in the bread line for yet another day. Worse, what people like is not at all a dependable variable. (My wife, for instance, finds my best friend to be a pain and a chore to be around. I think his is clever and fun!)
So, you mean that after accumulating years of knowledge base, after fighting for supremacy among doctoral students, after altering forever the way we understand life, that I have to be fun and clever, too? Not exactly.
But I do mean that being comfortable in your own skin around other people is important. Understanding when to talk and when to listen is important. Being okay with who you are is important. Being thoughtful is important. All of the things you are tempted to forego in graduate school are important. In non-academic jobs they may seem hyper-important, but that is simply because you have been traveling in circles for the last few years in which the real importance of these things have been artificially diminished. Hierarchy is based more on degrees, than achievement and collegiality is an excuse to deny tenure as opposed to a description of a professional relationship.
Graduate school is an artificial environment that demands self-absorption at some level I have always admired those who could waltz through it without being phased. It took every ounce of energy for me to resist the dark side of the force. I think that what I am saying here is that you can figure out ways to describe your career arc. You can define your skill-set. You can develop enchanting reasons why you left or stayed with a degree program. You can prove beyond doubt that you meet every requirement set forth in a job announcement. If you are not humble and humane, if you cannot connect as another person, if you are not a "nice guy/gal" you may be swimming upstream.
You have asked the "experts" what you can do to make a better resume or appear sharper during interviews. Now, go ask your friends why they like you...it may surprise you.
Darryl
Subscriber ZU:
You are right to note that such intangible things as "clicking" with the interviewer(s), showing "humility" etc. are all relevant (if I have understood your post correctly). But, the necessary prerequisite in any job process is to demonstrate beyond doubt that one meets or excels in the requirements for the position. I would suggest that the factors you discuss follow this prerequisite and are used to decide between say, several top candidates.
I once interviewed for an internship at a large overseas organization where I did establish an excellent rapport with the interviewer (his words, not mine) and "connected as a human being", but did not get the job because a "candidate with a stronger business background met my section's needs better" (his words in the email). This suggests to me that qualifications, discussing career decisions, etc are important in interviews. In other words, I do not think it all boils down to the subjective "connection" one makes with an interviewer.
ZU
Paula Foster Chambers:
Very interesting thread about whether it's chemistry or qualifications that gets you the job once you reach the interview stage. Let me chime in briefly. I have been on the other side of the desk--the hiring side--several times now and just last night participated in a "second interview" process at my organization to hire a consultant. The Guest Speakers have been through this many more times than I, to be sure, but let me say why my experience so far has confirmed Darryl's position that it's mainly chemistry.
When a position gets posted, dozens of resumes may be submitted in response. Most of them do not have the right qualifications, so they get round-filed and those individuals don't make it to the interview. The four or five candidates who seem about right on paper are then brought in for the interview.
At that point, the interview stage, there is no doubt about whether or not each person is qualified. If the qualifications weren't there, we wouldn't be calling these people in for interviews! What really matters at that point IS indeed exactly those intangible, non-rational things like "Do we like her? Would he be fun to work with? Does she seem like our type of person?" Yeah, more information comes out too about the work the person has done, his or her working style, blah blah, okay, but in my experience, when it's time to make the actual choice, it comes down to a gut feeling: we hire the person whom we LIKE the best.
Paula
Riall Nolan:
Just to second what Paula said here: once you make it to the finalist stage, it's largely about chemistry. I think that interviewers, no matter what their style, want to find out four basic things during the time they spend with you:
1. Why are you here? In other words, what are you seeking, why did you come to us?
2. What do you bring us? Your "qualifications" in all their aspects. Skills, experience, approach, etc.
3. What are you going to be like? This is where the chemistry kicks in. And this, I would argue, is the crux of the finalist interview. If they think you're touchy, easily bored, quick to take offense, or -- gasp -- litigious, you might not get the job.
4. What will it cost us? I'm not really talking about salary here. I'm talking about what they think will happen if you come to work for them. It's directly connected to point #3, and is therefor also about "chemistry." What adjustments in "they way we do things around here" will have to be made if they take you on?
I'm sure interviews are about many other things, but at base, these are the types of questions they need answers to. And by the finalist stage, it's largely about chemistry and fit.
Riall
Kate Duttro:
I think I can add to this also, in being on the other side of the hiring desk, too. In an instance a few years ago (during the dot.com burnout), within a college career center, we were looking for a highly qualified individual WHO COULD FIT INTO THE TEAM. At the same time we looked at each other and saw that most of us were getting ah, shall we say, OLDER? And our constituents were getting younger, so one of our aims was to broaden the counselor age range as positions opened up. At the same time, we didn't want to discriminate against older applicants, but we were concerned that the center could be loosing touch with the undergrads, so we developed the position as an entry-level job, and we stressed the long days that are sometimes necessary in the student services area.
We got the usual age mix and interviewed five or six people who seemed to have the qualifications we needed (on paper), and regardless of age. One person was 15 minutes late and didn't even apologize about it. Another person wore a scent so intense that one person, who is mildly allergic, had to leave the room and all of us noticed the scent (and no one loved it). Another person was older than any of us and very experienced, so we felt we had to give an interview, but the experience was in community colleges, which is a very different kind of environment from that of a research university, and that person just didn't interview well, either. When we were down to the last two, it was very close (and their ages were close). We went with the person who showed the most enthusiasm, and who happened to be working on a doctorate, although we had not specified more than a BA. We thought that person would fit in with the group and it worked out well all around.
The point is that those who are doing the hiring have some leeway in choice. I completely agree with Paula here. And, I'd suggest that you sometimes can get some information about the job situation (and what a specific office is looking for) by doing your homework (networking primarily), and by trying to get to know the situation and the people.
By the way, the same information can help you decide whether you want to work in that office, or situation. This works both ways, and unless you're desperate for rent money, you should be making a conscious decision on whether you want to work in any place AFTER you're offered a job.
You know, it occurs to me that this is a point that I have not yet seen in this discussion, and that is that after you've been offered a job, you should take some time to actually review the work situation, the work, what you want and consciously decide to accept or decline. You can ask for at least a day, and more, if the decision is more complicated than being able to say, this is perfect all around, and mean it.
Kate
Subscriber ZU:
I do not disagree at all with the importance of chemistry at the final stage in a job application process - I was involved in a recent hiring decision where a candidate was not given a position simply because the match would not be good. My point in disagreeing with some of what Darryl wrote is simply this: If a job seeker fails to emphasize in his/her resume and cover letter that they meet or hopefully exceed the requirements for a position, the applicant may not even get the chance to make the "chemistry" work in the first place (ie: get to the interview stage). Therefore, I think that learning how to market oneself is crucial, and I found the career center at my former university to be enormously helpful in this regard
ZU
Subscriber FH:
Since 2002, I've had five job interviews. The one that was "successful" -- that is, that landed me in the job I'm in now -- was, it turns out, the one where I left the interview feeling like "wow, that was fun, and it went great!" So as the interviewee, *I* had a great sense after the interview that the chemistry had been right. In all of the other four, I came out of the meetings feeling slightly off balance and vaguely "weird," and -- lo and behold -- I didn't get those jobs. (Maybe that's for the best; perhaps I wouldn't have liked them.) But all I'm saying is that the chemistry thing works both ways, and you, as a job candidate, can often feel it yourself.
FH
Subscriber CH:
What you are really looking for when you do an informational interview is information---what a field entails, how you can change your resume to obtain a job in that field, what experience is important for employers in that field and how you can get that experience etc. I know lots of people who did get job offers as a result of an informational interview. And that's great for them but I think it often leads people to believe that an informational interview is about getting a job offer. It is not about getting a job offer (I've had several friends say to me "Well, I did these informational interviews and I didn't get an offer from any of the places at which I interviewed" which puzzles me as their expectations were off-base). An informational interview IS about obtaining information and it's up to you to use that information wisely and to go out, change your resume to reflect the concerns of that field, to volunteer or figure out other ways to get the necessary experience etc.
Informational interviews take a while to percolate. I had a student contact me in the summer of 2003. I went back to her and offered her a job in the late fall of 2004.
My brother had a great take on how you should look at this. When he lost his job because of a corporate merger, he networked. When he got a new job, I said "you can stop the networking." He said, "On the contrary, I have learned that I should always be networking because I may need a job five years from now." Networking, informational interviews etc. ----these are often most effective when you are thinking about the long term. So, keep a rolodex handy and keep it filled NOW for a job you may want ten years from now. I like my job, as I've said, but I have a handy secret rolodex of folks I can contact if I decide to move on (I'm a little sister so I obediently follow my brother's advice...).
Obviously, this doesn't mean you won't get a rapid-turn around with an offer or a surprising opportunity NOW but you do need to be realistic about how networking and informational interviewing work.
