23 replies to this topic

[thorium90]

Do you guys think the following is a cruel chicken and egg situation?

 

In order to get an engineering job, you are required to have some experience in the job. For example, to get a job as a process engineer, companies typically require candidates to have a couple of years experience in the job. However, to get any experience in the job, one must actually get the job first.

 

Therefore, no experience, no job, but no job, no experience.

 

Perhaps some of you might like to share how does one step into this loop, break this cycle. Maybe share how you became an engineer in the beginning. Everyone must have started as an engineer with no experience in the beginning right?

 

(Hmm, cant get this thread to shift place, anyone care to help shift this to a more appropriate place? How did I get here)

(Ahh, finally, apparently there is no shift button, only the delete... Ok, reposted.    Oops, I think I reposted it right after Ankur posted a reply, cant see it...)

Edited by thorium90, 20 February 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[ankur2061]

thorium90,

 

In the past year and a half I might have interviewed about 20-25 candidates eligible as process engineers and yes it is true that all these candidates had a minimum experience of 4-5 years, because that was the eligibility criteria by my company for selecting a candidate as a process engineer. Higher experience was required for the position of senior process engineer and even higher for a principal / lead process engineer.

Today's cut throat business environment requires that when you invest in human resources, immediate returns are expected which is only possible if you have trained and experienced human resources available to you. Another criteria that discourages many companies from hiring fresh graduates is the fact the loyalty factor has disappeared on part of the younger generation. As soon as freshers get trained and acquire some skills, they start looking for greener pastures. Why would a company invest in training a fresher only to lose him or her as soon as he or she acquires the requisite skills, just because the person has suddenly realized that he or she can take advantage of his or her acquired skills in obtaining a new and more lucrative job.

This was not the case in the past. Young trainees used to join a company and spend a minimum of 8-10 years before moving on. In countries like Japan, an employment was for a lifetime. You joined a company as a fresher in your early twenties and retired from there as an old man. All that is history now.

I don't want to paint a gloomy picture to you but the competition has increased ten-fold since I graduated in the mid-eighties. You want a decent job then you have to qualify on two fronts. The first one would be to be amongst the best in your chosen field and the second one would be to present yourself as the best i.e sell yourself. Thus just being skillful is not enough, you need to be able to present your skills for the world to see. It is an old adage that gloss sells.

Last but not the least, never lose hope and faith. There is a path destined for everybody. We have been created as homo sapiens by the creator and he gave the human race the intelligence and will to overcome any challenges.

Well I hope I haven't overdone the preacher bit as you would find in your local parish.

Regards,

Ankur.

Edited by ankur2061, 20 February 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[Sathya R]

After 13 years experience in Ammonia Plant, I tried to break in to Oil and Gas consultancy. When I tried for a job change with my chemical engineering skills, mostly I returned with empty hand. However, the following helped me:

• Perseverance pays.
• Understand the basics (first principles).
• Look for a mentor.
• Reduce your expectations
• Contribute most your work with the aspect towards learning.

Edited by Sathyanarayanan Ramamurthy, 03 March 2013 - 07:18 AM.

[gegio1960]

Interesting thread! I share Ankur view with some "comments".

In my experience, a fresh graduate vs a 4-5 yr experienced engineer:

- is more easily integrated in a process group;

- costs 1/2 or even 1/3.

I think this situation is somewhat depending by the country and the engineering company.

This could include a solution to Thorium dilemma about "chicken & egg"; a "homo sapiens" would prefer a clever fresh graduate looking for a "profession" to a pretending and already "distorted" experienced engineer looking for (another) salary jump.

[thorium90]

Hmm, I'm not sure, but after a real many job applications, I get the impression that most companies prefer the 4-5 yr experienced engineer rather than a fresh graduate. And even so, those jobs that say "Fresh graduates are welcome to apply" typically have job descriptions that dont appear to require the more "educated expertise" of a graduate.

 

I kinda think its also the fault of companies and their hiring trends. HR managers prefer to hire experienced people, but these people must have gotten the experience from their previous company. Therefore, by hiring them, HR is promoting the culture of job hopping with salary jumps.

