Help me choose a career

[pete_esp]

h0b0 said:

I am not based in Glasgow (or the UK) but have had significant responsibility around finance and tech in the city.

Glasgow has a surprising number of finance/tech firms paying the kind of salaries that make you pause and think "how much?!?".

I did not know this and thank you H0b0 for bringing it to my attention!!

OP - I feel for you mate, I was a late starter at uni (24 when I started) and I felt so bad for all the young ones who came straight to Uni and Engineering because school/parents told them they had to pick a course, then felt obliged to stick it out and then had to get a job using said degree. I've already told my kids (8 & 4) that I expect them to enjoy life while they are young. I did and what I learned in those years ultimately made me more employable. I also have to say thanks, this thread (and some others) are hastening a thought process I have long been putting off.

[h0b0]

Glasgow is booming right now for tech jobs. If you google tech jobs in Glasgow, there is a lot of info to dig through. Alternatively, walk the streets. I was there recently and just looking around showed the opportunities in tech. I should say at this point, do not think of "tech" as just apple and small start ups. While there are many traditional tech companies in Glasgow, there are many other companies that have their tech orgs located there. I saw US insurance companies with offices in downtown. That was surprising!

Several banks, including JPMC, are investing in Glasgow. I have singled out JPMC as I have some knowledge of their tech capability and am very impressed. Out of all the banks, their CEO Jamie Dimon understands the tech impact. They have huge investments in new technology and cloud platforms.

There are several reason why this is happening. One is that the big firms are moving their focus away from London as the office space is not worth it. But, they still need an EMEA presence. Another is that there is a good stream of qualified grads from local universities filing the pipeline for youth hires. This is very important today because there is a lot of competition. The banks in the US are struggling to hire because all the kids want to go to google so they are throwing money at them. $100k+ starting salaries for kids out of university with no experience! And finally....Brexit. This is an odd one that we can just move on from.

A friend of mine spent years in hospitality and decided it was not for him. He went back to school in Glasgow and landed a job in tech. He went through the normal graduate process even though he was 15-20 years older than everyone else. He is also happier than ever and has been able to pay off all the loans he had for school. This may not be your experience but it shows it can happen.

[what__now]

Hi All,

OP here dropping back in for a bit of an update/thread resurrection.

It's heartening (in a way, also slightly depressing) to see others who have a similar experience and/or are in a similar place. I sort of expected this when starting the thread, can't believe I'm a complete anomaly!

I'm aware of big banks being based in Glasgow and I have something of a connection to someone who is at JP Morgan, and by all accounts does well for themselves, but I'm fairly confident that it's not for me. I do see lots of tech/software engineering type roles popping up but to be honest generally immediately discount them as I don't have any background or formal training in software or IT and tend to automatically assume that someone 10 years younger could do it 10x better than me as i'd be starting from scratch. I also feel like even if I did get into it a lot of the things that I don't like about the engineering world would still be there. Sorry if this is too negative, I am willing to be convinced otherwise!

I've also had a good long think/reflection on it and I think I've come to the conclusion that teacher training>teaching is not the right answer for me, I feel like this is a vocation that one would have to be passionate about and I don't think I am (at least not passionate enough). I have volunteered for some more STEM activities with schools, so there is a slim possibility that may change my mind.

I took some time off recently and was frustrated by how long it took me to feel like I was free and had 'disconnected' my mind/thoughts from work, felt like instead of having a week off I actually only really got the benefit of a couple of days, which makes me feel pretty sure that something is not right. This is similar to my experience of weekends, Friday 6pm is pure relief/relaxation but I tend to be worrying/dreading Monday by some point mid saturday onwards.

Also wanted to say that I liked the Ikiagi(sp?) diagram that was posted above, it does help to focus the mind, but I don't have a solution.

[what__now]

One other thing which might be relevant, I've done various personality/typology tests over the years, and have taken another today, I fairly consistently come out as INTJ, which is, I think quite interesting. Here is a page which sets out what INTJ means - if you have never done one of these tests I would encourage anyone to give it a try. http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/intj

I think I am getting better at being self aware and aware of how those I interact with see me, but it's not my natural state, the way I read the description of INTJ is that I should be quite decisive and good at technical tasks but also makes me realise that quite a lot of people probably think i'm a bit of an arse.

