patrick.net

New Renter says

Sorry, job postings alone don't mean much. I've found many postings are illlusionary:

lol--do you want me to show you a vacant office with a "help wanted" sign on it?

There were 13K listings.

Couple of points tatupu70, my cohort (plus one generation above it) are now, mostly out of that line of work for 10-15 years. There was a huge contraction in the process engineering fields starting in the mid-90s.

In order to fill a req on a plant/facility engineer, companies need to get former ex-pats, working in let's say Saudi, South Africa, Brazil, or other facility oriented societies, as the mainstay US crowd is too old (55+) for those roles.

Then, there's the crew leaving the military positions, who're well qualified for any role in power engineering. These are typically the best candidates, see my bit on the Navy Nukes.

As for newcomers, a young chemical engineer working on tuning an Aspen/Automated software designer tool, is clearly not 7+ year hands-on experienced to work a large facility. He's better off transitioning into IT work or bioinformatics.

tatupu70 says

There were 13K listings.

And how many applicants for those listing?

Signs of a true shortage:

* Recruiters actively recruit new graduates of average skills

* Vast majority of new graduates find employment in the areas for which they were trained

* Badly paid post-docs fade into history

* Companies bend over backwards to provide needed training

* Skyrocketing compensation packages

The latter is how the corporate world has approached the shortage of highly skilled C level executives. For STEM workers they just lobby for more cheap imported labor.

New Renter says

And how many applicants for those listing?

There could easily be 100-300 per slot, however, how many can say that they recycled catalysts for a SASOL facility outside of Johannsburg for 12 years? Exactly, maybe 1 or 2 applicants.

Rin says

There could easily be 100-300 per slot, however, how many can say that they recycled catalysts for a SASOL facility outside of Johannsburg for 12 years? Exactly, maybe 1 or 2 applicants.

So, if there are 200 applicants/slot, that would be 2.6MM chemical engineers looking for work. Needless to say, that's a bit ridiculous.

As somone in the chemical industry, I can say that we have a very hard time finding people to fill open engineering positions. I'm not sure I'd call it a "true shortage", but it's definitely a job-seeker's market.

tatupu70 says

So, if there are 200 applicants/slot, that would be 2.6MM chemical engineers looking for work.

Not true, anywhere from 100-300 ppl can apply for similar sets of jobs. Your 2.6M is based upon no combinations.

Those who make it for a 2nd callback, have had, as I said, an exact experience of 'Recycled Catalyst for SASOL'. It's not enough for a ChemE, working a spray dryer or a biomass reactor, to move into an area, different from that prior unit operation.

This is why I'd left that field, years ago. First for IT, then for hedge fund work.

Itatupu70 says

Rin says

There could easily be 100-300 per slot, however, how many can say that they recycled catalysts for a SASOL facility outside of Johannsburg for 12 years? Exactly, maybe 1 or 2 applicants.

So, if there are 200 applicants/slot, that would be 2.6MM chemical engineers looking for work. Needless to say, that's a bit ridiculous.

how many of those jobs can only be performed by a chemical engineer? Would a chemist or physicist do?

How about a mechanical engineer?

As somone in the chemical industry, I can say that we have a very hard time finding people to fill open engineering positions. I'm not sure I'd call it a "true shortage", but it's definitely a job-seeker's market.

Just how hard are you looking? Are you visiting college campuses, trade shows or just putting a "help wanted inquire within" sign in the front lobby?
How flexible are you in your hiring criteria?
How much are you willing to pay?

Awhile ago there was a thread posted here on PatNet regarding how a small company in Stockton was bitching about how how they couldn't' find STEM talent. I visited their web page and found they had not a single job posted!

I suppose they expected talent to also be telepathic .

EDIT Found the link:

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=23543

Here is their website - 5 months later and they STILL have no careers section.

http://amdsinc.com/

New Renter says

Just how hard are you looking? Are you visiting college campuses, trade shows

Here what I needed, when I was entering the field, all those years ago.

Cut/Paste from the PhD thread ...

"I'd actually published as an undergrad and can tell you one thing, if I were to specialize in that topic (meaning applied for a PhD in that facility) aside from gaining my undergrad research experience (for the sake of the old R&D resume parachute), I would have been too specialized for an entry level job. In effect, I'd be a so-called master of the kinetics of spin traps and other intermediary stages which would make me more or less, a PhD job candidate for a few national labs or perhaps a postdoc in a drug company looking to calibrate various analytical equipments, in one day, out the other.