When you do an informational interview, you do have to follow it up aggressively and many people do not do this. Certainly, this was my problem when I started doing this. I contacted the person, spoke to them, sent them a thank you note and then went on my merry way, thinking "heigh-ho, they'll contact me when something opens up." But...they won't unless you do something to help them remember you five months down the road (that student to whom I offered a job sent me emails and our former intern used to email me every month or so). These things can include arranging to go to a conference in the field (and seeking out the person you spoke to), sending the person an email saying something (anything!) that will simply prod the person into remembering you etc. It was only when I realized that I needed to follow through on my informational interviews that I begin to get better responses (and yes, I did get an offer from what began as an informational interview---but this was someone who a) I traveled to DC/Baltimore from NY to speak to four times; b) someone whom I contacted several times via email etc.; and c) someone who offered me the job several months after I had first contacted him).
Contact LOTS of people. Lots. I had a hard, hard time with this. But I set myself a schedule and forced myself to contact several people a day at one point (desperation spurred me). Even when I was slack about this, 27 is roughly the number of people I contacted in a month. I did cast my net widely and I looked in tons of places and I spoke to all sorts of people---even people in professions which I thought would not appeal to me. The more people you contact the better your chances. 27 people means 27 chances. You want to up your chances significantly more than that.
I know all of this stuff is hard to do but this is what people really mean when they talk about networking and informational interviews.
Oh, and one final point. Sometimes it's better not to go for the lunches with Important People from the Great Amazing Organizations when you are starting out. Important People and Great Amazing Organizations are flooded with applications and people wanting an in. Aim lower and you will be more successful in the short-term and able to move from the short-term job to the wonderful job at the GAO (Great Amazing Organization) with serious skills and experience. It may take longer in terms of time but you will stand a better chance of getting a job at a GAO when you really have skills and experience.
And, also be realistic about the kinds of things which you are applying for. Do read job descriptions carefully and try to address every part of the job description. I like to do a 2 column thing. Their description on one side and my qualifications on the other a la:
THEIR QUALIFICATIONS MY QUALIFICATIONS
Experience Managing a budget. Okay, I managed a budget when I rec'd grants (but these were small budgets)
Can I work that into a positive for this job? Or, since I have seen this requirement come up before, can I figure out how I can get better experience doing this via volunteer work or a step/transition job?
This kind of approach is painful but realistic. It helps you see your weakness, helps you figure out to address the weakness and helps you figure out to avoid this problem in the future.
CH
Subscriber MM:
I think that CH makes a lot of great points. As a former informational interviewer (and now occasional interviewee) I would just like to add a few of my own observations:
“What you are really looking for when you do an informational interview is information---what a field entails, how you can change your resume to obtain a job in that field, what experience is important for employers in that field and how you can get that experience etc.”
This statement is right-on and to the point! I conducted five or six informational interviews with a variety of administrators at my graduate institution a few months before I finished my Ph.D.. What might differ me from others is that I had no expectations of applying for or getting a job at that institution. Rather, I maintained contact with those individuals and used some of them as references for jobs for which I applied about a year later.
So the approach to informational interviewing that worked for me was basically as follows:
1. I am asking the questions that I need to in order to determine whether or not field X is "right" for me.
2. I will not be applying for a job at this institution any time in the near future.
3. If I am interested in field X and the informational interviewer is collegial, I will cultivate a relationship for the purpose of developing references for field X.
My field X was university administration. I was interested in it because of my work with the graduate student government. But I only knew administration from a grad student's perspective, hence the need for informational interviewing. Plus, without cultivating my interviewees, I would have had to rely on the support of former presidents of the graduate student government (some who were still grad students), as opposed to an admissions director or graduate school dean for references.
I happened to be one of those lucky people who, a little more than a year after I finished my Ph.D., obtained a mid-level management job as a university administrator without ever holding (or even applying for) an entry-level position. I have to believe that part of it was due to my attitude that informational interviewing would *not* result in a job with the interviewee's institution. Of course, if they had offered me a job...
MM
Subscriber HG:
CH, that was great advice about actually following up on one's informational interviews. Silly, but it just never occurred to me to do that, until recently. One of the reasons is that I didn't want it to seem like I was bugging those people. So can you (or anyone else) talk a bit more about how to do a follow up? It's been a year since I made "first contact" with people last winter. Like others, perhaps, I'm not sure how to be aggressive in the "second contact" without crossing a line or appearing desperate. Would it be best to simply say "hello" or should I ask to meet again?
As a start, below is something I e-mailed to a friend of a friend 2 weeks ago. The background is that she informed me of a job in Ontario's provincial government last year. They ultimately filled it with an insider. I found another job, but decided to follow up with her. I'd be curious to know if there's more or less you would have done with this follow up. Thanks!
"Hi ------,
First, happy belated Christmas and New Years! I just wanted to update you on how things went with my job search last Spring. I got a position training legal professionals how to do research on our software. It's an enjoyable job that satisfies my interest in legal issues and in education.
Of course I'm still keeping my eyes open for other ways to expand my experience. I scan the provincial government web site you gave me periodically. But I also wanted to let you know that if you hear of any unadvertised opportunities or have any advice on where else to look, I'd be very interested.
In the meanwhile, I hope you've been surviving the weather, which is the best one can do these days. All my very best, HG"
HG
Subscriber AP:
I think this is a key insight. It is important just to start your network, but to consistently update it, keep building it, strengthening ties, etc. I see that as the primary reason for informational interview, with the second being actually learning about the work, job, etc.
AP
Subscriber FH:
I think HG's question about how to follow up is a good one. I had a similar dilemma recently in regard to something sort of unrelated (I wasn't job hunting but following up on another effort to interest someone in my work), and I solved it by thinking carefully about what kind of inquiries from other people I would either find helpful or annoying if they were coming to me. That is, I put myself on the receiving end of the inquiry / follow up and tried to think how different approaches would seem to me. And what I concluded is that I generally appreciate people's attempts to follow up because it usually jogs me into putting them at the top of the priority list for just a moment, where they might not have been before. I'm very busy, juggling lots of demands (as we all are) and some things that are important sometimes just slip down because they aren't somehow immediately pressing. When someone sends me an email and (nicely) says "what about the XXX," it suddenly makes that at least temporarily pressing, and sometimes, for me, it actually makes me do something I wanted and needed to do but had just been postponing.
Anyway, turning the situation around is just one way to "test out" whether the follow up you're planning to do strikes you as annoying or helpful / useful.
FH
Subscriber AK:
I'm glad someone brought up the issue of follow ups with respect to informational interviewing, and networking more generally, because it gets at something I've always been concerned about yet never heard addressed directly - namely, the risk of actually "wearing out one's welcome" with contacts over time. In other words, to put it bluntly, are there limits to how often one should feel comfortable making repeated overtures to a contact over a long period of time?
In asking the question I'm of course aware of how the practice of good networking as generally understood and discussed here should mitigate against this to some extent - for example, if done right networking should be incorporated so seamlessly into one's ordinary working life (with or without the urgency of finding a job) that in principle the crassness of one's contacting people only when hard up for a job is avoided. Yet, as we all know, this is an ideal that may or may not be maintainable in all cases. Have others actually found there to be such a limiting period – a “use by date” if you will! - on contacts? Thanks.
AK
Subscriber CH:
AK asked how long you can use a contact. Forever is the answer if you play your cards right by maintaining constant contact with people.
I have a friend whom I met at 16. We went to France together. He's from Indiana. I'm from NY. He is a networker in the extreme! Even when we were teenagers, he did this. Always sent people xmas cards and updates of his addresses. Not a lot more than that. And he would always remember what people were doing etc. and ask politely about them. It's amazing. We met and lived together in a French village for a few months yrs ago yet I am in better contact w/ him than I am with people I knew for yrs. When I was unemployed, he gave me tons of people to contact. Access to his network was amazing as he knew people from all over and in all sorts of fields---not well but enough to talk to them about jobs etc. Some of these people were people he had met in college etc. or people like me (he had met them rather briefly but maintained contact w/ them which meant he---or they--could call on each other for assistance when necessary.
If you do the little updates, a contact really can last a lifetime. Btw, the person I mentioned from my high school was NOT a good friend (just okay) so it was a somewhat minimal contact (let's put it this way--if I had been employed and in Baltimore, I would not have looked her up!!).
CH
Kate Duttro:
I do want to see experience stretched into whatever shapes it will fit! (Won't always, but you need to have two pieces of information before you can tell if your experience will fit. You need to know what needs to be done and you need to know if you can objectively do it.) Rather than waiting until you see an advertisement for an editorial job, go find editors and talk to them about the kinds of experience/skills they consider valid experience for their situation. As I mentioned to VX recently, the kind of experience one editor considers valid may be a bit different from another's perspective.
If we all continue to talk in terms of "they" and if we do not explore and actually get into that black box, you will continue to be making decisions based only on your perception of what THEY want. It is necessary to find people doing the kind of work you want to do, or the kind of work you think you want to do and talk with them about what it is that they DO do.
