The Lie of "Transferrable Skills" for PhDs

So you’ve reached a crossroads. Most likely you’re either finishing a PhD or have already done so and the shine of working in academia has worn off. The reasons why you’re seeking this change don’t matter as much as your willingness to plunge headfirst into this new challenge. You shift gears to focus on an exit strategy and to chart a new career path for you.

There is a lot of discussion in the Alternate Academic (AltAc) and Non-Academic (NonAc) circles about how to make these transitions. I highly suggest joining the community over at the VersatilePhD. There are also many good discussions to be had on social media, notably Twitter.

Plenty of success stories exist from PhDs who have made the transition out of the academy. The key word in the previous sentence is “transition.” This is the most challenging aspect of pursuing an AltAc or NonAc career. Of course that process is different for every individual, but I’ve found that there are a few holes in these narratives, or unqualified caveats, that would be beneficial to bring to light.

• Experience Trumps All:
• What you did before embarking on the road to a PhD matters. Did you work between getting your undergraduate degree and starting grad school? If so, you definitely have a leg up on the process compared to those who went straight from undergrad to grad school.
• What you did outside of your PhD work while in grad school matters. Grad school is a lot of work. Whether you have funding or not, between classes, school projects, the dissertation, reading, and possibly teaching, there isn’t much time for outside projects. Again those with the foresight to get some type of additional work experience while in grad school are in better stead (in many cases) than those who don’t.
• You may have to start at the bottom. For some this isn’t a surprise. While it may be easy to turn one’s nose up at an entry-level job, if you’ve never done the job before then you’re not better than entry-level.
• But even the bottom can be a challenge to attain. Even if you’re willing to swallow your pride and take an entry-level job there may not be as many opportunities as you think. Your PhD may work against you more often than not in these situations.
• For those on an AltAc trajectory, the PhD is no longer the de facto “union card” of higher ed. Don’t be surprised if you lose out on a job for which you’re (over) qualified for to someone with less experience/education, but with a M.Ed in Higher Ed Administration. 
• Computers make finding jobs more difficult. Job hunting is a full-time job in itself, or it can be. Every company wants something slightly different. The use of computers has made it easier to find and apply for jobs (sometimes), but they’ve also made it easier for companies to weed people out. Blindly applying for jobs and hoping someone recognizes your potential from the stack of resumes is not likely to happen.
• Hiring managers don’t understand the value of a PhD. You have so many friends with PhDs that the value of the training concomitant with the degree is obvious. But there are scores more people who have no idea. I tend to think that younger people in hiring roles are much less likely to understand the value of a PhD than someone who’s been in industry for 20-30 years. It’s not their fault that their primary exposure to PhDs was in the academic environment when they were in school. Unless a hiring manager has worked with PhDs before the odds are not likely in your favor. 
  
• Hiring Managers don’t care about “transferable skills.” Ok. That’s a bit of a stretch. It’s not that transferable skills aren’t a real thing; they certainly are. It’s just that no matter how well you make your case there are likely even more candidates with the exact (or close to that) experience requested for the job. To use a sports analogy, if a team can draft a serviceable 6^th man (or woman) who would be an early round pick or take a late round pick with All-Star potential they’re going to take the serviceable 6^th man, because unlike sports there isn’t another draft round and businesses are more risk averse.
• Companies that claim to “think outside the box” rarely do. Perhaps this is true on occasion, but certainly not across the board. In fact most companies that claim to “think outside the box” when it comes to personnel rarely do so. The former president of Stanford even noted this in a recent interview. When companies talk about the ideal skills they’re looking for in employees they’re often closely aligned with those gained from a humanities/liberal arts education. Yet when the recruiters come to campus is the students from the business school who get all the attention. If that’s happening at Stanford, just imagine how difficult it is for everyone else.
• Expect the process to take a year or more. PhDs are used to working hard, but when that hard work is openly dismissed by hundreds of people repeatedly for a year or more the frustration and depression can reach a fever pitch.
• Your professional network is the best and perhaps only way to get a job. This isn’t a new idea by any means. The entire AltAc/NonAc discussion always revolves around networking and informational interviews. I’d just like to push that point further and stress it as the most important thing you can do for your career change.
• Luck plays a huge role. You can do everything right. Everything. For long periods of time. You work hard. You network. You get your application materials professionally edited and prepared for the job market. You have nothing to show for it.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to understand that your skills ARE transferable and how they apply to the types of careers you want to pursue. But the idea that your skills, experience, and education, as presented on paper are enough to set you apart is a lie. There are always exceptions to the rules, but they’re just that: exceptions. These are the people who got lucky. Who found the hiring manager that actually WAS open-minded, that DID think outside the box, or HAD an understanding of the value of the PhD. Reading through message boards and online discussions on the subject it’s clear that this is a struggle that the majority of people who make the transition experience.

