1. HELPING CHEMISTS FIND JOBS IN A TOUGH MARKET. 2. TOWARDS A QUANTITATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUALITY OF THE CHEMISTRY JOB MARKET.
A few articles from this week's issue of Chemical and Engineering News:
What's the job market like for chemists? Dude -- it's always bad.*
How bad is it? How the heck should I know? Quantifying the chemistry job market is what this blog is about. That, and helping chemists find jobs.
E-mail chemjobber with helpful tips, career questions or angry comments at chemjobber -at- gmail dotcom. All correspondence is kept confidential. (Didn't get an e-mail back? It's okay to try again.) Please address correspondence to "Chemjobber" or "CJ."
Voicemail/SMS: (302) 313-6257
Twitter: @chemjobber
RSS feed here
(The Blogger spam filter gets hungry sometimes, and likes to eat comments. You can e-mail me, and sometimes I can get it to cough up your comment. I am always happy to try.)
(*For the literal-minded, this is a joke. Mostly.)
Regarding the article on metric systems, I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really bothers me is the idea that people need to fit a certain mold to be seen as a good employee. My thinking is: isn't that why there's a team? To balance the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals?
The concept of strengths and weaknesses is controversial: some argue that it's beneficial to wholeheartedly pursue one's strengths and minimize the need to work within one's weaknesses, while others argue that it's weak to not deal with one's weaknesses. (Of course, we need to separate "character flaws" from "weaknesses", as "character flaws" tend to be deal-breakers.)
But a well-balanced team would seem to be a good way to deal with the strengths/weaknesses issue. I tell my wife that she balances me out - and I do the same for her. That's a big deal to me, because we can be who we are (mostly, not saying we never argue!), but stronger together for it.