I think that the key in making this match in experience, once you know what skills are needed, is your own ability to articulate your experience in the employer's terminology. When you can demonstrate that you understand what they need and how it is that you can do that, then you have demonstrated that your experience is sufficient to do that job. But, it does put the burden on you to be able to learn their language.
cheers, Kate
Subscriber NQ:
In my experience I think you need to separate contacts I have a couple of friends like CH's who are such avid and effective networkers that they're never more than 2 degrees of separation from anyone. These people are good for life since they love networking are good at it and see you as a part of their network and therefore someone who adds value to it. On the other hand, some people aren't natural networkers and they need to be handled more carefully in particular they may not respond too well to repeated contacts or pressure, since they aren't used to it and if they only have a very small and tight network, they may be more defensive about protecting it. Play it by ear.
NQ
Subscriber HG:
I went through the academic job search and even got 3 interviews. But alas, during the process I realized I really didn't want to leave Toronto, which is really home now. So I declined the interviews (one of them was clearly a "fake" one anyway).
HG
Subscriber GC:
HG, you made a comment re: declining what you understood to be a “fake” interview. Could you – or anyone else – please clarify this for me? Is this the case where a clearly-identified candidate has the position in the bag and the other interviews are being done simply to obtain the requisite numbers? I ask b/c I was recently short-listed for a position at Dartmouth, which *I* decided not to pursue … but which my well-known, self-important boss assured me that “you know they would have never hired you for that position anyway.”
GC
Subscriber HG:
This is the definition of a fake interview, but my situation was slightly different. I was short-listed for a temporary job at Mt. Holyoke. A week before the MLA, the chair sent me an e-mail saying that they had offered the position to a senior scholar (the job ad was open to all levels). But they decided to go through with the interviews in case he/she declined. So I wouldn't call that a "fake" interview since they were up front about the situation, but it was clear that they wanted an entirely different profile.
HG
Subscriber MM:
My first interview for a position in university administration could be considered a "fake" interview, as the unit had an internal candidate who pretty much had the job sewed up. But I was offered -- on an interim basis -- the job that he vacated. That's how I got my foot in the door. So even though I didn't "get the job," things eventually worked out to my benefit. So it is definitely better to have lost at interviewing than never to have interviewed at all :-)
MM
Subscriber GC:
GI's reply reminds me of a broader question I've had regarding positions that are open to all levels -- I'm guessing they're biased toward those with more experience, but also seem to offer the applicant a chance to show why they're the best person for the job, given the open playing field.
GC
Darryl Stevens:
I recently interviewed for a position at another school closer to home. (Yes, even when you like your job, you should keep your eye on the horizon...and there's that whole "brink thing" that I posted about a few days ago.) At any rate, I interviewed for a job that was being vacated by a retirement. The retiree had been in the department for 30 years and the position for 16 years. My chief competition was the person who had been second in command for 12 of those 16 years. Having done my homework, I suspected, but did not know this for sure. Two days after the interview I got a call from the personnel manager. She indicated that they had hired an inside candidate, but she wanted me to know that they had never expected to have any questions about their choice. She told me that my performance in the interview had caused them to have an extra meeting. She offered to help in any way she could, should I apply for other positions at that institution. Remember, I actually like my job...so this feedback was actually better than getting the job...sort of.
Darryl
Riall Nolan:
Interviews can be "fake" in lots of different ways. One of the worst is where the employer knows who he/she wants to hire, but HR requires a set number of candidates, a review of qualifications, ethnic profiles, etc, etc. It's "wired" from the get-go, in other words, and believe me, most of the time the employer feels as bad about it and you would -- if you knew at the time.
I think, however, that any interview you are invited to is a good one, because (a) it lets you practice your interview skills under real-life conditions; and (b) because you can learn an awful lot about how organizations operate, and how the people in them operate. And all of that is extremely good intelligence, which you can use to build your capacity for the next time.
Personally, I wouldn't know nearly as much about my field as I do unless I had patiently applied for literally hundreds of jobs in my field (some of them a stretch) and been invited to scores of interviews as a finalist. (Remember, I'm in my sixties, so I've been applying for jobs for a long time) And some of those jobs were wired, I'm sure. I never exactly knew which ones, but it didn't bother me. I gave each one everything I had. It made me much better at telling my story, believe me.
But the best benefit of all was the fact that I got a look right inside dozens of organizations, and I got to ask people questions you'd never get answers to in an informational interview. "What's your total budget? Any litigation going on here right now? What happened to the last incumbent? Who thrives here, and who fails to thrive? What are some things you're doing now that you wish you weren't? What are the top three expectations for the successful candidate in the coming year?"
WOW, you learn a lot interviewing. Because you can really ask them almost any question you want, and by and large, they have to tell you. Or risk turning you off.
So "fake" or not, an interview is an interview.
Riall
Subscriber MT:
Can anyone suggest what I should wear to an interview at a university press? (It's for an unpaid internship, not a full-time job, if that makes a difference.) Full business dress, meaning navy suit? I'm worried that might be overkill. Blazer and pants, like I'd wear to give a paper?
MT
Riall Nolan:
Dress up. No-one will ever, ever refuse to hire you because you were overdressed. They will, however, notice if you are inappropriately dressed (whatever that happens to mean in that context) and that will count against you in subtle or direct ways.
Riall
Subscriber OS:
In my experience with reading about interviewing, there are two choices: try to dress one step above what you expect others to wear or to always wear a tie and dress shirt (for a guy, obviously). If you came here, the managers all wear ties, so a coat wouldn't be a bad idea (I wore one). If I was going to a software startup, where t-shirts and "holey" jeans are in order, I'd probably still wear a tie because often, someone in the group is dressed better. I don't think honestly I've failed an interview due to being overdressed, but these are guidelines for an "office" environment. For other environments, I don't know.
OS
Cathy Wasserman:
I do agree that it's always better to err on the side of over-dressing, but I want to share something from the nonprofit world. Many, many nonprofits that I've worked for or recruited for have a pretty casual dress attire. And while I wouldn't recommend ever arriving for an interview in casual attire, I don't think it's always most appropriate in the nonprofit world to come super formal (let's say in a suit). I have a personal example: many years ago, I wore a formal suit and pearls to an interview, which is totally NOT my style! The interviewer picked up on that and felt that I wasn't being as real as I could have been with her. I know this because, ultimately, I was hired and she told me. Clearly, it didn't get in the way of my being hired, but it's still interesting to note. While I don't think I should have worn jeans, I might have worn a colorful skirt and top instead. Before you actually go on an interview, it's hard to know what to wear, however, if at all possible try to dress using your own regular style, while also being professional and also see if anyone you know has a sense of what the norm is.
Best! Cathy
Subscriber DN:
I hope my sense of things here is wildly out-of-date. Is it still generally considered advisable for women to wear a skirt rather than pants to an interview? A friend in investment banking said this was still the case for her, but this is a conservative industry and I'm wondering is skirts are the norm for interviews in other areas of work. I noticed that Cathy thought a skirt and top would be a less formal option than a suit (and I'm assuming that was a suit with a jacket and skirt!).
DN
Darryl Stevens:
Is a "skirt" out of date. Hmmm. Yep. It is. Are there industries conservative enough that a skirt would be required? Probably. Do you want to work for a company in which the delineation between male and female is managed down to the level of apparel? Well, heck, I can't answer that for you can I? Food for thought.
Darryl
Cathy Wasserman:
In the nonprofit world, dressier pants would be totally appropriate! I just happen to like skirts!
Cathy
Darryl Stevens:
I don't own a suit. That should tell you something about how I feel about the need to have an interview suit. Having said that, understand that I am not likely to even pursue a job in an arena in which suits are considered de rigueur. Without being too snotty, let me give you this general rule of thumb: if you do not know whether to wear a suit or blazer or jeans, you probably have not done adequate research about the field in general and the organization in particular. There is no uniform code of interview apparel. Asking this group will not be helpful...you will get at least ten different answers based on either our experience or what we read in a book. If you have not done enough research on the culture of the organization to make a simple wardrobe decision, why on earth are you even considering a job there?!? (Okay....this ended up being REALLY snotty...but I warned you.)
Darryl
Subscriber MT:
For the record, again, this is an unpaid, part-time internship that I'm applying for precisely to get information about the culture of the field and the organization. I didn't think it would be inappropriate to ask for opinions here, while also checking with my own network. There might be some people subscribed to the list already working in similar places. I hope you don't typically make people defend themselves when they come into UC Riverside's career center with questions.
MT
Darryl Stevens:
Actually, I think that folks often do feel somewhat defensive when they ask me questions. I have a rather blunt nature. While I consider myself to be somewhat compassionate, no one would every confuse me for Carl Rogers or Albert Schweitzer. It has been my experience after almost a quarter century of working as a counselor of one kind or another, that the answer to most people's questions are embedded in the question itself.
It was not my intent to offend you and I regret that it happened, but I stand by my original assertions.
1. There exists no uniform apparel code.
2. I have no idea what an unpaid internship at Rutgers might require or find offensive...Neither does anyone on this list...no matter how certain they sound in their advice.