 

However, companies that hire fresh graduates feel that since they are inexperienced, there is no need to pay them too much, they can also learn on the job. This encourages these graduates to feel the need to hop over to a new company after a few years to get a salary jump and a better, more suitable job scope for themselves.

 

All these adds up in a vicious cycle as fresh grads dont get the job scope and salary they want, they job hop. Companies get more competitive and want people with more experience. These graduates feel they are more in demand and job hop earlier with bigger salary jumps. Companies feel that to get the best talent, they must shell out more money. Graduates start hopping for even more at even shorter time.

 

Its therefore no wonder that the amount of time a person stays in a company is getting shorter, the amount of experience is getting lesser (one always has to start [almost] fresh in a new job), and expected salaries are getting higher.

 

Therefore, by extrapolation one can conclude that in the future, any fresh graduate would likely go through the following:

1) Get a low paying job with a nice name doing something with little relevance

2) Jump to another company within a few years for a good bump in pay, a better name, and more relevant work

3) Keep doing step 2)

[Art Montemayor]

Thorium:

 

Your extrapolation may indicate to you that you “Get a low paying job with a nice name doing something with little relevance”.  But that doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to other people.

 

I have the advantage of looking back and knowing that I didn’t have to extrapolate when I went through the very same, identical exercise 53 years ago.  I was very demoralized because I couldn’t get a job offer in my own state of Texas and much less in my home town, where chemical plants and refineries abounded.   I had a “Hispanic” surname and that was considered a stigma by recruiters due to social and political situations at that time.  I did, however, get four job offers – all out of the state of Texas.  I took a job offer that sent me overseas with little to no overseas compensation, training, or benefits and was so grateful to get the opportunity to work with little or no technical backup that I never paid attention to the relative low benefits and concentrated on the valuable experience I accumulated with all the responsibility I had by myself.

 

As it turned out, this was the best of times for me because I enriched my background with hands-on, field experience and supervisory skills working in underdeveloped countries and doing engineering with little resources or backup.  My success meant I had it all to myself and didn’t have to share it with anyone else.  After 4 years of back-breaking work with only myself to depend on, I started to accumulate a career where I averaged 15% pay raises for the next 20 years – and I never had to worry about compensation or challenges after that.   God is good, and what I went through only confirms that hard work and a job ethic means everything when you are getting started.  You will be compensated for all the effort and sacrifice that you put into your career.  A low-paying job does not necessarily mean that “you get a job with a nice name doing something with little relevance”.  Some jobs that may have little relevance to you have a great relevance to the people who depend on your success for their livelihood – like the workers who depend on your decisions and leadership.  Some of these people may never have had the opportunity for self-improvement like we did, but they depend on us for the hope of having possible educational and career improvements for their children and their families.

 

Engineering can be very rewarding and enjoyable when you consider the people who you can help and lend a hand to with useful employment and self-esteem.

 

[thorium90]

Thank you all for your very kind sharing of your experiences. I really appreciate it. Its easy to get disillusioned when one first starts finding a job. I myself only graduated from university 2 months ago and the job search has made me think hard about how I should build my career. Reading all your replies has helped me think alot about what I should do and how I should do it.

 

I encourage others who read this thread to share their first job and their experiences too.

Edited by thorium90, 23 February 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[Lai.CY]

Hello Thor,

 

Approximately 7 years ago, when I graduated as a Chemical Engineer, I've applied to various consultancy firms (oil and gas) but was never even shortlisted for interview (perhaps because I didn't obtained 1st class honors). Instead of waiting, (leaving a large time gap of more than 6 months in the resume will hurt your chance of landing a job in the future), I started off as a site engineer. My job responsibility includes installation, pre-commissioning, commissioning, operating, project management and so on.

 

2.5 years later (still nothing from consultancy firms), I managed to join an Oil and Gas Topsides Process skid manufacturing company. At that time, I'm offered a salary of an entry level engineer, since I don't have design experience (which I think it is not a fair statement, but I took the offer anyway). That's how I managed to get my experience and join the design team.