I think that a large part of what I don't like is having to put on the front that is necessary to be able to interact with other people - mostly I couldn't care less if they had a nice weekend or whatever but I'm aware that to fit in I need to suppress the urge to get straight to work and cut out all the politics/small talk, I often feel like if we could things would be done 10x faster.

TL;DR maybe it is me who does not fit 'the system' or 'the environment' rather than work being unsatisfactory?

Edited by what__now on Wednesday 21st October 14:40

[Woodrow Wilson]

what__now said:

It's heartening (in a way, also slightly depressing) to see others who have a similar experience and/or are in a similar place. I sort of expected this when starting the thread, can't believe I'm a complete anomaly!

I'm aware of big banks being based in Glasgow....but I'm fairly confident that it's not for me.
...I do see lots of tech/software engineering type roles popping up but to be honest generally immediately discount them......tend to automatically assume that someone 10 years younger could do it 10x better than me as i'd be starting from scratch. I also feel like even if I did get into it a lot of the things that I don't like about the engineering world would still be there

My thoughts exactly. IT and banking would be even further from constructive than much of modern engineering design.

what__now said:

I've also had a good long think/reflection on it and I think I've come to the conclusion that teacher training>teaching is not the right answer for me, I feel like this is a vocation that one would have to be passionate about and I don't think I am (at least not passionate enough). I have volunteered for some more STEM activities with schools, so there is a slim possibility that may change my mind.

STEM stuff is good, and I really enjoy doing it far more than my job, but I was also put off teaching by a deputy head interviewer who wanted me to express UNDYING PASSION for teaching and a university admissions tutor who liked my technical answers and my debating skills, but told me that I would probably not be a good fit with the initiatives and paperwork -he told me that a lot of mature entrants leave teaching soon after qualifying. Less than half of a reasonable salary wouldn't help either.

Myers-Briggs for me comes up with 16personalities.com ENTP, which is a good fit for me, but not ideal for an employee in my line of work.... Some people almost certainly think I'm an overly-political, inquisitive/interested in everything, jack of all trades, disorganised, easily distracted, debating/argumentative arse, but hopefully a well-meaning one

Here is the 16personalities.com INTJ page

Edited by Woodrow Wilson on Wednesday 21st October 16:52

[lyonspride]

what__now said:

I do see lots of tech/software engineering type roles popping up but to be honest generally immediately discount them as I don't have any background or formal training in software or IT and tend to automatically assume that someone 10 years younger could do it 10x better than me as i'd be starting from scratch.

It's not about age or ability, there are 3 major hurdles......

The first is agencies, they advertise fake jobs and they use ATS systems which effectively (I know it's not that simple) reject applicants automatically based on the keywords, buzzwords and acronyms in their CV. This means finding a job after retraining is going to be extremely hard, as you won't have all the right buzzwords in your CV.

The second is HR departments, which are unfortunately MOSTLY staffed by young female graduates, who genuinely believe that anyone without a degree (in any subject mind you) is lazy and stupid, because that is what students are lead to believe these days.

The third, assuming you get past the above, is the hiring manager, who may see your past and assume you are just looking for any old job until you find one that suits OR they see your experience as a threat to their own position.


On the minor side, almost every job now has some sort of meaningless certificate which you need, in IT i've seen ITIL for example, there are similar things in almost every role except for working in an office. Most of the certifications only last for a limited time, you just have to hope you find a job after getting it.
Essentially it is intentionally very hard for people with multiple skills, to find work, it's near impossible to find work after retraining, the entire system (including education) is geared towards people picking one single skill and sticking to it.

[h0b0]

lyonspride said:

It's not about age or ability, there are 3 major hurdles......

The first is agencies, they advertise fake jobs and they use ATS systems which effectively (I know it's not that simple) reject applicants automatically based on the keywords, buzzwords and acronyms in their CV. This means finding a job after retraining is going to be extremely hard, as you won't have all the right buzzwords in your CV.

