The job process of hiring a new chemist is more than just reading your papers. And yes,
papers, as most people will have published several papers in the process of getting a PhD.
There are references to check up on. There's the ability to present your job talk; the ability to present is an important skill when you work in a company. Some candidates during the interview day might yell at a secretary or send text messages while being interviewed - these are two no-go indicators for most jobs.
Those two examples come from a comment at http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/11/03/job... . Another points out a technical screening question one might ask a chemist:
> If I ask a PhD candidate how many protecting groups they know for nitrogen and they can name ten off the top of their head with pros and cons for each – then that tells me something. If all they can come up with is “Ummmm… Boc?” – well that tells me something too.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2006/01/29/nam... suggests:
> I think I might work up some questions like that for the next time I interview someone. “Here,” I’ll say, handing over a sheet of paper. “SciFinder says that you can do this reaction any of these six ways. Which one would you recommend trying first, and why?”
A recent grad comments about a job interview, with questions "more along the lines of “do you know some basic transformations and how they occur?”
Given that evidence that there are technical screens for chemists, why do you write fields "especially outside of tech ... don't have independent technical screens", and that interviewers only look at one's single paper publication?
You write: "If we stick with AirBnB".
If we stick with AirBNB then re-read the interview process you linked to earlier. Not only does it not do multiple days of technical screening, as you thought, but it says nothing about a homework assignment; which seems to be a particular point of irritation for you.
You appear to have an incorrect interpretation of what you read, and an incorrect interpretation of what happens in other fields. I suggest that means you may need to re-evaluate what you think you know of the topic.
There are references to check up on. There's the ability to present your job talk; the ability to present is an important skill when you work in a company. Some candidates during the interview day might yell at a secretary or send text messages while being interviewed - these are two no-go indicators for most jobs.
Those two examples come from a comment at http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/11/03/job... . Another points out a technical screening question one might ask a chemist:
> If I ask a PhD candidate how many protecting groups they know for nitrogen and they can name ten off the top of their head with pros and cons for each – then that tells me something. If all they can come up with is “Ummmm… Boc?” – well that tells me something too.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2006/01/29/nam... suggests:
> I think I might work up some questions like that for the next time I interview someone. “Here,” I’ll say, handing over a sheet of paper. “SciFinder says that you can do this reaction any of these six ways. Which one would you recommend trying first, and why?”
A recent grad comments about a job interview, with questions "more along the lines of “do you know some basic transformations and how they occur?”
Given that evidence that there are technical screens for chemists, why do you write fields "especially outside of tech ... don't have independent technical screens", and that interviewers only look at one's single paper publication?
You write: "If we stick with AirBnB".
If we stick with AirBNB then re-read the interview process you linked to earlier. Not only does it not do multiple days of technical screening, as you thought, but it says nothing about a homework assignment; which seems to be a particular point of irritation for you.
You appear to have an incorrect interpretation of what you read, and an incorrect interpretation of what happens in other fields. I suggest that means you may need to re-evaluate what you think you know of the topic.