In contrast, as an undergrad, I was dubbed *just right* to be a research assistant/pilot studies engineer to a biopharma R&D center, since I also did some CO-OP work on membrane filtration & ion exchange columns and obviously, the undergrad paper showed that I was 'capable' of digging into issues at hand, pushing my resume above other BS holders with similar backgrounds."

The above, along with the magna cum laude GPA, was needed to get a plant visit. Thus, even an entry level person is kinda specialized & experienced for a job of 0-2 years experience.

Rin says

The above, along with the magna cum laude GPA, was needed to get a plant visit. Thus, even an entry level person is kinda specialized & experienced for a job of 0-2 years experience.

So my advice ... take the Patent Agent exam a/o apply for a quant job at a hedge fund.

Rin says

So my advice ... take the Patent Agent exam a/o apply for a quant job at a hedge fund.

Ok, once more piece of advice, if you want to stay in the field ... join the Navy Nuclear program or apply for work in a Saudi field operation firm, like SABIC, and you can normally get twice your US salary.

New Renter says

how many of those jobs can only be performed by a chemical engineer? Would a chemist or physicist do?

How about a mechanical engineer?

Sure-- mechanical engineers could probably apply. But then I should also find the number of mechanical engineer jobs that chemicals could apply for to be fair.

New Renter says

Just how hard are you looking? Are you visiting college campuses, trade shows or just putting a "help wanted inquire within" sign in the front lobby?

How flexible are you in your hiring criteria?

How much are you willing to pay?

Hey--I'm not trying to prove that there is a shortage. I'm just telling you my experience is that good chemical engineers have no trouble finding jobs right now. We pay well and use many avenues to find engineers--and we eventually get someone. But, I guarantee you that we don't get 100 applicants for each ad.

tatupu70 says

Hey--I'm not trying to prove that there is a shortage. I'm just telling you my experience is that good chemical engineers have no trouble finding jobs right now.

Again, it's not as simple as that. Are you in management or do you actually work in the field, itself?

Realize this, I have a degree in that field, with honors (and publication), and I've known at least three classes worth of graduates from my school and others.

Chemical engineering is specialized as well as compartmentalized. So a good chemical engineer, who knows about spray dryers or biomass conversion processes, typically won't find work outside of either food (General Mills, Krafts) or biopharma (Smith-Kline or Eli Lilly) sectors. When I used to be a member of AIChE, every one of those process engineering job ads would generate 100s of responses. My company even made the mistake of advertising there and they had to have someone shift through a thousand resumes for a simple bioseparations dept.

And yes, eventually, ppl would leave for careers in business/management, medical school, finance, or IT, when they realize that chemical engineering careers leave them pigeonholed and unable to move laterally into other fields. In fact, chemical engineers at Proctor & Gamble or Unilever are famous for laterally moving into marketing and sales positions from production support and engineering. I remember one company, just outside of NYC, where all the bright stars were taking the ferry into Manhattan for their MBAs at NYU at night. The idea was that they were leaving tech for management.

I'd moved from biotech into IT. Then working on boundary condition triggers in IT, I'd transitioned into hedge fund work. If I didn't choose those mobile careers, I may have been laid off and then, been underemployed, as I wouldn't have enough *petrochemicals* on my resume to move into an energy company. At the same time, I'm not flexible enough to move to Saudi Arabia to get in on a petrochemical support contract.

New Renter, Thomas... anyone want to add to this thread?

Rin says

Are you in management or do you actually work in the field, itself?

I'm in operations management so I'd call that in the field--at the plant every day. Worked at various levels of engineering positions prior to that.

Rin says

Realize this, I have a degree in that field, with honors (and publication), and I've known at least three classes worth of graduates from my school and others.

Not sure what that proves... As someone who graduated a top 5 engineering school myself, color me unimpressed.

Rin says

Chemical engineering is specialized as well as compartmentalized

Only if you let yourself become compartmentalized. If you spend 7 years plus post doc doing only research on atomization studies of a particular formulation and you can't tell a ball valve from a butterfly valve, then yes, your job possibilities are somewhat limited.

Rin says

When I used to be a member of AIChE, every one of those process engineering job ads would generate 100s of responses

Are you basing your posts on what things were like in the past? I'm talking about the situation now--not 10 or 20 years ago.

Rin says

I'd moved from biotech into IT. Then working on boundary condition triggers in IT, I'd transitioned into hedge fund work. If I didn't choose those mobile careers, I may have been laid off and then, been underemployed, as I wouldn't have enough *petrochemicals* on my resume to move into an energy company. At the same time, I'm not flexible enough to move to Saudi Arabia to get in on a petrochemical support contract.