3. Advice given about dress will reflect both personal and regional variations.
4. Researching the culture of the organization will do more to fill in the blanks in such questions.
Again, my regrets that the answer had a hurtful consequence.
Darryl
5. Specific Fields and Careers
A. Academic Administration
Subscriber SL:
Following several related posts, I'd like to ask about jobs in academic administration. I am close to finishing my dissertation and am considering university administration as one area to look for work in. I have tapped into my network of professional friends for feedback on what are realistic options, and would appreciate our speakers' thoughts on this.
Specifically, I would like to have a better sense for whether I should be applying for what has been called in this discussion "entry-level" or "mid-level" jobs - and, what sample job titles would be for each (i.e. how to distinguish between the two).
For example, one of my classmates became an assistant dean after a short stint elsewhere - however, my sense is that deanships are too high for me to aim for right now. I have heard differing thoughts on this, and would appreciate feedback. Secondly, I'm also interested in hearing our speakers' thoughts on how far a non-faculty person can go in academic administration - that is, what is this trajectory's growth potential?
I have heard different opinions on this; some say, to the associate dean's level, while in reality most seem to stop at director or assistant director of a center/office.
In terms of my particular situation, I am interested in academic administration because I really enjoy working one-on-one with students and solving "real world" problems - that is, meeting obvious (academic) needs that I see within a system. I am probably helped in this by being very well organized by nature. In terms of experience, I worked for 5 years (translator abroad) before coming back for a professional master's. After that degree, I opened my own business (1 yr) for consulting work in that area, and then continued on to the Ph.D. During these past 7 years, I have served on different national societies' boards for 5 years - which has included a lot of organizational and some programmatic work - and have spent the last year as Assistant Event Coordinator for a (small) campus-wide series of workshops.
Thanks very much for your input. This week's discussion has been really interesting and informative. I have really enjoyed the posts, and I appreciate all the ideas shared.
SL
Subscriber MM:
For four years, I worked for a graduate division -- elsewhere called "Office of Graduate Studies", "Graduate College" or something similar -- at a campus within the University of California system. In this office, a mid-level job would have been a director position with supervisory responsibilities: Director of Financial Support & Academic Appointments; Director of Outreach and Admissions; Director of Student Services. Entry-level would have been a non-supervisory, support position (or maybe the position only supervises an undergraduate work-study student): Academic Assistant; Financial Assistant.
I agree that a deanship is too high. In academic affairs, faculty serve as deans and associate deans and those with extensive supervisory and budgetary experience serve as assistant deans. In the administrative units with which I am familiar, mid-level managers report to the assistant dean, support staff report to a manager.
In my organization, assistant dean would be the limit.
Keep in mind that there are other units on campus where non-faculty run the show: this happens a lot in student affairs/services units, such as the Dean of Students, Director of the Women's Center, Financial Aid Director and Director of the MultiCultural Center. These administrators report to the Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs (or perhaps a student affairs Dean), who is not faculty. So, at my institution, a "non-faculty" person can go higher in student affairs administration than in academic administration. I suspect this is true at many other universities for the simple fact that the faculty captain the academic ship.
MM
Riall Nolan:
Lots of questions here, and I don't have a lot of time, so if you need more information, email me offline and I'll try to be more responsive.
"Academic administration" isn't one thing, it's many different things, and each requires a different set of skills. Many of them are transferable, but the skill-sets, or tasks, are different.
Different academic institutions approach hiring administrators very differently. Some will only hire faculty members. Some prefer non-faculty members; most are a mix, with a definite preference one way or another. Some will segregate the faculty and non-faculty by level, so there is in effect a glass ceiling if you are not, or have not been, a faculty member. Generally, deans and associate deans at MOST places have to have paid their faculty dues at some time. Why? Because they have to manage faculty -- the notorious herd of cats -- and it's hard to do unless you've been in the life.
Larger top-tier institutions are going to be pickier. Not saying this is good, but it's harder to break in. Whereas smaller institutions, ones in the second and third tiers, may have more opportunities, and more mobility once you get inside.
Figure out first what kinds of administrative jobs you'd prefer (the range can be wide, but spell it out), and then do some informational interviewing to see how your skills and experience match up. Then get your network going. Universities always need good people.
Riall
Kate Duttro:
I want to agree with both Riall and MM on this one. Much depends on the area of administration you pick. (If you mean by "academic" in charge of faculty and policy positions within the "administration" of the university/college as a whole, yes, faculty status usually is necessary. At the University of Washington, several Deanships and VP positions are open and most of the write-ups on the candidates stress their accomplishments as faculty more than any of their administrative coups.
On the other hand, in Student Services, many folks work one-on-one with students (which you mention liking to do) and many of those "professional advisor" positions are entry-level jobs. While some leave for higher administrative positions, there are quite a few who stay with that (even with master's and doctorates), and I think it's because they can see that they are having an effect on the lives of young people. There have been a number of advisor-led initiatives recently that have increased retention rates among disadvantaged populations and their results are palpable. There can be major satisfactions in the work, whether it is called administrative or not.
So, go find some administrators and find out what the work is that they really do, and then decide whether you want to pursue it, and in which niche do you want most to work"
cheers, Kate
B. Cognitive Neuroscience / Cognitive Psychology
Subscriber UF:
I am pursuing a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience/cognitive psychology. My research has focused on memory changes associated with aging. Most of my research has used neuroimaging and behavioral techniques. My graduate classes have spanned the spectrum from pure cognitive psychology courses covering topics such as mental models, categories, etc., to neurophysiology and neuroanatomy. I have several years of teaching experience. I'm wondering about non-academic options. 1) What jobs are available to a cognitive neuroscientist? 2) Does my training in a combination of two fields put me at a disadvantage? For instance, will the majority of non-academic psychology employers feel I am not "psych" enough? In my department there are some negative connotations associated with asking about non-academic jobs so although it has come up a few times in group settings, I feel very under-informed. Thanks for any input!
UF
Kate Duttro:
You're in a fascinating area, and one that I think has a great many possibilities outside as well as inside academics. I also understand the fear of being exposed as one interested in non-academic careers. It happens altogether too often and in many institutions. Remember, this is YOUR life, and you have to make your choices. If you allow someone else to make your decisions, you're giving away too much. On the other hand, you don't have to stick your head up just so it can be chopped off. It is also pretty obvious that they don't know what else is possible, so asking them may not help at all.
You may have to go off on your own to find people who are doing work outside of academics that is of interest to you, but they are out there. While I don't know enough about the field to advise you. Try to find them with Internet searches, look for popular books published on the subject, look at who is writing the research papers you find most interesting, and where are they? (Not every research department will be so insular as the one where you find yourself and someone other schools may have ties with others outside academics.
Another reason that I think you should pursue your interests is the tendency I see today in general, and that is the increasing interdisciplinary approach in science fields and between fields, particularly things like cognitive psych and neuroscience. I see notices of this in Science News quite often. You might check the index for articles on who is doing what work that you find most interested and talk with them (yes, information interviews) about the potential in the field beyond academics. And, didn't Science recently do an entire issue devoted to neuroscience? Also, what about looking into medical schools that have large research facilities, or are you at one of those already? No matter, go find more.
In reference to your feeling under-informed, you are absolutely right. You do not at this point, have enough information to make any decisions. But the beauty of your position is that you are a trained researcher. You may have to turn to the kinds of qualitative research that you are less familiar with, but anyone with your education can handle information interviews. (For more specific information, just Goggle the term and look for the meaty articles that tend to show up in the web sites of university career centers.)
Also, you may find really good information on how to go from research into non-academic work in the files of the AAAS's Next Wave site section on careers. It is an online subscription magazine, so you may have to find an academic institution that subscribes, but it is full of information on the transition you're contemplating.
cheers, Kate
Subscriber EE:
I don't have any expertise here, but I'm wondering whether the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, or government organizations might be worth checking out. How about advocacy groups like the Alzheimer's association? What about hospitals? Are there jobs assessing patients, jobs working with neurosurgeons and neurologists either in patient care, or in the research labs? Which would appeal to you more?
EE
Subscriber FQ:
I have an incredibly similar career path as yours: undergraduate in Psych, Ph.D. and Brain and Cognitive Sciences (investigating memory using fMRI and behavioral methods), postdoc in memory and aging. While a postdoc I realized that academia was not for me. But what could I do? The Nextwave website was instrumental in helping me articulate what are my strengths and my preferences in the workplace. Based on reading about many different career paths through their website (none of my friends has taken a job outside of academia), I could figure out more easily that there are in fact quite a range of things I was intrigued by and could see myself to. Later on I found out more about the resources at Woodrow, and that was also very helpful in enabling me to think more broadly about the 'real world'.
As a first step, I decided to try out what seemed more appealing to me: helping undergraduate and graduate students make better decisions regarding their career. Therefore, I went to the career services office at my postdoc institution, and I volunteered there to learn whether this career path would concretely be for me. I loved it, got in touch with counselors that had similar paths to mine, talked about their transition, and took the decision to leave academia and become a career counselor. I decided to complete additional training in career counseling (certification through the National Career Development Association) to have better credentials, and when the office I was volunteering at had an opening, I applied and got the job! What did this teach me? There are many career paths that you can do with a Ph.D. training! The most important step is to figure out what you want to do.