 

Although I'm not strong with process designs, but I am able to contribute in terms of making the process design realistic and practical. In less than 2 years time, I'm overall incharged of a few process skids, mentoring a few young engineers, attended meetings and discussion as the process representative, went offshore for system commissioning, site support, and so on.

 

You see, it's the exposure that counts. When I attend interviews, I am able to demonstrate the ability to consider things from many other point of views (mechanical, piping, operations, instruments, etc). Also, in many countries, site experiences are mandatory (not site visits or line checking, etc) to obtain Professional Engineer status.

 

From my experience, I see employers hiring entry levels if they are small and newly setup, where employer couldn't offer high salaries and one mid-senior engineer (say 5 - 7 years experience) are hired to guide and mentor entry levels for free.

Second, large companies hire entry levels to meet their quotas, but you'll be competiting with thousands of applicants for a single position.

Lastly, companies take in entry level by recommendation (meaning, you need networks).

 

The real world has always been about money. If an employee falls for the management's gimmick, such as loyalty bonus, salaries that doesn't reflect their given title (extremely underpaid seniors or leads), etc, this is the management's WIN, I've seen graduates working in the same company for 8 years with an average 5% yearly increment (in other words, entry levels that joins few years later, will be offered a salary higher than experienced personnel). Sad but true.

 

Conclusion... Work smart, not work hard!

Doesn't matter if you get to enter an engineering firm at this stage, it's about 5 years from now, how well you sell yourself, even if you think you don't have the relevant experience. Hope my experience is of some help to you.

[kkala]

Experience of weiiskruez would help him be better as process engineer, if this happens in the future. Yet Chemical Engineering is not limited to Process. There are a lot of other activities that could also be interesting and rewarding. Research and Development as well as Process Design had the fame of well payed activities and education seems closer to them. Plant Operation came next. But demand of them depends on local conditions and economy. In Greece for instance, these activities are now very limited to old and new engineers searching for a job. It is no use waiting for a seat there, better to search for e.g. project engineering, commissioning, inspection, technical sales, teaching, investment evaluation, insurance studies, sales representation, just to name few activities that colleagues have successfully dealt with. They have succeeded even in more "irrelevant" jobs, like keeping small shops, banking, book publishing, stock exchange management, building enterprise, sale representatives. Engineering education seem to offer versatility and a systematic thinking of treating data and finding ways out. This is a reason for optimism in times of general adversity. 

Nevertheless "irrelevant" and other non technical activities (e.g. those reported after teaching) reduce future perspective of dealing with process design, project engineering, etc. If you stick to an "unorthodox" activity for years, you had better like it, it is not easy to change road then. It does not mean poor road anyway.

The employment through "networks" is a source of great injustice, as I see it here; the "networks" are in force even after employment, spreading favoritism. Responsible work is not encouraged, ignorant people are promoted in detriment of society. In a later stage (after years) the organization survives through its connection to "networks".  'Networks' elimination is verbally supported by anybody, yet a few of us really mean it. Change of mentality needs long time.

"How well you sell yourself" is rightly expressed in post no 8, meaning qualifications after years of effective work. Excessive "selling yourself" in the working environment can place neighboring colleagues into shadow.  Such attempts have been seen, rarely indeed. AICH code of ethics (CE) clarifies that Engineers shall "build their professional reputations on the merits of their services"<http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics>. I think this also addresses coaxing, another treacherous tool. Engineers shall also be "honest and impartial.."(CE).

Chemical Engineers shall take care of "the safety, health, and welfare of the public and protect the environment in the performance of their professional duties" (CE). They are not just employees and cannot delegate ethical responsibility to anyone else (*). It is not only a job for living, one could enhance it to a profession for general rather than individual benefit.

On the other hand almost anybody needs money, the two trends have to be realistically combined. A "healthy" working environment with less money can be better than another with more. The question is what priority money has in the mind of young engineer, who should have a ready answer (without prejudice) before applying for a job; and be willing to change job, if this does not meet expectations. This is a respected personal right, not bad if decently done. Find the right kind of job for you early, mobility will be less and less as age advances.