Sounds like you made a good career move for your situation then. But--advising people not to get a chemical engineering degree because of lack of job opportunity now is just plain wrong.

tatupu70 says

As someone who graduated a top 5 engineering school myself, color me unimpressed.

I think you know that this isn't a phallus contest (GPA/Class Rank/Pub record) but more of the notion that if someone is allegedly bright but wants out of the field, how would you expect to find candidates, from outside of the SABICs or SASOLs of the world , to fit the experience base [ 10-15 years ] you require?

tatupu70 says

and you can't tell a ball valve from a butterfly valve, then yes, your job possibilities are somewhat limited.

How they're used in biopharma, like micro or ultrafiltration unit ops with residue/LDL studies, is significantly different from petrochemicals. Thus, a person from my former firm [ despite all the academic accolades, yes, some had better grades than me ] is not place-able in your sector without spending a year or two abroad, in some large chemical operational facility.

tatupu70 says

Sounds like you made a good career move for your situation then. But--advising people not to get a chemical engineering degree because of lack of job opportunity now is just plain wrong.

Yes, because one, they won't have the necessary experience base, outside of doing let's say the Navy Nuclear program but then, they won't be available for you until they hit their early 40s, if they want the full benefits of the military.

If our training sucks, how come everybody and their mother sends their kids to US colleges - including the non-top-5% schools, and many state schools that US News and World Report considers "Meh" for STEM?

to get that student visa, then the h1, then the green card, then that anchor grandchild.

On a more positive note, none of my friends have a blog about their experiences but here's one from someone who'd at least started in the Navy Nuclear program.

http://www.squidoo.com/u-s-navy-nukes

If I were to recommend chemical engineering as a major to someone, it would be so that he'd be academically prepped to be in the Navy Nuclear program.

The program provides not only training but also experience.

tatupu70 says

Only if you let yourself become compartmentalized. If you spend 7 years plus post doc doing only research on atomization studies of a particular formulation and you can't tell a ball valve from a butterfly valve, then yes, your job possibilities are somewhat limited.

More like a Pockels cell from an Acousto-optic modulator.

That said I don't have much experience with butterfly valves outside an automotive intake manifold. Comparing ball valves to gate valves however I can do

Ball valves good, gate valves suck ass. That's just basic plumbing.

Rin says

think you know that this isn't a phallus contest (GPA/Class Rank/Pub record) but more of the notion that if someone is allegedly bright but wants out of the field, how would you expect to find candidates, from outside of the SABICs or SASOLs of the world , to fit the experience base [ 10-15 years ] you require?

It seems like you're under the impression that all jobs require 10-15 years experience. Yes, obviously new grads won't get those jobs. But I can assure you that lots of companies hire new grads. Lots have co-op programs or intern programs. Rin says

How they're used in biopharma, like micro or ultrafiltration unit ops with residue/LDL studies, is significantly different from petrochemicals.

I don't really agree, but regardless, I disagree that companies only hire engineers that already know everything about their process. I'd much rather find someone well-rounded and intelligent and teach them the process, as opposed to someone who only has a very narrow knowledge base. Even if that base is similar to what we do. Someone from outside can offer new ideas and new thinking.

Rin says

Yes, because one, they won't have the necessary experience base, outside of doing let's say the Navy Nuclear program but then, they won't be available for you until they hit their early 40s, if they want the full benefits of the military.

OK--again--we'll have to disagree. I see no evidence that chemical companies only hire engineers with 10-15 years experience in the exact same process that they run. IMO, that is a ridiculous assertion.

thunderlips11 says

If our training sucks, how come everybody and their mother sends their kids to US colleges - including the non-top-5% schools, and many state schools that US News and World Report considers "Meh" for STEM?

Because their kids aren't good enough for the British schools.

Rin says

think you know that this isn't a phallus contest (GPA/Class Rank/Pub record) but more of the notion that if someone is allegedly bright but wants out of the field, how would you expect to find candidates, from outside of the SABICs or SASOLs of the world , to fit the experience base [ 10-15 years ] you require?

All I can comment on this one is that, IMO, academic record does not correlate very well with job performance as an engineer. Not saying this relates to you at all, but lots of very smart engineers are practically unemployable because their people skills are non-existent. As a process engineer in a plant you must interact with both management and operators...

tatupu70 says

But I can assure you that lots of companies hire new grads. Lots have co-op programs or intern programs.