Then start thinking about how you can transfer the skills you have gained during your graduate training to the tasks you will do in your new profession... Start networking, do informational interviews and/or volunteer to gain experience and learn more about the careers that seem intriguing and interesting to you... The goal here is to assess whether these careers will be satisfying to you on the longer run. An important thing to keep in mind: an employer is looking for someone who has the competence to do the job, who has the motivation to do the job well and who will fit right in their organization. So whether or not you were an academic in an in-between field earlier in your career is way less important than finding a way to articulate and demonstrate to an employer that you have what it takes to do a great job! I would love to hear more from the speakers about this, and look forward to following this conversation!
FQ
Subscriber CH:
I read UF's question about cognitive science and EE's response and, as someone who works for NIH, I'd like to endorse EE's suggestion that UF look at the government for potential positions. Be aware though that you will need to complete the government application form for one of these positions (KSA). Completing a KSA can be quite tricky and quite time-consuming (it is an art) so you will want to speak to people at NIH, SAMHSA, HRSA, CDC or any other government agency about doing this (do some informational interviews in other words). You can also look at the earlier discussion on the WRK4US website about federal careers to get an idea on how to write a KSA.
This would be true as well for the person who wrote in asking about working for the State Department.
CH
Riall Nolan:
The main part of your query -- jobs available in neuroscience -- has me stumped. I just don't know enough about the field to answer you. I can offer you this, however: no matter how specialized you were at the university, jobs exist outside the university which use your specialty. That much I know for sure.
The jobs available outside the academy may require other skills from you, however, and they may combine skills in different ways, so you need to be attentive to that. Whether your combined-field puts you at a disadvantage I cannot say (see above) but I doubt it. For the right types of jobs, it's probably just what the doctor ordered.
Riall
Subscriber AP:
I'd check out the society of neuroscience, and all the associated organizations, just googling "neuroscience jobs" gave me many places to start. One thing you might face in neuroscience is the odd situation of the academic/medical academic/non-academic medical arenas, which overlap a good bit, but might have unforeseeable complications.
AP
Kate Duttro:
I think this is a wonderful demonstration of many of the principles that have come up so far in the discussion.
“As a first step, I decided to try out what seemed more appealing to me: helping undergraduate and graduate students make better decisions regarding their career. Therefore, I went to the career services office at my postdoc institution, and I volunteered there to learn whether this career path would concretely be for me. I loved it, got in touch with counselors that had similar paths to mine, talked about their transition, and took the decision to leave academia and become a career counselor. I decided to complete additional training in career counseling (certification through the National Career Development Association) to have better credentials, and when the office I was volunteering at had an opening, I applied and got the job!”
You volunteered in an area where you wanted more information about that kind of work that interested you. And you did information interviews, so you got more information. You were in the very environment that you wanted to explore and you found that it was what you wanted to pursue. So THEN you got further training in the field, specific to your needs (some folks would have signed up for a masters in counseling) that gave you credibility and by that time, you also had experience AND the folks in the center where you volunteered already knew that you had the skills and that they could get along with you.
“What did this teach me? There are many career paths that you can do with a Ph.D. training! The most important step is to figure out what you want to do. Then start thinking about how you can transfer the skills you have gained during your graduate training to the tasks you will do in your new profession. Start networking, do informational interviews and/or volunteer to gain experience and learn more about the careers that seem intriguing and interesting to you. The goal here is to assess whether these careers will be satisfying to you on the longer run.” EXACTLY - and it works in many more than this situation alone.
“An important thing to keep in mind: an employer is looking for someone who has the competence to do the job, who has the motivation to do the job well and who will fit right in their organization.”
Again, some really important points - general competence to do the job, and maybe even more important, motivation to do it well, and fitting in. Now, how did they know that in the career center?? They had seen her at work, and they knew she was competent and fit in. And, her volunteering had proved her motivation, too. How did she differ from all the other applicants that they might have had?? They KNEW her. She wasn't just a resume in black and white. She had come to them and demonstrated interest and abilities. I'd call that networking, and very effective as a job getting technique.
“So whether or not you were an academic in an in-between field earlier in your career is way less important than finding a way to articulate and demonstrate to an employer that you have what it takes to do a great job!”
Yes!
A similar thing happened to me about two jobs ago. I, too, had transitioned into career work and did a certificate program in career development through Extension at my university. I was hired by the geography department into a half-time position on a two-year contract. I had met one of the counselors through a specialized training in career development and I had met another through our membership in the local career professional association. One of them invited me to do a presentation to all the counselors and director on career portfolios (which had been my pet project for even longer than my year-long career certification program). After that, the assistant director asked me to do a class on portfolios to a night class she was teaching for a community college. In the process of doing the geography dept. job, I went to the central career center on campus to see what services they had that I could bring to geography students. The other counselor I had not met then asked me If I'd like to participate in a campus-wide career discovery program and I formed a panel of alumni to talk about work Inside and Outside the Ivory Tower.
My point is that, through all this collaborative work (another way of networking), by a few months after my job in geography was over and a job at the main career center had opened up, I had worked with all of the counselors on staff there. I had heard earlier from a colleague in our local professional organization that it would be advertised. After the job was posted for a few weeks, I got a call from one of the counselors to ask if I was going to apply and that they hoped that I would. When I did, they knew me. Yes, I had to meet all the qualifications, but I'm sure that some of it was because they had all seen me demonstrating the skills they wanted to see in a colleague. Just as UF's experience also worked out. If you can ever work into a situation like that and demonstrate your abilities to do what is needed, you have a golden opportunity.
Kate
Cathy Wasserman:
FQ, thanks so much for sharing your story! It's a perfect example of what I've found to be so true for folks switching sectors. You did EXACTLY what I always recommend:
1. You got initial clarity on what you wanted to do.
2. Volunteered to further explore your interest AND developed skills and background in it.
3. Networked, networked, networked!
4. Got some very strategic continuing education
5. Stayed with the volunteer position because it was building your network and skills.
6. Landed a job.
Now, not everyone will be so lucky to get a job where they volunteer, but one never knows! And even if someone don't get a job at the actual organization, it's very possible that folks will get a job THROUGH the contacts made at the organization.
Congrats! Cathy
C. International Government Organizations
Subscriber DW:
I was planning on listening this week, but Mr. Nolan's background is ideal for this question (anyone else can chime in too.) I have a BA in political science (interested mainly in international relations theory and European politics) with a minor in anthropology (mainly interested in cultural theory.) I am now a second year student in a top sociology program, with interests broadly in political sociology, cultural sociology, and nationalism. Plan A is probably still to finish and teach sociology, preferably in an intimate environment such as a liberal arts college. However, there have been times this year working (or failing to work) on my M.A. project that I have really thought about stopping after the M.A. and doing something else. I think there is still enthusiasm for academia in me (on my good days at least) but I want to keep my options in mind.
Before I decided on a Ph.D. program, I was interested in professional masters degrees in international affairs. Having already gone into a fair amount of debt, and since being tired of school would be one likely reason for quitting this program, I'm not sure I'm up for any more graduate education if I decide to bail. What can I do in the IGO/ INGO world with my interests and with an M.A. or a Ph.D. in sociology? Will a Ph.D. help me get a job with some branch of the UN or with an NGO, or would the M.A. be just as good in their eyes? BTW, I understand your background is in development...I am not too keen on anything that has a great deal to do with economics. My academic interests have much more to do with the symbolic side of politics. I understand that I would have to stretch and adapt in a real world job, but this is just an indication of my inclinations. I have also thought about taking the foreign service exam, but honestly the thought of being the face of Bushian/Orwellian America to the world gives me shivers. Anything for a different administration...
I hope I haven't forgotten any important details. I know you can't know my aptitudes intimately from the above paragraphs, but if you have any ideas about what might be good back up plans outside of academia, please let me know.
Thanks, DW
Riall Nolan:
The short answer is yes, you can work for an IGO (International Governmental Organization) or an INGO (International Non-Government Organization) with an M.A.. And if you're starting to get a little tired of school, it might be good to get out in the field for a while and see how you do.
What can you do with your background? Pretty much anything you want to, I'd imagine. Project work, policy work, analysis, data collection -- it's all possible. You don't explicitly say whether you want to work overseas, but if you do, your academic preparation is good. But not sufficient, as you probably know. In addition, it would be good to have language skills, some period of cross-cultural residence (not necessarily in another country, but most definitely in another culture), and an immediately useful functional skill, such as data collection/analysis, training, or proposal writing.
Now, to make it more complicated, although I have just said that you can get a job with an M.A., the real question is, should you push through for the Ph.D.? Much harder to answer.
First of all, there's the "cost" to you -- in time, money, aggro, and whatever you count as opportunity costs. But then there's the potential "benefit" -- in terms of additional income, better jobs, more options, etc.