The second is HR departments, which are unfortunately MOSTLY staffed by young female graduates, who genuinely believe that anyone without a degree (in any subject mind you) is lazy and stupid, because that is what students are lead to believe these days.

The third, assuming you get past the above, is the hiring manager, who may see your past and assume you are just looking for any old job until you find one that suits OR they see your experience as a threat to their own position.


On the minor side, almost every job now has some sort of meaningless certificate which you need, in IT i've seen ITIL for example, there are similar things in almost every role except for working in an office. Most of the certifications only last for a limited time, you just have to hope you find a job after getting it.
Essentially it is intentionally very hard for people with multiple skills, to find work, it's near impossible to find work after retraining, the entire system (including education) is geared towards people picking one single skill and sticking to it.

I am going to provide my perspective on a couple of your points. It is not that I am disagreeing with you, more building.

The screening group in HR have a tough job and the expectations from both the interviewer and the interviewee are totally unreasonable. This applies to all industries and roles so I will use IT as an example.

Let us say I am a hiring manager in need of a dev lead. I try to communicate that to the team that will be posting the position on LinkedIn. The best case scenario sees the recruiting team cut n' pasting the details into the ad. C.Vs come in and the recruiting team see how many words match. They have no context at all and no experience of the role. How can they select the best candidates? As if to acknowledge this we have gone to automated screening that filters based on a group of words.

Your c.v. can be 7 words long and get you through the first round. Those 7 words have to be the right one. I work in a world where technology is purchased, configured and rebranded with a new UI on top. This means you could be working with an industry standard, such as WebSphereMQ from IBM and have no idea! Reverse that and you could be talking to a recruiter that has "Must know Messaging" and not know that WebSphereMQ is messaging.

But, that was the best case! The problem is that, at large companies, they are not allowed the freedom in the advert so every position is generic with maybe a couple of bullet points. Now, you as the candidate have no idea what the job you are applying to is, the recruiter have no idea and somehow you have to get to the hiring manager. Added to that the almost certainty of the hiring manager being terrible at interviewing and we see how the system does not work.

I have spent years mentoring managers in best practices and the first thing I tell them is to not rely on the recruiters, help them! I have sat in many interviews being conducted by senior level people and provided feedback. I then have senior people shadow me to see the difference is dramatic and the success rate in finding good candidates can be significantly higher.

We are somewhat off track here with the original OP but I think it may be useful to anyone. Some companies are changing. The google interviews where they set out to trick the candidate with questions that were considered intelligent is going out of fashion. Where I work today, we provide the candidate with a list of questions they will be asked and how to answer them. We are trying to hire the best person for the role and not the best actor in an interview. In my world, they are almost always two ends of the spectrum.

Finally, I have interviewed for a significant number if jobs over the years mostly when I was fresh out of college though. I have only ever been successful at the ones where I can get the interviewer to step away from out of date interview practices. I am not good at answering the "What's your biggest weakness?" type questions and have genuinely replied with "pointing out st questions". Thankfully, those questions are being phased out as they offer no value or insight.

[lyonspride]

h0b0 said:

lyonspride said:

It's not about age or ability, there are 3 major hurdles......

The first is agencies, they advertise fake jobs and they use ATS systems which effectively (I know it's not that simple) reject applicants automatically based on the keywords, buzzwords and acronyms in their CV. This means finding a job after retraining is going to be extremely hard, as you won't have all the right buzzwords in your CV.

The second is HR departments, which are unfortunately MOSTLY staffed by young female graduates, who genuinely believe that anyone without a degree (in any subject mind you) is lazy and stupid, because that is what students are lead to believe these days.

The third, assuming you get past the above, is the hiring manager, who may see your past and assume you are just looking for any old job until you find one that suits OR they see your experience as a threat to their own position.


On the minor side, almost every job now has some sort of meaningless certificate which you need, in IT i've seen ITIL for example, there are similar things in almost every role except for working in an office. Most of the certifications only last for a limited time, you just have to hope you find a job after getting it.
Essentially it is intentionally very hard for people with multiple skills, to find work, it's near impossible to find work after retraining, the entire system (including education) is geared towards people picking one single skill and sticking to it.