But how many of these coveted entry level positions exist compared with number of new graduates entering the workplace every year?

In my recent experience even these entry level jobs are being filled with mid career workers. Former co-workers of mine have only been able to find positions as research assistants despite holding advanced degrees and years of relevant industry experience.

tatupu70 says

All I can comment on this one is that, IMO, academic record does not correlate very well with job performance as an engineer. Not saying this relates to you at all, but lots of very smart engineers are practically unemployable because their people skills are non-existent. As a process engineer in a plant you must interact with both management and operators...

Unemployable as a process engineer perhaps but such non-social skills are invaluable when tethered to a cubicle as many engineers are.

tatupu70 says

I'd much rather find someone well-rounded and intelligent and teach them the process, as opposed to someone who only has a very narrow knowledge base. Even if that base is similar to what we do. Someone from outside can offer new ideas and new thinking.

That's you, how about HR who does the candidate screening?

Renter, a process engineer in SJ? - those kindza jobs left these parts nearly as long ago as factory food processing.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Renter, a process engineer in SJ? - those kindza jobs left these parts nearly as long ago as factory food processing.

Me? No. Just have had to deal with several crapped out gate valves around the house. Replaced them with ball valves and never looked back.

tatupu70 says

I'd much rather find someone well-rounded and intelligent and teach them the process, as opposed to someone who only has a very narrow knowledge base. Even if that base is similar to what we do. Someone from outside can offer new ideas and new thinking.

This is why I'd brought up the Navy Nukes. Those are ppl you're looking for... highly flexible, able to deal with pressure situations, well versed in all safety aspects of dangerous processes (Admiral Rickover made sure of that), & generally bright across the board, and in particular, hands-on.

Unfortunately, the way sectors work is that ppl fall into silos and then, can't re-orientate towards an alternate one without some additional experiences. Part of this is because many jobs have lengthy pilot plant runs and then, the work is about more calibrations, data collections, ramping, and so forth. That's right there, anywhere from a 55 to 75 hour work week, depending on the deadlines from execs.

In terms of starting a brand new chemical plant (or power station), it requires a level of conscientious in terms of not only field experience with unit operation technologies but also, a nose for safety considerations and the ability to bring a disciplined approach to making ad hoc decisions, in addition to the ones already planned in advance. A regular person with a bit of CO-OP background and a few years, running a series of columns, would probably not suffice.

New Renter says

That's you, how about HR who does the candidate screening?

They screen for whatever I tell them to...

Rin says

Unfortunately, the way sectors work is that ppl fall into silos and then, can't re-orientate towards an alternate one without some additional experiences. Part of this is because many jobs have lengthy pilot plant runs and then, the work is about more calibrations, data collections, ramping, and so forth. That's right there, anywhere from a 55 to 75 hour work week, depending on the deadlines from execs.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Of course you have projects that may be specific and detailed, but those projects don't last forever. You do a project for 6 mos., 1 year, 2 years, whatever, then you move to the next one. Or you move to the next job with a new company. Despite what you think, every chemE that I know has moved jobs at least 3-4 times in the first 15 years--usually across different fields.

Rin says

In terms of starting a brand new chemical plant (or power station), it requires a level of conscientious in terms of not only field experience with unit operation technologies but also, a nose for safety considerations and the ability to bring a disciplined approach to making ad hoc decisions, in addition to the ones already planned in advance. A regular person with a bit of CO-OP background and a few years, running a series of columns, would probably not suffice.

Like I said earlier, there are certainly jobs that require 15 yrs. experience and those are not jobs that a fresh grad will be getting. But there are also a great deal of lower level engineering jobs that fresh grads can get. And a new chemical plant will have some of each.

tatupu70 says

New Renter says

That's you, how about HR who does the candidate screening?

They screen for whatever I tell them to...

Do they understand the difference between a ball and butterfly valve?

New Renter says

Do they understand the difference between a ball and butterfly valve?

lol--I doubt it. But that's not HR's job to find out. That's for me to find out during the interview process. Their job is to cull the resumes of candidates that are obviously under or over qualified.

tatupu70 says

lol--I doubt it. But that's not HR's job to find out. That's for me to find out during the interview process. Their job is to cull the resumes of candidates that are obviously under or over qualified.

Right and therein lies the problem. You ask for someone with experience using butterfly valves. Someone's application lists an appropriate amount of experience but with gate valves. Sure its not a perfect fit but that person has experience with valves and can adapt. Even still his resume is ash canned because he didn't say "butterfly valve".