Generally speaking, having a Ph.D. is better in most cases than not having one, and if they came free, I'd recommend that everyone pick one up. But they don't, and I advise people to consider the Ph.D. very carefully.
Because it (the Ph.D.) operates on at least two levels. On one level, if you ask the question, "does getting a Ph.D. teach me to do this work?" the answer in most cases is, "No, you can learn to do most anything without having to get a Ph.D.." If on the other hand the question is "Will getting a Ph.D. open the doors for me to do this type of work?" the answer may very well be "Yes." Or it may (more often) be, "No, you don't need a Ph.D. to get into this line of work, but eventually, you'll find you can't progress beyond Point X without it."
The only way to answer this second question is to do some informational interviewing and find out how people in a given organization that you think you might want to work for got where they are today, and what role their degrees, or lack of them, played in all that. It's pretty easy to answer, really, if you find the right people to ask. So, for USAID, for example, I don't think you need a Ph.D. to rise up the ranks. For the World Bank, however, I think at some point you do. The UN is somewhere in between. For NGOs operating overseas, I don't think the Ph.D. is really necessary. For all of these organizations, however, a Master's is pretty standard.
Where you go, as an M.A., once you get into these jobs is really more a function of how well you do what you do, and not what degree you hold.
If I were you, I'd pick some organizations you're curious about/interested in, and go in and do some informational interviews. That will help you decide if it's a good idea to step off the academic treadmill.
Riall
Darryl Stevens:
I am going to let Dr. Nolan handle the bulk of your question as this is clearly his bailiwick, but let me address three items of interest to the group in common.
First, inertia is seldom a good reason to attend graduate school or drop out of graduate school. By that, I mean far too many folks enter Ph.D. programs because they were good students and they could not think of anything else to do other than teach. (As an aside here, those who get along with kids often focus on K12, while those who dislike kids think..."College! Adults!" People who don't like kids, probably don't like anybody and are likely to have serious deficiencies in compassion. Knowledge and expertise is much less necessary than compassion when it comes to being a successful teacher.)
Back to my point...and I actually have one...I earnestly believe that there should be a two year wall built around graduate school. No one should be admitted who has not held a full-time job outside of an academic settings for a minimum of two years. Those working in academic settings should be forced to wait 5 years. There are basic socialization processes that one acquires only in the day-to-day working world. Over time, graduate students become so distanced from these social processes that they begin to fear them and demonize them. They are referred to as being "In The Real World." The Real World is a derisive comment, not an ontological postulate.
Second, no matter what career path you choose, you should optimize your alternatives now. Ask for committee work, offer to guest lecture at Santa Monica College, join the American Sociological Association and attend conferences and SIGS to get to know people. At least that way, if you decide to stay, you have feathered your nest so to speak. If you leave you have begun building a network that will be of some assistance later.
Finally, the Foreign Service Exam. I guess I have two separate pieces of advice. First, while I appreciate why you might characterize the current administration in the way that you do, remember that no administration is in power for ever and the Dept. of State tends to have a life of its own. Second, the Foreign Service process is a very long one. Some of my students who took the written exam last April has just been notified about the oral portion. Many people have to take one or both parts more than once. I always encourage students who feel that this is a possibility for them to take the FSE now and begin a process which could be up to two years in length.
Darryl
Subscriber AP:
The only thing that I'd like to add is that there are careers in foreign service that do not require the exam, even in the State dept., they usually require some expertise and a probably require a good network of people that know that expertise. There are also low level appointments to a wide variety of ingo's that one can get outside of the foreign service, that you can get an appt. to from the state dept. if you are qualified, a senatorial recommendation also helps for these usually. However, finding out about these opportunities is not easy in itself and takes a good bit of diligence and networking.
AP
Cathy Wasserman:
I second all of Riall's motions about the value and process of getting an M.A./Ph.D. in the IGO/INGO fields. I would really recommend getting clarity about what exactly you might like to do first and then, as Riall suggested, doing some informational interviews. I'd add that researching the field via the web and networking could also help a lot. That way, you'll hear first-hand what exact career paths have lead to the jobs you're interested in doing.
The international sector is one of the most competitive and, very often speaking not one, but two, three or even four additional languages is key. Perhaps, even more key is having overseas experience: the more, the merrier employers will be! It also may be useful to you to begin thinking about how you can translate the skills that you are building in your M.A. program to the needs of international organizations that interest you. Indeed, the translation of your skills is crucial when your switching sectors.
Of all the areas of the nonprofit sector, the international sector tends to respond to higher level degrees, so a Ph.D. could put you in good stead. Generally speaking larger international orgs. tend to look especially favorably on Ph.D.s and multiple graduate degrees (such as two or even three masters degrees) Having said that, I totally agree with Riall that unless you have the resources and a lot of energy to go on for your Ph.D., it may not be the best use of your talents and energies.
So in summary, I'd recommend starting by clarifying what you want to do (informational interviews, networking, and research) and then translating how what you already do can connect you to a great job!
Best, Cathy
Kate Duttro:
First, Darryl, I agree with your last two paragraphs, that folks should optimize their alternatives and essentially throw themselves into getting as much as possible out of whatever learning situation they find themselves in. Giving other folks a view of your energies and capacities means that they will eventually send jobs your way, without your even asking sometimes.
I also agree with the comments about administrations changing and government (especially State Dept) taking a LONG time to hire, once one has gotten through a long application process.
However, I must take issue with your aside that "People who don't like kids, probably don't like anybody and are likely to have serious deficiencies in compassion." Task, task - I believe this is what is known as an "opinion" and I want you to know that my own "opinion" is vastly different.
Your next paragraph is equally based on "earnest belief," and again. I differ. People go to grad school for different reasons, and if they want to go just for the sake of being there rather than somewhere else, that should be up to them. I don't think it is the fault of the students that they can be socialized. Remember who is doing the socializing, after all. I almost agree that they can be socialized to the point of being isolated, but I think it's really a basic cultural process of group identity taken to an extreme. I've seen exactly the same kind of fearful isolated group mentality in Pennsylvania farmers when they talk about those "egg-head professors whose heads are so stuffed full of facts that they have no common sense" and I've heard it in Bolivia among campesinos who fear outsiders will steal their children and use their fat little bodies to grease the machines in the big cities. Sure, it would be nice if we could make everyone work before they show up for grad school, but do you really think it would have helped Steven Hawking to have worked in retail before he could go to grad school? I'm not convinced.
cheers, Kate
Subscriber TJ:
Here's my question--I recently graduated from an MSW program, but concentrated in domestic policy. The school offered 5 tracks, one of them being the traditional clinical, but I opted for the policy track having been a poli sci/soc major in undergrad. We learned what I would categorize as more "functional" statistics (nothing too indepth), and also were required to take microeconomics at the university's separate policy school. I haven't fully plunged into the job search yet due to personal "life stuff", but was wondering if the veterans out there could address as to how they think potential employers would receive someone who has an MSW, but not with the traditionally assumed clinical focus? Would they even think to look beyond clinical? During the program, I felt fairly confident that I could "market" my degree and compete w/ the MPA's (as our profs would reassure us), but now that I'm actually perusing idealist, I realize that my grad degree could be potentially more confusing to employers than I thought. The policy track at the school has been in existence for approximately 8 years--although some might disagree, I consider this fairly new in comparison to the lifespan of more traditional disciplines/programs. Do you think an MSW in policy would be an automatic turn off to employers?
Sorry if this is not exactly re: nonacademic careers, as I realize an MSW is considered more practical as opposed to academic. I'm one of those "inbetween" people, and the content of other postings led me to believe that this would be a relevant question.
I have reposted and would like to clarify, yes, I am looking more towards research/policy positions, and not necessarily direct clinical services. In regards to mistakes, would like to clarify that I don't regret my MSW experience at all, but do recognize that my position is not mainstream. Just trying to get a gauge of what reaction in the market would be. Thanks for your feedback!
TJ
Cathy Wasserman:
My short answer to your question is no! Your degree will not be a turn-off to many employers. Indeed, many folks who get MSWs concentrate in macro work (which domestic policy would be considered) as opposed to concentrating in clinical work. However, how much of a turn-on your degree will be really depends on what exact kind of work you want to do. An MSW in micro work (clinical) is a great degree if you're interested in doing direct service work, and is also very useful for a whole slew of other kinds of jobs including what I do, organizational development. An MSW in macro work such as yours is quite competitive with an MPA and puts you in a good position to do program development and management in a nonprofit. However, if you're interested in doing really hard core policy work, then an M.A. in something like Public Affairs might have served you better.
If you have more of an idea of what you're interested in doing, I can give you more specifics.
Best of luck! Cathy
Riall Nolan:
I really don't feel qualified to answer this question directly, since I don't know enough about what's taught in the different programs, and what employers look for.
But as a general rule, your degree has given you a very broad set of skills, not a narrow and constraining set, and I think that marketing yourself appropriately involves not focusing on the degree per se, but on matching your skills and interests to those of potential employers.