Thoughts on the current state of the sport of lacrosse

Although I’ve played and followed lacrosse since the early 1990s this year I have had the opportunity to watch more elite lacrosse than ever before at various levels of play. It’s no secret that lacrosse is a fast growing sport, but here are some of my thoughts and observations on the various levels of lacrosse that I think would help the game grow and/or issues I personally find with each product.

Disclaimer: I have season tickets to both the University of Denver and the Denver Outlaws.

Rules:

I attended the Australia/Iroquois game at the World Championships this year. I went with a friend who had never watched the sport before. Having watched most of the games broadcast on ESPN up to that point I had a basic understanding about the variances of international rules. Since this was my friend’s first lacrosse game I spent a lot of time explaining the rules I understood to him and also describing how the FIL rules differ from MLL and NCAA, not to mention NLL. He remarked that it would be a lot easier if all bodies adopted a single set of rules like soccer or basketball have (to a large extent). While I don’t think the variances are too significant for those used to the game I certainly think a universal set of rules would be beneficial. Here are the things that I personally believe would make a good set of universal rules:

FIL

• Field lines. I like the simple 3 zones that are similar to hockey, i.e. no restraining box
• CBO: should remain a figurehead like in NCAA rather than an equal official, as it disrupts the flow
• Running clock: The 4 qtrs of 20 minute running time are awesome. This should be universal. Hands down.
• Roster size: 23 man at the very least. Are you listening MLL? I wouldn’t mind bumping it up to 25 or 26 active roster spots for games though. Seeing some players get hosed because there isn't roster room or having stars sit because of cap space is a big strike against the league as far as I'm concerned.

MLL

• Two point arc: This is the only change I would make to the FIL field lines, adding in the 2 point arch.

NCAA

• Timer on: I actually really like this option and believe that if it were implemented better it would be a perfect solution. Watching MLL I feel like the pace of play is TOO rushed. I like teams to be able to set up and work the ball around. I have no problem leaving the timer on call to the discretion of the officials, but there needs to be synchronization with the official timer and an on-field clock for players and coaches.
• Play on: FIL refs blow the play dead way too easily. NCAA/MLL type play on for infractions needs to be universal.

NLL

• Crease rule: admittedly I don’t watch as much box lax as field, but I really like the NLL rule whereby if a player steps in the crease play simply continues if the other team gains possession.

I'll also weigh in with my observations on the various leagues and engage some of the on-going discussions as well as raise a few of my own.

NCAA

I found NCAA to be a real joy to watch this year. I have very few complaints about this as currently constructed. I think the timer-on needs to be implemented better as mentioned above, but in many ways I think this should be the foundation for the rule changes discussed above. My only real complaint is the over-saturation of ACC teams on TV, but that’s a minor quibble at best.

The major change that needs to occur, however, is to push back the start of the season to the beginning of March. Snow games are all to frequent these days and they’re horrible for fans and players alike. I don’t think that having the final four over Memorial Day is some kind of sacred rite of passage that needs to be retained. Let the season go into June or play more mid-week games, or both. Regardless, this is the biggest change that needs to happen in my opinion. Naturally, this would create an issue with rookies entering the MLL as those players on the top teams would miss half the season or more, but that is an acceptable sacrifice in my eyes.

MLL

I’ve followed the MLL from day one. I remember going to the 2001 final four and journeying over to some random school to see an exhibition of the nascent MLL teams. Tom Ryan’s dreadlocks flowing from under his helmet are something I’ll never forget. I haven’t always followed the league extremely closely. When I lived in Chicago I went to a few Machine games, and I finally got season ticket to the Denver Outlaws this year. But it was always on my radar and I've enjoyed the fact that the league is there since day one.