And that's assuming HR's keyword filter didn't get to the resume first.

anonymous says

While used to long hours, a decent safety background and all of the great things Rin pointed out, they often did not transition well into the civilian sector and most left after a short time

I'm curious as to why this is?

For me, the reason why I'd left "ChemE" (applied to biotech) is that I didn't feel it it was a community/brotherhood of sorts and that it was an every man for himself environment (with P.I. cell biologists at the top) which made me realize, hey, why not leave for IT or something like finance, where in fact, every man is for himself with less hypocrisy about that fact?

You see, for me to want to stay as a ChemE, I wanted to know that someone was watching my back. I think in the military, that's a part of the bonding, between ppl in a unit, esp on a nuclear submarine.

Renter, I've been an engr here for three decades. Had several jobs at different companies, in early years a part time technician while in school, in later years engineer.

I have sent hundreds of resumes and been on scores of interviews.

And every tech job I ever had, I learned about from personal contacts, including that first co-op. It's one of the reasons I stayed
in the region all these years even though the quality of life sucks here nowadays.

I didn't realize it at the time, but cultivating industry contacts all the way back to my sophomore year in college was key, though at the time I was not being strategic. Just luckily for me, it seemed like the thing to do.
The same is true for my partner, though in a completely different employment area. As a matter of fact, HR, at the behest of the hiring management, changed the job description to match the person for one of my partner's jobs. Gotta find the hiring managers independent from HR.

Rin, back in the day, I applied for that program. The Nuclear Navy told
me I wasnt up to the competition, though they encouraged me to reapply to a non-nuke program, which I was not interested in.

Nuke or not, not joining just in time for the Cold War to wind down is probably one of the best things I never did.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Gotta find the hiring managers independent from HR

cannot stress enough how important what BACAH stated. I would
add, everyday put your ego in the corner, you never know what will
happen down the road.. be the best at work.. it pays off.

New Renter says

Right and therein lies the problem. You ask for someone with experience using butterfly valves. Someone's application lists an appropriate amount of experience but with gate valves. Sure its not a perfect fit but that person has experience with valves and can adapt. Even still his resume is ash canned because he didn't say "butterfly valve".

And that's assuming HR's keyword filter didn't get to the resume first.

I'm not sure if you read my comment--at companies I've worked for HR really only worries about getting the job postings out to the various outlets for soliciting resumes. They are definitely NOT the ones that make decisions about who will get interviewed and who will not. We typically don't get enough response to where it is burdensome on me to look at every one.

At best, HR will discard folks that area obviously over or under qualified or that have changed jobs 5 times in the last 2 years. I would never instruct them to only send me candidates with specific experience because I know that would be too restrictive. Bottom line--HR does what we ask them to--they don't control the job filling process.

anonymous says

The plants we operate are designed to run with one person on nights and weekends (85MMSCFD to 120MMSCFD) and some run unattended on nights and weekends being monitored from another location. The Navy Nukes quickly grasped the basics but not the nuances of the plants in a lot of cases. For a lot of them it was similar to playing a video game and they tired of it, since these plants work best with minimal human interaction. Being alone for 12 hours also had some affect on retention. The transition from a very disciplined military culture to non-military proved the most challenging.

I like this above piece. In a way, it gives me an alternate view of why I'd left the field. In my sector, biopharma, is always seemed like the cell biologists/biochemists hogged all the glory and the ChemEs (along with others in the pilot plants/production facilities) were these folks who simply delivered their batches for clinicals. Thus, despite being quantitatively smart, we were dubbed *math freaks* by those in the biosciences and hence, seen as a tool. Granted, I got along with everyone in the company, & the P.I. biologists did like me as I never bragged about ChemE this or that, however, I did resent the poo-pooing of my field of study.

In the Navy Nuclear program, from at least what I'd garnered from my friends who did it, you were a part of a brotherhood, an integral organization with an important purpose. The Navy command did not perceive you to be a mere tool, to keep a submarine up and running.

With that in mind, I couldn't imagine being in a situation where I was basically a part of nothing and merely eye-ing a few LCDs, for weeks at a time, without at least sharing a story with someone. I can see why a Navy Nuke would not be happy there. I guess in an alternate reality, the Navy program is something I would have done, had I been from a more military oriented family background.

Rin, I worked with lotsa veteran techs and engrs in different organizations/companies/industries over the past three decades. Still work with a few.

My overall impression is, (surprise!) everyone was/is an individual; how they fit to the situation was more about the person than the military.

Your references to a military program that you did not serve in sound like "grass is greener somewhere else".