Competition has ethics  and rules. I think engineering is not so important to clients now, as it was (say) 30 years ago; why pay (say) 10% of work budget for engineering? This belief has lowered income of Engineering Companies. A colleague used to say (evidently in exaggeration) that local electrical stations could be made at half their budget price, if quality were sacrificed to tolerable levels (=less engineering).

A good prosperous work seat, according to our initial thoughts, may be a matter of good luck. A good work environment, encouraging initiation, cooperation and respecting our principles, can be worth of less money. This may be apparent as career approaches the end, but it concerns choices of the past.

 

(*) G. Ulrich, P. Vasudevan, "Chemical Engineering, Process Design and economics", Process Publishing (2004), Chapter 9 - Ethics and Professionalism.

Edited by kkala, 24 February 2013 - 06:43 PM.

[Erwin APRIANDI]

Hi just to add,

 

There is no need of such first class honors graduated for my previous company for fresh graduate.

I have been asked for interviewing for some fresh engineer for the company intake several years ago, and what can I conclude is not much of a fresh graduate even understand the basic of Chemical Engineering such as Heat and Material Balance (H&MB).

 

I know that now days we are using a process simulation software to do the H&MB, but how you can be sure that the simulation that you have done is correct is you don't even understand the basis.

 

My previous company has recruit lots of fresh graduate, but we only recruit those who understand the basic of Chemical Engineering, not those who don't. Since we have the motto of never do a blind engineering.

 

So thorium90 don't blame the company, it is sometimes depend on the personel it self.

[gegio1960]

Some little facts from my 30 years experience:

- (some) big companies don't like to hire "outstanding" fresh graduates since HR people say they have too much expectations and will create troubles. (It was the opposite in the past).

- the most brilliant fresh graduates are hired as process engineers (PRS) while the poorest one as project engineers (PRJ). The PRJ will have more power than the PRS (from the beginning) and, with the years, more salary, a better career, less work to do and less responsibility (except for the money).

- in order to make a good career, it is better to be a yes-man than a good technician.

- plant engineers are awful as process design engineers. The reverse is not so true. It is better to start as process design eng. and then make plant experience than the opposite.

[shan]

It is not a problem of chicken/eggs, as stated in the topic line.  It is a problem the little puppy wants big dog's food.   Why do you, without any experience, want a 4-5 year's experience position?  Please concentrate your efforts in the school career center, which serves newly graduate's needs and requires no experience in the most situations.

[thorium90]

Shagydeep and shan,

 

Thanks for your advice. You have misunderstood the purpose of the question. My description of the chicken and the egg is metaphorical. The chicken as the job and eggs as the years of experience (literally laying eggs). The dilemma I put forth is that anyone who starts their job must have started out fresh and without any experience, so why were they given their current job when they did not have the required experience in the beginning? Evidently, the chicken must have come first, explained by evolution or in this case by learning and gaining experience and assuming positions with more responsibility. Therefore, this thread seeks to gather the experiences of people in the industry, how they first started out, the jobs they did and finally how they got to where they were today. Sort of like a collection of success stories.

 

To all who would read this thread in future, for as long as this forum stays alive, if you read this, even if the last reply was eons ago, do not feel threatened to revive an old thread. Experiences are lifelong and always welcome.

[shan]

Then, If a company offers a job to a fresher instead of somebody with experience, how should you describe the situation with your logic?  Chicken Not from Eggs?

[thorium90]

Then how did that somebody acquire his experience? If he had 10 yrs of experience as a process engineer (example), how many years of experience did he have 10 yrs ago when he first got the job as a process engineer? Was he a fresher too?

 

So do you agree that everyone starts out somewhere? Everyone was once a fresh graduate? So how did they start out? This is the main purpose of the original post.