I can confidently say that I think the fan experience in the MLL is great. The games are fun to watch and the players are accessible and wonderful ambassadors for the game. I find it troubling how so many franchises continue to struggle after almost 15 years. It seems to me that the cost of starting a team needs to be increased, as does payroll. These players should be able to make a living as a professional athlete not the de facto semi-pro status that retain at present. I know a lot of guys make a living through other lacrosse related activities but think of how much better the games would be if the players could dedicate themselves to lacrosse year round. I’ve seen elsewhere comments about whether a players union is necessary. Quite frankly it hadn’t even dawned on me that there wasn’t one. It seems like a logical step for protecting the interests of players and developing a mutually beneficial league for owners and players. Apparently the MLS is the model for the MLL, and granted soccer is more popular than lacrosse in this country, but still MLS only has a few more years in existence and the league is doing MUCH better. Just glancing at the MLS wikipedia page they have 19 franchises and the average salary is about $100k. That seems fair for a professional athlete in my eyes. The tens of millions that major sport athletes make is ridiculous in my opinion, but players need and frankly deserve that type of compensation in exchange for creating the best possible game they can. This is why I say that the league needs owners with deeper pockets. If you look at the MLS they lost hundreds of millions of dollars to get the league up and running. I don’t know if all of that has been recouped yet, but it will likely take that type of sacrifice to get MLL to where it needs to be. I get the impression that MLS’ growth will have made those losses worth the investment in the long run.

The catch 22 here is that there aren’t the butts in the stands to support these financial expenditures. It seems that new standards for establishing a new franchise need to be created to ensure that ownership has the facilities and backing to support a team in the short-term AND the long-term. When the lights go off at 11pm, regardless of weather delay or not, MLL looks bush league. I don’t have a solution to the lack of fan turnout. I would say focus on cities that aren’t overly saturated with professional sports teams, but then you see Rochester and Florida barely getting anyone to their games and Denver and Boston, two HIGHLY saturated markets, leading the league in attendance. The fact that Philly can’t sustain a team is sad. Both the Barrage and now the Wings look to be on the chopping block. I don’t know what went wrong there, but contraction is the wrong direction. I would think that a couple of California teams would fare better now as opposed to 10 years ago when the MLL first attempted it, but a lot depends on how the teams are run, obviously.

FIL

The biggest problem facing international lacrosse is the lack of parity. And this is a huge issue in my opinion. At the top of the hierarchy is the US. The next grouping consists of Canada and the Iroquois Nationals. One may include Australia in this group or slot them next, followed by the rest of the current Blue division - Japan and England. If one thing is clear from the 2014 World Championships its that lacrosse has a huge parity problem. The USA blew out everyone they played, save for Canada, which they still beat by 3 goals. The Americans could pretty much cruise through the next three games. When they finally faced another challenge from the Iroquois at the end of pool play the Americans were much more rested because they could sit back in their blowouts and rest players. Having fresher players only increases the gap between the Americans and others. Call me unpatriotic but it’s not fun to watch the US play in this tournament. There is no drama. Nothing enticing about knowing the game is going to be a blowout and to have that confirmed quickly and frequently. To think that other countries will be able to close the gap in the next 10 years is unrealistic. Yes, the sport is growing and gaining popularity across the globe, but these emerging lacrosse nations are not touching the top three any time soon.

To add another layer of complexity to this situation, if the IOC does add lacrosse, what would become of the Iroquois Nationals? Would they be forced to play for either the US or Canada? If so, that would tip the scales even more off balance. Not to mention the fact that I think that type of stipulation would go over like a lead ballon in the native community.

What international lacrosse needs, in my opinion, is to take a page from FIFA’s book. Lacrosse would really benefit from an off-year tournament too, like the UEFA Euro tournament viz the World Cup. Encourage more friendlies between countries, especially the US/Canada/Iroquois so that other countries can play against the best in a benign context. At this point it also seems that anyone who can afford to make the trip can play in the world championships. Some sort of qualifying schedule would not only help teams get more reps, but ensure that the best teams make the tournament and hopefully make it more competitive. I understand that at this point the move is toward inclusiveness, but competitive balance needs to be on the table as well.



I haven't followed NLL or LXM PRO as closely as the above leagues so I don't want to sputter off about them in an uninformed way. Enough of my thoughts above are based on conjecture to begin with so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

I could go on about all of this but I'd prefer to leave it at this for right now and see if anyone reads this and has any comments. Perhaps I'm way off base. In some respects I certainly hope so, but only time will tell.