I am going to provide my perspective on a couple of your points. It is not that I am disagreeing with you, more building.

The screening group in HR have a tough job and the expectations from both the interviewer and the interviewee are totally unreasonable. This applies to all industries and roles so I will use IT as an example.

Let us say I am a hiring manager in need of a dev lead. I try to communicate that to the team that will be posting the position on LinkedIn. The best case scenario sees the recruiting team cut n' pasting the details into the ad. C.Vs come in and the recruiting team see how many words match. They have no context at all and no experience of the role. How can they select the best candidates? As if to acknowledge this we have gone to automated screening that filters based on a group of words.

Your c.v. can be 7 words long and get you through the first round. Those 7 words have to be the right one. I work in a world where technology is purchased, configured and rebranded with a new UI on top. This means you could be working with an industry standard, such as WebSphereMQ from IBM and have no idea! Reverse that and you could be talking to a recruiter that has "Must know Messaging" and not know that WebSphereMQ is messaging.

But, that was the best case! The problem is that, at large companies, they are not allowed the freedom in the advert so every position is generic with maybe a couple of bullet points. Now, you as the candidate have no idea what the job you are applying to is, the recruiter have no idea and somehow you have to get to the hiring manager. Added to that the almost certainty of the hiring manager being terrible at interviewing and we see how the system does not work.

I have spent years mentoring managers in best practices and the first thing I tell them is to not rely on the recruiters, help them! I have sat in many interviews being conducted by senior level people and provided feedback. I then have senior people shadow me to see the difference is dramatic and the success rate in finding good candidates can be significantly higher.

We are somewhat off track here with the original OP but I think it may be useful to anyone. Some companies are changing. The google interviews where they set out to trick the candidate with questions that were considered intelligent is going out of fashion. Where I work today, we provide the candidate with a list of questions they will be asked and how to answer them. We are trying to hire the best person for the role and not the best actor in an interview. In my world, they are almost always two ends of the spectrum.

Finally, I have interviewed for a significant number if jobs over the years mostly when I was fresh out of college though. I have only ever been successful at the ones where I can get the interviewer to step away from out of date interview practices. I am not good at answering the "What's your biggest weakness?" type questions and have genuinely replied with "pointing out st questions". Thankfully, those questions are being phased out as they offer no value or insight.

Ok so on this point, i'm an engineer, we are a strange type of person, we can learn new things extremely quickly, for us the keywords are pointless and often extremely specific, being an engineer is more about a mindset, being analytical and logical, being able to solve problems and being able to apply those traits to just about anything. There are not many professions where this is the case, and so getting past these damn recruitment agencies can be a real nightmare, the engineers who do get past are often the bullstters, the people who use big words to look clever, the people who fill their CV with buzzwords.

[h0b0]

TLDR: the engineer mindset is the reason I have such strong views on the recruitment process. My advise is to have your resume reviewed by a none engineer and interview practice as well. They will call out the phrases you need to massage and even change you view on the weighting of a statement. Your view on what is important will be different to the interviewer. Also, I’m very guilty of using the word “we” and at interviews you have to distinguish between “we” and “I”.

Long version: I left university with a degree in Chemical engineering and then headed out into the wild looking for a job. I went through hundreds of applications on line. I started off getting no response at all. I started iterating my c.v. And, got my first rejection. Success! I’m sure most people wouldn’t get excited about being rejected but it showed progress. That’s when I paid someone to write my c.v. Yes, cheating but I started getting phone interviews. The language used and the format of the questions seemed alien to me. I quickly realized the questions were canned and the expected answers were also canned. What was the point of the call then????

The turning point was when I attended an interview for a place my friend worked at. He had no ability to sway the panel and due to his traveling, he was not even aware I was going. This was a group interview which required a presentation followed by a one on one. I did my presentation and was called in to meet with the most senior person. He started out by saying “you are loud, laddish and arrogant”. This was 20 years ago and I still remember those exact words. I’m not what he accused me of but it was an insight into my own approach to communicating. The reason he thought I was loud, etc, was because during other people’s presentations I was sat near the panel at the back of the room. I couldn’t hear what the presenters were saying clearly so when it was my time I made sure they could. I was also accused of cheating on the maths test that day.

