I wanted to share my view on inefficiencies I have observed with the data science job market, and especially recruitment. Since LinkedIn does not allow long posts, so I will do it here. Warning, this might sound like a bit of a rant 🙂
- Many jobs out there seem to be advertised as a ‘data scientist’ while what they are looking for is a BI specialist, data analyst, etc. I thought this was due to the fact that many, especially less mature companies, cannot distinguish between these positions, but I recently heard from multiple sources that they do this on purpose in order to attract more applicants… Seriously, how wrong is that?
- Many jobs seem to demand quite a high level of education (PhD is now almost the norm in job posts I see), computer science and big data technology skills, math wizard-ship, machine learning and statistical expertise, excellent communications skills and, preferably a few years of experience. While at the same time, they often offer un-challenging and tedious work with bad reward schemes, or lack vision and strategy when it comes to ML and AI on an enterprise level. My advice is to appreciate the different background people working in this field have, the best and most successful teams that I have seen are the diverse ones.
- I appreciate and am wary of other people’s time, therefore I try to respond to most unsolicited requests from recruiters. However, I keep on receiving generic copy-paste information about positions, which are quite far from what I have been doing so far in my career. If people do that and won’t even spend 10 seconds to look at my profile, why do they expect a reaction from me? And why do I feel bad about not reacting, and annoyed at the same time by this lack of respect of my time? If it was me, I’d first spend time researching and finding candidates which might be a good fit for the role and try to approach them rather than spam every profile I get my hands on.
- This is a very important but underestimated one. People do not realize that the solicitation is not a one-shot but rather a repeated game, especially when you look at the market in a single country like the Netherlands. If a company and its recruiters treat me unprofessionally, they lose me a candidate once and for all. They are likely to lose me as a customer of their products or services as well. I am also very likely to share my unpleasant experiences with my close network, so they will likely lose them as potential candidates as well. If a candidate took their time to do an interview with you, or work on some problem set, have the decency and respect for their time and provide feedback on that interview/problems, etc. Even if you reject someone, you can make it a valuable learning experience and still make the person feel appreciated. There is no need to burn any bridges. I had some bad experiences, especially when I was looking for my first job. So, now whenever I am approached by recruiters from these companies, I don’t even bother responding. I have zero interest in working at a place that treats anyone unprofessionally.
- Sometimes people with PhDs are outright rejected, usually for one of two main reasons: 1) Companies think they are ‘over-qualified’, which means they are afraid the said candidate will soon be bored and leave them; 2) Some managers think that the skills gained during a PhD are too abstract and would rather prefer someone with minimal college and some experience than anyone with a PhD. These views are both so wrong and show ignorance, and here is why. First of all, many factors can get candidates interested in a position. Maybe the job is close to where they live, it offers flexible working hours and is in a field that the candidate finds interesting. Don’t downright reject a person because you believe they will be bored and soon leave you. The second reason just shows ignorance on what it takes to do a PhD. At least for me, doing a PhD taught me how to be independent, self-motivated and disciplined. It taught me how to pursue and investigate a problem in depth, deal with failure, present my research and findings in very limited amount of time (in academic conferences it is not unheard to get 15 min to do a presentation), write scientific papers in a short amount of time, alongside all the domain knowledge I can now apply in my job. I have learned more during my PhD- both on the content but also in other skills – than I have in working in the industry ever since. My advice, do not dismiss someone simply because they have (or do not have) a PhD.
Ok, this is where I will end my frustrations and complaining. Feel free to disagree with me. I am curious to learn if other people have had similar or actually quite different experiences. Does it work differently in other countries?