Our training is often specialized, it is true, but our skills have very broad applicability.
Riall
Cathy Wasserman:
I very much agree with what Riall is saying in that generally in the nonprofit world (with the exception of the sub-sector of international orgs.) organizations care less about what your particular degree is than what your actual experience is. This is part of why anything you can do to get experience in the sector, whether volunteering, sitting on a board etc... will be of great benefit. And, of course, translating your many skills into the needs of a particular organization. If you can't translate your skills, it may not be the right fit.
Best, Cathy
Subscriber CM:
I'm particularly interested in Cathy Wasserman's posting, as our career paths have much in common. Briefly, my career has gone like this: I got a B.A. in women's studies in '85 from Berkeley. I loved my women's studies classes, but didn't know what to do w/the degree. It was such a new field then, that there wasn't any existing path to follow (or ignore) after graduation. I worked in domestic violence shelters, literary publishing, and the Feminist Press. After being laid off from FP in '91, I fell into teaching English as a Second Language, which I've been doing almost ever since then.
As I'm sure some of you know, the ESL field has become increasingly professionalized and credentials-based in recent years, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. So, I returned to school in '98 and got an M.A. in Adult and continuing ed. from Teachers College/Columbia U. My thinking was that the greater breadth of this degree (vs. one in TESOL) would provide me with more job opportunities. I'm finding, though, that employers don't seek out someone w/a degree in adult ed (in fact, many have never heard of it). Simply having _a_ master's, though, has helped get me jobs I wouldn't have been able to get before.
Since graduating w/the M.A. in 2001, I've worked at, and been laid off from, four jobs. Three have been teaching, and one as a family literacy program coordinator in a public library. Every layoff has been the result of funding cuts. I'm currently underemployed (i.e., teaching half-time), looking for my next full-time gig. I've been looking for more than ten months. Not surprisingly, my momentum isn't what it used to be.
Aside from feeling weary and discouraged, I think I'm having a hard time keeping up the hunt bc I'm not really sure which direction to look. I've wondered if I need to get a Ph.D. and, if so, in what. I don't want to teach kids (which isn't to say I don't like them!), so an EdD seems not the best choice. There are the usual considerations about doing a Ph.D. program (cost, time, etc. etc.). But I'm wondering if the credential would provide more job stability. Or another master's, perhaps in social work (I've felt very rewarded by the "helping" aspect of working one-on-one with students outside the classroom), or instructional technology, since it's a growing field w/in education (but I'm not a techie at heart).
So, I have a few questions:
What are some of the areas one can use an MSW in (aside from being a social worker)?
What experience is needed to do organizational development work, or coaching?
I'm often unsure which professional certificates are worthwhile. Here in NY, there are lots of places one can get professional certificates in various fields, but colleagues have told me that they've been told by prospective employers that these didn't carry any weight. For example, you mention the certificate in OD. Is that generally recognized and valued? are there others you'd suggest to someone who's committed to doing meaningful work in the nonprofit world?
Thanks for reading all this and thanks in advance for any input, suggestions, etc.
CM
Cathy Wasserman:
An MSW is an incredibly flexible degree, it's quite attractive in the organizational development field, in non profit leadership, program development, outcome measurement (with few exceptions, you name it, it's helpful to the bread and butter work of nonprofits), career coaching, life coaching, grassroots organizing, political and other campaign work, sometimes policy work (especially grassroots) etc....
In terms of organizational development work, while a degree in it specifically doesn't hurt (I'm sure you know Columbia amongst others has programs in it), what I've found matters most is actually having experiences in a myriad of different ways within organizations. You really need to know what makes organizations tick and it's hard to do that without having been part of a variety of them in a variety of different roles Having said that, I do know folks who have very specific expertise in particular kinds of orgs., say hospitals or schools who do org. dev. for those respective kinds of orgs.
I don't think there is a party line in the nonprofit world on the value of certificates- it really depends from org. to org. Before investing the time and money in one, I would recommend further clarifying what you really want to do and how you can translate your copious experience in the ESL world to your new area. Places like NYU, for example offer certificates, but they're pretty expensive. Whereas the last place I worked, the Support Center for Nonprofit Management, offers certificates that are quicker to get and less expensive and still respected by lots of np's in NYC. I had so much experience actually working in np's that I didn't really need to get a certificate: it's more valuable for folks totally making a big transition and it might, indeed, be valuable for you.
Best wishes! Cathy
Subscriber CM:
Thanks for your thorough response.
My reservation about having an MSW is not wanting to be a frontline social worker. Nearly all the social workers at the nonprofits I've been at were overworked and unhappy (as opposed to many of the ESL teachers, who were usually just overworked). It's good to know there are other uses for it.
In my last position, I supervised ESL staff at an agency that had received a large grant from the Sept 11 Fund. Although I did some teaching, my role was primarily managerial. I really liked having some say the operation of the program. You mention the importance of having experience in different functions w/in organizations. How do you think someone could go about transitioning from one area (e.g., ESL/education) to others, in order to become more management material?
Also, could you suggest someone I might talk to at the Support Center for Nonprofit Management to learn about their certificates?
CM
Cathy Wasserman:
It's not 100% necessary that you get more managerial experience in another topical area within the nonprofit sector IF you're interested in staying within ESL or a closely related area. If, however, you would like to be a manager in, for example, an environmental organization then you will need to get some experience in that area. I don't think you'll need to start at the "bottom," but it will be crucial to get your foot in the door. First, you need to clarify what area of the sector you'd like to target. Once you've done that, I really recommend volunteering for an org. whose work really excites you and also reading books in that area, doing web research and networking with folks with lots of experience in that area. Essentially, you want to immerse yourself in that world. Once you've done that, you can strategically craft your resume and cover letter to translate your managerial experience into whatever area you've targeted! And don't worry, this doesn't take as much time as you'd think. 1-2 months of intense immersion will give you a wonderful running start!
Best wishes! Cathy
E. Volunteering for Nonprofits
Subscriber LW:
I have begun looking into making the transition into the nonprofit sector and I have a couple of questions for anyone, but especially for Cathy. I am at a point in life where volunteering is not an option. What do you suggest?
I do have a background as a grant writer for a nonprofit organization and within a consulting firm scattered across the last 12 years. The applications have been for a variety of topics; some have been funded; I have records/information on some, but others are barely figments of my overcrowded memory. What is a recommended way of reconstructing my grant writing past? In a couple of cases, it is not possible to contact previous employers to raid their files.
LW
Cathy Wasserman:
Before I respond in more detail, I have a few clarifying questions:
How much grant writing experience do you have?
What parts of your past experience don't you remember?
Are you looking to do grant writing for a particular kind of organization?
Thanks! Cathy
Subscriber LW:
Before I started my doctoral program, I worked as a VISTA volunteer/grant writer for an Indian tribe and wrote grants to fund everything from BIA infrastructure projects to indigenous arts programs. After finishing my dissertation, I did better part of a year with a engineering/architectural consulting firm and wrote a zillion different proposals/applications for state and federally funded infrastructure projects--sewers, road improvements, etc, a couple CDBGs. I did this work in the middle of a difficult pregnancy. I also have a few of my own grant apps floating out there.
My undergraduate life was spent in journalism and my M.A. is in urban policy/history. (Ph.D. in American studies.) This kind of writing is not difficult for me. To be frank, I found the politics of each organization to be much more traumatic. As I said in my first message, I have really only begun to look into what is in my area. (I am currently doing the migrant adjunct routine, am going nowhere on a teaching path and not sure I really want to, but all of this nothing that has not been touched upon already this week.)
LW
Cathy Wasserman:
Thanks for the info.! Let me start first with how you can reconstruct your grant making past…..It actually sounds like you remember a good deal of what you've done. If you now the name of the organization, the basic dates you worked there, and the basic responsibilities you had, then you're in good shape. Your next step should be to really reflect on what impact you made in your job and what skills you developed. If you can't remember any of the basics, then you'll probably need to have a listing that looks something like this:
Grant writer 1995-1998 (dates should be flush left)
A general sentence that you worked for a number of nonprofit organizations writing grants and any other pertinent information you can recall to make your statement a bit meatier.
If you have some specifics for a few other positions in grant writing, then this entry will just serve to show that you have more experience in the field and not stand out so much as missing information.
It's not clear to me from what you wrote that you're really jazzed by grant writing. It sounds like it might be more of a "B" job for you, while you refine your interests and reactivate your nonprofit ties. Grant writing, in particular, is not a field I usually recommend folks go into, unless they really, really like to write grants because it can be quite draining. Having said that, grant writing jobs are usually quite available: on the Idealist.org site they are, indeed, the most copious and always have been. Non-profits are always looking for money so you may be in for some good luck if this is actually what you really want to do, or, at least, what you're willing to do for a while!