(That wasn’t the first time I’d been accused of cheating on a math test. In fact it wasn’t the first time I’d been accused of cheating on a math test at an interview! At land rover, the calculator they provided didn’t work so I just did it without one. When I handed the test in I let them know the calculator didn’t work at which point I was told “it isn’t possible to do this test without a calculator. Where did you get the answers?” As it happens, in both the Land Rover and the first example I was passed through to the next round despite their misgivings )

I was offered the job at the first company and took it because I could travel. During the first week I was called into the office. “Why is our interview process failing to get good candidates?”. That’s when I came up with my philosophy of the difference between an attractive candidate and the right person for the role.

Due to my personality, I will never succeed in a traditional interview with canned questions. But, a traditional interview with canned questions for anyone will only succeed through luck. Nothing of value comes out of them. It’s dogs jumping through hoops.

My training for hiring managers revolves around the concept of the interview being a two way process. We all have 5 minutes at the end to ask questions about the company in a traditional interview. That’s bull st. It is the interviewers and the candidates shared responsibility to ensure the position is the right fit for the candidate and the candidate is the right fit for the role. 5 minutes of questions taken from a website isn’t going to achieve that. When I am on either side of the table I will find a way to connect. Once a connection is formed the Free flowing conversations can be steered. That’s when you find out the real person and the real responses.

Now, let’s talk about the difference between “we” and “I”. I will always share the credit with everyone, sometimes to a fault. Even if I did something 100% on my own, I will still say “we”. That could mean team, department or even company. It’s just the way I am. At events, I’m the person passing out the microphone and not hogging it. I’m a looooooog way away from shy but I don’t like the spot light as it doesn’t feed a personality deficit in me. I appreciate others like it to varying degrees. Great. But, when it comes to interviews you have to say “I” when it really was “I”. I recently joined a company and through out the interviews I went to great pains to decouple “I” from “we” even explaining at times the differing roles between “I” and “we”. Looking back they probably thought I was a little insane but if they are going to tell me on the way in it’s important then I’m going to give it full respect and ensure there is no grey area.

Finally, (we all hope) I have a concept for the way of thinking that has helped me to communicate to others more effectively. There are 4 different types of thinkers. None are better than the other and none indicate ones intelligence. But, if a type 3 tries to explain an idea. to a type 1 without adjusting they will confuse the st out of them.

Type 1) linear. Going through the thought process to get to the final point is like dominoes. Each step has to be taken in order, and in isolation, and knocked down before the next can be assessed. If we think of a jigsaw puzzle, this person would complete it left to right.
Type 2) circular. I have always called it circular due to the 2 dimensional view, but more accurately it is the acknowledgment that this person can skip ahead in the thought process because one decision eliminates many others. Using the jigsaw analogy, this person will do grouping and out edges.
Type 3) spherical. Now the jigsaw has become multi dimensioned and to the outside world the questions being asked make no sense but to the spherical thinker they are all inter woven and we are getting to the end point much quicker.
Type 4) scatter. These ask random questions with no logic. Much like a 2 year old child throwing the jigsaw pieces at their brother. Sometimes, confused with type 3.

Engineers tend to be type 3 which means to others they are missing half the conversation and not making sense. Think about it. When you are speaking with another engineer and they say something, you fill in the gaps automatically. I’m guilty of it with my family when making a decision. I will offer my opinion and wait until they get there. If they don’t, I will prod them but not offer an explanation. Once they come to the same conclusion they often call me an ass (which I firmly deserve even if I’m not doing it intentionally every time).

This is what type 3s do at interviews. Another example is simple. My son is 8 and doing maths at school. He was asked for an answer and to show his stages of working out. All to familiar to all of us. But, he couldn’t because he could only see one stage, the answer. I used to write the answer down as well and then work backwards to figure out how I got to it. That was the harder part. In an interview, you as an engineer have to provide this context as well as the final answer.

[CubanPete]

As an engineer, and someone who at school always struggled to show their working as well as usually the answer was obvious...

That is really insiteful to read.