How to be more successful in the job market for a new engineer? 2

[Butters1Stotch1]

I almost have my Industrial Engineering degree and thinking of master studies in mechanical. I looked through job market again and was surprised.
It is said that there's no problem for an engineer to find a job but the requirements are so high nowadays. They ask for experience, languages, skills in software I was never introduced to during my studies. I've seen no job ads that I'd be qualified to after my graduation. How do fresh engineers start off in the job market then?

 

[Enginerd9]

So what you're saying is that your reality should be my reality, and I'm politely disagreeing with you.

And I'm not swayed by the discouragement. I know my value. I bust my tail every day. I push to be better every day. I am exactly what I need to be to surpass where you were at my age. If you're bitter about that, there's nothing I can do for you.

The bigger point here is that we don't seem to have a shortage of Engineers entering the work force, what we have is an abundance of entrenched opinion and ego preventing that new talent from seamlessly integrating into the ranks. What we have is an entire generation of people who were encouraged to go to school, took on massive debts to do so, and who graduated into a recession. We have a "bubble" of education which is about to pop, and those of us who played into the idea of "work hard, go to school, get a good job" have been left a bit disgruntled by what seems to have been empty promises.

So, again, I think we should re-think reality. What worked for you early in your career no longer applies. And to the OP I still say: rock on with your bad self. Don't slack... definitely work hard and push to gain what you earn. But don't let someone else tell you where you should be. Don't let their fear of your talent keep you caged underneath them where they can remain comfortable and un-threatened. If they want to just keep on doing what they've always done, they're the problem. If they don't want to evolve to compete with the younger, better talent... their problem. Hooray, Capitalism in action!

And when all else fails, and you find too many potential employers who are too scared to take you under their wing... grow your own wings. You are getting a Master's? Good. Start a business. Work at McDonald's (I hear they're raising minimum wage soon!) until your business takes off. Then, when you're outpacing those who stubbornly remained set in their ways... they'll wish they had given you a chance.

Idealistic? Ok. Carnegie, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Gates, Jobs, etc. Don't let someone else's surrender to the Status Quo bring you down.

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

 

[KENAT]

Well first off, trying to be too strict about terms such as 'Lead Engineer' is pointless because different employers/industries/locations... will call the same thing different names (a rose by any other name...) so anyone getting upset over related issues probably wants to step back, take a deep breath & count to 10. Sure Radford Salary scale (or similar) which I believe feeds the categories seen on sites like Salary.com attempts to standardize job definitions but nothing forces companies to use the same definition. Likewise some large organizations have fairly well defined job duties etc. but they don't necessarily apply outside of those organization.

For instance to me the difference between 'Lead Engineer' and 'Engineering Manager' has bugger all to do with length of service and everything to do with the job role. To me Lead Engineer implies some kind of primarily technical lead, while Engineering Manager implies someone that primarily manages Engineers. However, that's my definition based on my experience and I don't necessarily expect it to apply to other people.

Back to the OP, there have been a bunch of threads about how to get first job for new grads etc. If you want to show some initiative as Triangled suggests then go look through them, see what you can learn and then maybe come back here post what you think you've learned and see what folks have to say about that.

Few comments, I got my first job by looking through the membership section of a relevant Industry organizations directory at the local library and sending hard copies of my resume with a cover letter to any companies that looked remotely interesting. One of those letters landed on the desk of the technical director the very day they were going to run an add in the local news paper to fill a position.

So don't just apply to posted job adds, apply to any potential employer.

My second job actually came from having my resume on one of the job websites - so they aren't completely useless but certainly shouldn't be your only or even your primary approach.

However, just because those approaches worked for my doesn't mean they'll work for you, and just because some approaches haven't worked for me doesn't mean they wont for you. For instance I've found 'pounding the street' pointless (if I'm lucky someone will actually take my resume and give me a business card and tell me to apply to their online recruiting website or similar) but many others swear by it and I'm not going to suggest they're wrong.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[IRstuff]

Given a relatively stable pyramidal hierarchical structure, there is no way to get promoted to manager in 5 years, since it requires an absurdly high turnover, or a nearly equally absurd growth rate, neither of which is consistent with a stable environment. Most companies in the last 10 years have become considerably flatter in structure; my last company had about 100 people reporting to the functional manager. It would have required at least a 50% turnover to possibly allow a new college hire to move into that management position, and unless the new hire was "Mr. Wonderful" it would have been highly unlikely that the first pick for replacing that manager would be a new hire with only 5 years of experience. Now, 30 yrs ago, there were more layers of management, and moving into management would have been relatively easy, but that reality has been dead for a long time.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[Enginerd9]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting someone out of college should jump right into a management role. Kenat has a great point as well: titles mean nothing. It's like I say... you can know a lot, but what's more important is what you do with that knowledge. Blooms taxonomy kind of stuff.

I don't disagree about the pyramid structure, and the difficulties associated with that, and the flattening of the org structures. What I disagree with is using all of that as a measure of a person's potential value, as has been the more traditional method. Hence, we need to re-think our reality.

Resources for finding jobs, finding resume building workshops, etc. are great. The key is to identify what you want to do, and where you want to be in 5-10 years, and trying to find a good match from the available options. There's a bit of luck to that, but don't be afraid of what some refer to as "job hopping." There's nothing wrong with realizing you're on the wrong path after gaining some additional experience. In fact, someone who is in touch with themselves enough to know when it's time to switch gears is a great asset... so long as they're always seeking opportunities which align better with their personal goals.