One element of what you're looking for that came through loud and clear was an organization whose culture is a good fit for you. That's a great insight and, in my experience, an individual's fit with an orgs.' culture is the deal-breaker or deal-maker in an employee's happiness on the job. I would advise getting really clear on exactly what does and doesn't work for you. For example, are you looking for an organization that puts a lot of emphasis on an employee's professional development? Are you looking for an organization that works hard to practice what they preach? Are you looking for an organization that supports a supervision culture (resources are put into providing the space time and supports for staff to get comprehensive supervision)?
Cathy
Subscriber YG:
I have a general question, and a more specific question. I came to graduate school from working in small social service nonprofits, and I loved the work environment. But these organizations had very small administrative staffs, and I don't have a clear idea of how the administration of medium-sized or larger nonprofits is structured. What is a program development officer, exactly? What kinds of administrative positions are available in organizations that provide direct services of one sort or another?
The second question is about how computer skills might, or might not, provide an opening for me to get back into a nonprofit work environment. I'm close to completely a history Ph.D., which is more relevant than it sounds,! since my dissertation is partly a policy history about poverty and social services for people with disabilities. But I also work as a database designer on a consulting basis, mostly at Duke's hospital, creating databases to track volunteers, to track donors and donations, and things like that. I've thought of either volunteering or consulting (with affordable fees) at the kinds of nonprofits that could use these databases. I would be using this to learn more about what other kinds of non-profit work I might be interested in, and perhaps as an opening into other kinds of work. But I'm concerned that I might end up identified as someone who knows about computers, and not as someone with a background relevant to disability and health care services. And I'm not sure at all how to get the experience and expertise I would need to turn a background in history into something useful for nonprofits.
YG
Cathy Wasserman:
Hello! What kind of work did you do for small social service nonprofits?
There are definitely more administrative positions in medium to large-sized nonprofits and many in direct service organizations. And as you probably know, in the nonprofit world, administration tends to be defined quite broadly and to really vary in structure from one nonprofit to the next. I'm not sure what interests you, but many organizations with 50 plus staff, for example, have an HR Director. Some even have them with smaller staff. Often, the Deputy Director position at these orgs. also involves a lot of administration. Larger organizations may even have VP's of Administration or Chief Operating Officers.
I've not often seen the title of 'program development officer.' Usually, I see program directors and these are often folks with more than 5 years of experience in the field who have expertise in a particular area such as developing youth empowerment programs for teenage girls. Typically, these staff have done a lot of on-the-ground, direct work with young people (or whatever population they have expertise on) and also have done the big picture thinking about developing programs, know how to put together and manage a budget, and have leadership skills. At smaller nonprofits, it's often possible to get these kinds of jobs with less experience, whereas at larger nonprofits, they usually require more experience (5+ years).
I think your computer skills could definitely provide an opening for you to get back into the nonprofit world, especially if you volunteered some of them. Many nonprofits are in real need of computer expertise in a variety of forms, whether to network their computers, figure out what to buy next, troubleshoot computer problems, or develop databases (your area!). In the past three years, I've seen an increasing need for assistance with databases as many orgs. find that what's out there doesn't actually fit their needs and with information moving more quickly and needing to be captured more and more, they find themselves at sea and missing out on opportunities. You're right that you might be pigeon-holed as the computer gal, but if you share your long-term interest and background from the get-go, I think you'll find people are quite open to sharing information with you that will be helpful to you and even finding ways where you can more concretely work you! 're way in via your computer volunteering or low-cost consulting. I think the fact that many staff at nonprofits multi-task and multi-job is to your advantage- it's not that unusual to see a staff person who has a particular area of technical expertise and program expertise.
As for your question about how to translate your background to the np world, you're at a great advantage because you've already worked in nonprofits so you surely already know a bit about the needs, culture and language of the sector. You now need to translate your current skills and background into nonprofit language and think carefully about how your skills can be useful and applicable to nonprofits. I can assure you they can be. For example, your thesis would very likely be quite interesting to many nonprofits working in or around poverty issues. You may want to ask yourself a series of questions: Do you have program design skills? Budgeting skills? Outreach skills? At the same time as you query yourself on a variety of areas that are useful to nonprofits, I'd advise thinking carefully about what kinds of org. missions particularly excite you. You may also want to begin combing though job posting on Idealist.org to see what's out there. If you start with the premise that you have many skills which will be useful, it's very likely that the rest will fall into place as you go deeper in your clarification and translation process.
Best!
Cathy
Subscriber YG:
Thanks, Cathy - that's very helpful. I think I actually meant to ask about what a program director was, so I'm glad you figured that out. At this point, I'm thinking in terms of what might be feasible as a short-term goal that might eventually give me the expertise for something like program director positions, although I don't know enough yet to be sure whether that would be the best fit for me. I definitely don't have that expertise right now.
YG
Paula Foster Chambers:
I can shed a little light on one basic thing. In nonprofit organizations, there is a big difference (and often a cultural divide as well) between "program staff" and "development staff." "Program staff" are the people who do the actual work that the nonprofit is supposed to be doing (fulfilling its mission). Development staff raises the money so that program staff can do their work. Development professionals like me can move from one type of organization to another with very little difficulty, whereas program staff are more tied to a particular field or subject area (like academics being tied to a particular "discipline").
For example, I worked for an environmental organization first, then I moved to a civil rights organization, and now I'm at an arts organization--being in Development the whole time. If I had gotten a program-type job at that first organization (like Urban Forestry Program Assistant, Campus Forestry Coordinator, or Director of the Education Program), working for the environment, I would have become an environmental person as opposed to a Development person and my career path would have been entirely different. First of all, I would have needed much more environment-related work prior to being hired in the first place. Then if I ever wanted to leave the organization, I would have moved to some other environmental organization, or maybe the environmental ed office of my state or county government, or maybe the national park service or something like that--positions and organizations that deal directly with the environment.
Not to say that there are no transferable skills in Program. Of course there are. I'm just pointing out a nuance in nonprofit culture: there is an invisible conceptual wall between Program and Development. In some organizations, Program people look down on Development because Development is considered "support" for Program and Program is considered the "real work" of the organization. Likewise, Development people sometimes roll their eyes about how stupid Program people can be about fundraising. Turnover in Development tends to be higher, because Development people have skills that are needed in ALL organizations (everyone needs money) and are therefore more "portable." So the word "development" has to be watched carefully because it may mislead. If it comes first in the title, it's a Development position (like Development Associate or Development Director). If it comes later, it's probably Program (like Program Development Officer).
We highly educated Humanities folks are in a good position if we decide to enter the nonprofit sector because our broad base of skills can make us credible applicants for BOTH types of positions. Those of us who like Development stuff can go in that direction, while those who prefer Program stuff can go in that direction, probably gravitating towards organizations that do work around literacy, education, stuff like that. It's actually really cool. You can't say that about other disciplines like, say, biology. Once you're a biologist, you're a biologist and you would be vastly more qualified for a Program type position (in some biology-related nonprofit) that for a Development position.
Of course both tracks may require a certain amount of self re-invention. But it's doable.
Paula
Riall Nolan:
This is Riall, saying goodbye to you all at about eight in the evening in Indiana.
Tomorrow I'm getting up early to go to the Purdue Annual Fish Fry, where we don't eat fish, by the way, but pork chops, to support the Hoosier swine industry. Tim Russert will be our guest speaker, and I plan to ask him why he lets Donald Rumsfeld get away with the nonsense he spouts every time he comes on Meet the Press.
Should be fun. But I won't be back online with any of you, at least not for this topic, and I wanted to say that it's been very, very illuminating. I've never done anything like this before, didn't know what to expect, and I was most impressed with the questions, the answers, and the synergy which developed between various of us at various times.
An exceptional phenomenon. So thank you all for every bit of it, I thought your stories were just great, to say nothing of your courage, wisdom, and energy. Thanks too, to my fellow invitees -- you're wise and caring. And thanks, Paula, for getting me into this.
Anyone who wants to follow up offline, feel free (rwnolan@purdue.edu) but don't be surprised if it takes a couple of days to get a reply. I travel a lot -- Tuesday to Washington, Saturday to Kuwait. But I will get back to you.
On to the Fish Fry. Thanks, everyone, again.
Riall
Cathy Wasserman:
I just wanted to thank everyone for their wonderfully articulate questions and responses all the way around! It has been a very enlightening experience, indeed. A special thanks to the other panelists as well as to Paula for organizing and managing the details, big and small.
Should anyone have any follow-up questions or queries down the line, I can be reached at askcathyw@yahoo.com.
Much good luck to all!
Cathy
Paula Foster Chambers:
Dear WRK4US,
This message officially closes the Guest Speaker Discussion on The Nonacademic Job Search Process. Speakers, subscribers, everybody did a super job of asking great questions and giving great answers. On behalf of the entire subscribership, I would like to express deep gratitude to our four wonderful speakers, Riall, Cathy, Kate and Darryl. They shared very generously of their time, knowledge and experience, for which we are much in their debt. Thanks as well to those of you who asked questions and kept the discussion going. Way to go, everyone!
Happy exploring,
Paula Foster Chambers
WRK4US list manager
www.woodrow.org/Ph.D./wrk4us/