Edited by thorium90, 27 February 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[shan]

As my knowledge, nobody knows eggs first or chicken first.  Everybody, even as dumb as me, knows big dogs grew from litter puppies.  I understand the intention of your post but disagree your topic line.

 

When you have 10 years experience, you may complain a company requires 20 years experience for a job position in the same way you do today.  How would you put your topic line?  Big Eggs First or Big Chicken First?

[thorium90]

If you follow Darwinian theory, you would understand that the chicken came first, which is the foundation of modern evolutionary theory taught in schools today. (Unless you follow a different school of thought...)

 

So you understand that everyone starts somewhere isnt it? To paraphrase your example. All big dogs would start out as small puppies. These puppies eventually grew to become bigger dogs. This in no way entitles eating from the big dog's food since in order to eat from the big dog's food, one must have already previously eaten from the big dog's food. Do you see the paradox here?

 

Its not about 5 or 10 or 20 years experience that one needs, but rather what one does to get it. Therefore the thread seeks to help others share their experiences.

Edited by thorium90, 27 February 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[thorium90]

Shan,

 

Come come, share your experiences. What did you do when you first graduated and where are you now? Care to share your success story here?

 

I did kinda thought this forum lacks a sort of personal touch. Almost all threads are about inanimate objects or situations or numbers... Maybe it would be nice to have a chat forum huh... Like the "Engineers chatroom" or something. haha

[shan]

me?  was a puppy.  Then, bigger dog.  Now, dreaming food that 53 years experiencers have.  Will be something I don't know. 

Like eatting eggs but never see a chick hatched from a piece of stone.

[AZIZ_MN]

Thorium90,

 i think no one knows about ,chicken first or eggs first but one can tell you that how eggs can become chicken

allmost all fresh graduates then after became experienced employee, must go through some procedure i belive most of them pass through this procedure

pls see attachment

oops attachment not appear???? i will try

Edited by azzu, 01 March 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[thorium90]

Guys, its really nothing to do with the chicken or the egg. Its really all about the circular reference, causality dilemma, vicious circle. Its nothing to do with being a chicken or being an egg!!! An egg does not mean a fresh grad and a chicken does not mean a working professional! It just means an egg precedes the chicken and the chicken precedes the egg, therefore, there is no clear solution since the existence of one depends on the existence of the other. Its like an implicit equation, like Colebrook equation. How do you solve a problem when the solution depends on itself?

Edited by thorium90, 02 March 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[AZIZ_MN]

hi thorium90,

pls see attachment

Attached Files

•  fresh graduates.pdf   468.63KB   49 downloads

[Dacs]

Mmmmm.... chicken and eggs...

 

Some people would opt for internships (when still in college) and pray to the gods that their supervisors like their performance just enough to get absorbed.

 

Some companies offer "cadetship" program for fresh graduates. I took this route when starting my career.

 

And some people would follow this old adage: "It's not what you know, it's WHO you blow know". Don't ask me how

[kkala]

Everything seemed easier, Dacs, in early 1970s, when I graduated.

Supply of internships to students (then called practical training) was more than demand. Everyone interested could be in summer training for chemical engineering, paid with the basic salary of unskilled worker (sometimes more). This was obligatory for the fourth year of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering (then branch of Chemical Engineering). No need to be good student or beg somebody for that. I had the pleasure to go to three companies for such training, though this did not practically increase chances of employment (then). Students were generally well treated in companies, I only remember a classmate's complain about the words of a manager abroad: "you will either work and be paid, or learn and pay", which then sounded strange.

There was also no need for "cadetship", immediate employment took place and training was naturally implemented through job experience, mainly in the first six months. But in ~2004 I have seen employment after practical training sponsored by European Union. This and internships are honest and probably effective ways nowadays to brake the "egg-chicken" cycle (as defined by thorium90).

Unfortunately "it's not what you know, but WHO you know" is strong here, at least concerning wider public sector. Several formal impediments have not actually changed the situation. Mentality need "decades" to change. This could be accelerated, if demand for engineers got higher than supply, which now seems improbable. But who knows, hope and patience could be efficient in the long term.