I like this topic. And I like those who have contributed. Yey!

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

 

[IRstuff]

I don't see anything here that suggests that people are measuring value based solely on job classification. If that were the case, everyone in a given classification would be paid the same, and that's clearly not the case. Moreover, not all engineers, especially newly minted ones, have even remotely the same potential. We once hired a A+ BSEE from Berkeley, who should have great potential, but he had less initiative than a worm, and he decided to go and work in his father's restaurant after 4 years of sitting like a lump on a log in a cube. Since it takes until age 25 before one's brain is fully developed, that's not necessarily surprising. Our new grads tend to be given mostly grunge work, initially, and over time and different assignments, their managers can determine their true worth what their ultimate goals are. Typically, people fail miserably at achieving their own goals. Potential value often can only measured after the fact.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Nerd,

I think we're using different titles, hence the gap. To me, an "entry level" has a fresh degree to a few years experience. But there's a slew of titles in between (at least in my industry)... Engineer, Sr. Engineer, Principle Engineer, Engineering Lead, etc. I did not mean to suggest that someone must remain titled "entry level" for 15 years.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[Keith1029]

Some great comments on this thread. Kenat, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment to take a deep breath and count to 10; if someone is (or needs to be) worried about their title rather than their skill level I feel that identifies some problem with their perception or their corporate environment and that is disappointing when you see it.

Enginerd9 I like your signature and I think it touches on this topic as well; I think people get sidetracked with "number of years of experience" both in the writing and applying for the job descriptions and when looking at advancement. As far as applying for jobs goes, to the OP I say ignore the experience requirement and apply if you think you can do the job (or be trained to in a reasonable time frame). To me, the number of years experience needs to be looked at closely when using it as a metric to gauge ability. I had a boss who summed it up with "15 years industry experience is great... but do you want to hire the guy with 15 years experience in grade 4?". People learn at different rates (some near zero), and the quality of peoples experience varies significantly, so if you are a fast (above average) learner, have had good quality experience in the past and don't make the same mistake more than about twice (never met anyone who doesn't repeat some mistakes at least once) then certainly don't let anyone slap a "only x years of experience" label on you; demand, where you can, that they look at your ability objectively, and be ready to back it up with performance.

As far as LinkedIn goes I would love to know if anyone puts any stock in it besides its use as a medium for making cold call connections. I see many profiles of people I know, endorsed for skills that they don't have (or are bad at), and I routinely have to reject endorsements for skills that I have no clue about, from people who haven't the foggiest idea what I actually do or what my skillset is. I have taken to thinking it is the worlds most padded, useless bit of resume information.

My take at looking for a new job is to be as targeted as possible, beat the streets if you need to, but remember when it comes to applying, it is a relative value game, not an absolute value one. To an employer, all your skills have a specific relative value that may be vastly different than what you have assigned it, and it will vary between employers. If you can read between the lines to focus on your skills (however long it took to acquire) that are of specific value to them (bonus points if you can show them that being proficient in 5 CAD packages, or whatever bit of nonsense is in the ad, is useless if they only use one, but that's a risky little ego game) and show them that you are a good fit for the position (skills, attitude, learning aptitude, ability to work the with existing team and corporate environment) then you will be surprised at how many "requirements" suddenly evaporate.

 

[Enginerd9]

MacGyvers, I understand your point. There is some generalization I was applying. The point I was hoping to make is that the rungs in the ladder are less dense at the bottom, and more dense at the top. Or, perhaps it's that in the current industrial environment, there aren't enough rungs spaced out evenly enough to be of any value (ie the Engineering Manager handling 3 departments for 15 years someone mentioned above...).

Upward mobility is a buzzword the career advisors use a lot, and a lot of the more energetic Engineering leaders may use it as well. But when reality sets in, they don't like being shown that one "fast learner" because it means they have to make room in their organizational structure for someone who could, at some point, out pace them. I actually picked up a book mentioned in another thread: How to Work for an Idiot. It's been a great read! And it talks about the bosses who are afraid of talented young professionals who, they view, are a threat to their position. So, they stifle them... they kill the talent to make sure they stay on top. Well, I disagree with that. I think it's no way to proliferate an industry, and to ensure a strong future.

Hence why I disagree with just accepting the status quo as far as organizational structure. I do not think there is continued merit in a "corporate ladder" system of rungs and milestones, which can simply be moved as the people higher up see fit for their own advantage. These different titles, different structures, etc. are just muddying the water, smoke screen. Even though the trend has moved to a more flattened strategy in some places, these old, archaic ideals are still prevalent.

I'd be completely fine with "Engineering Minion" as a title, so long as my pay and compensation appropriately matched my performance. I don't care about titles. But since the job market is constructed around them, I have to use them to some extent.

... rambling. Thanks!

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

 

[IRstuff]

The "ladder" serves a fundamental purpose of mollifying and satisfying those people that do need the security blanket of being at some particular level with a particular range of salaries.

I, for one, am not one of them, so I don't even know what my job classification is. But, the world is full of diverse people, and there are those that "must" know their classification level and salary range.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[brandonbw]

My first grading job was to do grading, and I didn't know how to do grading. I would just apply and see what happens.

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer

http://bwengr.com