Non-Academic Job Advice

[Guest]

Going through the process of being on the job market for basically the first time has really made me reevaluate my life and my career. I'm a postdoc right now, and I've realized that I'm always terribly stressed out and I'm not that happy with what I'm doing. Even when I'm not working, I feel guilty for not working. I haven't been having much luck at all with the market, and I've been starting to think that I'd actually be a lot happier in an applied research setting where I could still do research, but I would have far better work/life balance and I wouldn't be in a constant state of stress. I'd love to be able to have weekends and evenings off (which I often don't work them now, but I always feel depressed and guilty afterward). I've looked at the non-academic job posting thread, but I have some questions.

What are the best resources for finding applied or non-academic job openings for soc PhDs (with quantitative skills)?

When do you typically hear back after you submit your application? (Or is it highly variable?)

What standard things should you include on your CV that you might not include on a CV for a tenure-track position? What should you NOT include that would only be relevant for academia?

Any other general tips?

Thanks in advance for your wisdom.

[suggestion]

I can't really speak to the timeline or the CV thing but you should definitely check out the USA jobs site. You can search by discipline and things like that. There is another site somewhat like this one called "Versatile PhD" that might be worth checking out as well. Hope that helps!

[unclekarl]

Without giving away your identity, can you specify your research training/interests? E.g., health, demography, criminology, etc.

[Original Poster]

Many thanks for the recommendations for places to search for the jobs! I really appreciate it, and I will check them out.

My work has been work and occupations, education, and inequality. However, I have really strong quantitative skills and would be open to any sort of data collection/analysis career.

[aaaaa]

As someone who has experience in the non-academic market, let me make a few points:

1- in some of the better known think tanks, like Rand or Brookings, area of expertise may matter. At most other places, they couldn't care less about the specific subject area you focused on, and are instead really interested in your technical expertise. Many of the policy focused research companies will care more if you know how to manage a large dataset, create a sampling frame, or use specific software than if you focused on education or cross national development.

2- The range of institutions that hire sociologists is pretty wide, which makes it harder to find a central website to look for jobs. You have for profit research companies like gallup, IFC, mathematica, ORC, macro and so on. You have your non profit organizations like CARE, Amnesty International, different centers affiliated with labor unions, etc. You have international governmental organizations like the IMF, World Bank, etc. Think tanks like Rand, etc. You get the point.

3- Networks matter a whole lot, as these places are often not required or interested in running full on national searches and may hire without really announcing the position broadly. Try to find fellow sociologists who work at these places at talk to them about it.

4- Finally, don't assume that just because a position is non academic that the stress is lower. Many of these places have full soft money positions, meaning that you need to keep getting grants that cover your salary in order to remain employed. You have a full range of things here, from the regular 9-5 jobs, to 80 hour weeks with a week and a half vacation a year. More than once in my previous non academic life in a policy evaluation firm I had to work late into sunday to make sure my proposal for a grant was in by monday.

[Original Poster]

Thanks "aaaaa" for the insight. Even if there isn't a centralized system (unfortunately), it's nice to keep specific organizations in mind and look at their websites, so thanks for the list.

Regarding networks, I came from a program that expects people to pursue R1 careers after graduating. I can't really think of any grads who ended up doing the applied route (although many did not end up at R1 places), so I'm not really sure how to make those connections at this point.

You're right of course that applied jobs can be just as stressful and come with the expectation of long hours. I certainly wouldn't mind working long hours occasionally, but I feel like with the right applied position, I'd be able to do what I love doing in academia and avoid the aspects that I have come to dislike most about academia.

I'm really hopeful at this point to get some sort of research job. I recently applied to an ideal job (what I'm looking for, the job matches my skill set pretty perfectly, and somewhere where I'd like to live), but I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much about it as I'm not sure if applied jobs are more or less competitive than tenure-track positions right now.

Thanks again for your insight! It was definitely helpful!

[unclekarl]

aaaaa covered things pretty well.

I interviewed at a few soft-money places, & decided not to do it because of the stress of constantly needing to apply for grants. Places such as Mathematica, Urban, PIRE, RAND, etc. function off of grant funding, & you need to have an ability to write successful grants proposals if you are to get hired. I do not recall the exact level, but NIH funding is something like 12-15% of all applicants, & I think that holds for most competitive grant places.

A more 9-5 job is a state or federal position. There are lots of benefits [good pay, stable work hours], but they generally do not engage in a lot of cutting-edge research. I have friends in demography that work for the Census Bureau, & some are extremely bored with compiling statistics.

If you just want to 'apply' methods, you might be able to find a permanent gig as a methods person at a data center. For example, pop centers and survey research centers will hire a Ph.D. research associate to manage projects. Places where there are a large number of researchers also need someone who they can go to. I'm sure there's a lot of places in education and health that need such people.

There are also private firms. There's always a chance you could get a job as the statistician does QC or data analysis. Particularly, if you're willing to work on topics ranging from employee performance to analysis of component performance in jet engines. Financial industries also come to mind . I think the downside is that you may have less independence and satisfaction if get stuck working for 'The Man', & risk of layoff. If you get into an industry, they may ask you to get a degree [for example, an MBA or MPH], but places often pay for the education.

As 'aaaaa' noted, there's no central database. The Chronicle is probably the best place I know for education jobs. Searching individual websites for most potential employers is how I found available jobs. There's also absolutely no harm in emailing lots of places with your resume and seeing if you get any bites.

As an aside, you can also teach as an adjunct for stats. That's one way to keep your foot in the door, in case you want to return to higher ed. Please note, there's nothing wrong with NOT being in higher ed... its the Academy that generally frowns upon it. If you find yourself content or happy, then you've probably found a solution to employment =)

Best of luck!

[unclekarl]

An addendum: Fed jobs can be maddening to get. The Census Bureau, for example, may take 6 months to decide to hire, and request you reply a few times before interviewing you. A good application of Weber, is how I interpret the hiring process!

[Original Poster]

Thanks for the additional input, unclekarl! These points are all very helpful.

[aaaaa]

Just remembered a useful link I had on my bookmarks:

web.mit.edu/career/www/graduate/fieldinfo.html

Pay close attention to those positions in policy analysis, international development, and other types of consulting. And don't go by you specific type of interest. That is, don't rule out "international development" just because you did your dissertation on a field completely outside international development. As I said, technical expertise matters as much, and often much, much more, than specific field of interest.

Let me also make a couple of points that are important:

- Being too long outside academia makes it virtually impossible to come back. A year or two probably won't matter, but if you stay outside academia longer than that it will be really hard to come back. On the flip side, most of these places won't mind you teaching the occasional class as adjunct.

- Research is applied, and you are often answering to people with little to no training, be it your bosses or your clients. In my previous life in the private sector I would often have access to truly amazing data sets, with sensitive information (full school and juvenile justice records for thousands and thousands of youth over several years) and occasionally the classified information (info on troop records, etc). Stuff that you could get literally dozens of dissertations out of. But the client was only interested in certain deliverable information. In the example of the full records for youth, all the client wanted to know was if school program X reduced incarceration enough to lead to cost savings overall.

Now, I had some limited time to do my own research, but the emphasis was on research that would look good in further grant applications, not highly cited academic papers. And still you would need the client's permission to use the data outside its very narrow scope. I never had any problems with client permission, but I often heard horror stories from people involved in the many evaluations of abstinence based programs and HIV prevention policies during the Bush administration.

None of this is meant to talk you out of the non academic world, but it is a world that comes with its own challenges. It can be very rewarding (I've actually written congressional reports and had it quoted in policy discussions), but it can also turn out to be nothing more than glorified social accounting.