To me, the level of complexity. Good ole' regular math is addition, subtraction, etc. Maybe up to Algebra. Applied math has calculas and differential equations. There also is math theory. You know the stuff you can't use, such as non-Euclidian geometry. Here is an oversimplification. If it has a lot of numbers, it is applied math. If it does not have any numbers, it is math theory.
Simple Math - Balancing your checkbook Applied Math - **** you pay a lot of money to learn but then you never use
We have 5 openings for programmers with varying degrees of experience (5+ years) using Microsoft software (C#, ASP.NET, VB, ASP, SQLServer) or Java/Cold Fusion/Oracle. They/we want someone who can take over large, complicated projects/tasks with minimal to no supervision. The 2 locations are Chattanooga, TN and Columbia, SC. The pay is good, the benefits are average and the time off is exceptional. Let me know if you are interested.
Well, applied means "to put into practice or a particular use", so if use my arithmetic skills to balance my checkbook, then I'm using applied math?
arg the jobs ArtV just posted is exactly what is farked up right now employers want the world! they want someone that can step right in, with no training and do it all! (usally for crappy pay) what is the point of even going to college now? no one is willing to spend any money to train new grads anyways , that was my rant I grad July 02 with BBA in CIS been working for an oil company in houston for the past year doing geo-tech and system admin work but am not really happy with it or see a big future if I stay in this field
Well, in all fairness, I only looked for jobs in Austin and Houston. I didn't really want to leave Texas, so my options were kinda limited. A lot of my peers who graduated with me aren't much better off, whether they're going back to school or working at some crappy company. I'd definitely look into law school. One of my friends went directly from EE to law(patent). This summer, he'll be interning in San Jose making bout $60/hour. Full time is ~$125K/year. I guess firms prefer that you have a technical background since the patents are based on new technology.
re: longevity: in most programming type workplaces it is pretty rare to see a greybeard. Most folks move up or out after a while. 125K fulltime for how many hours or partnership? HoneyNut, I was in the same boat about 15 years ago, graduated with EE in so so economy and wanted to stay in Texas. There are plenty of government contractors near NASA if you're willing to set your sights low to start off, and lots of startups in Houston. Austin is a bit tougher since so many people want to live there. If you don't mind working on stuff used to kill people ( I wouldn't mind if I got to choose the people, but you don't) , there's plenty of work in the defense industry.
I wouldn't say a degree in IT is a crock, but it doesn't hold the weight it held years ago. If you have 2 people, 1 has good experience, 1 has a degree - most will go with experience. If you have 2 people, both have equally good experience and 1 has a degree most would take the degree. Also, I think those with degrees move up into management more so than those without. By the way - I do not have a degree, but I do have 20 years of experience. I have been a manager in the past, but I have chosen to stay on the technical path - I find it more stable and marketable. Fortunately, our company has high level 3 track for IT - Managers, Project Leaders and Consultants. All have the same pay scale, status and benefits. It's nice since you don't have to move into management. I've seen far too many IT people that became managers that should not have moved up and were unhappy but felt trapped in the position they had (case in point - me!). There is the catch-22 of getting experience - that's always been there but right now it's an employers market so they can be choosier than they have been in the past. You just have to be hungry enough to start out taking a low paying job (My first job was $15K a year - that was low even 20 years ago.) and pay your dues for a few years. Also, knowing someone doesn't hurt.
The Lost Art of Career Development companies just aren't interested in developing young people into great leaders they want a quick fix - long term career molding is over
He'll be at the office probably 50-60 hours a week, but he'll only get paid for every hour he actually works. For instance, in a given week, he'll only get paid maybe for 40 hours of work since for 10-20 hours that week, he won't be doing anything. There's a term they use for every working hour, but I forget what its called. Woofer - check your email.
Why should companies develop young talent? The recent trend is for employees to switch jobs every few years. You don't see people that work for one company their entire career anymore. Also, if a company can choose between experienced people with a degree and inexperienced people with a degree they will pick experienced people every time. My advice to CS majors looking for software engineering positions is to look for positions that require travelling. This may involve travelling to customer sites to install/configure software or to trouble shoot problems. Pay should be pretty competive and older people with experience will be less likely to take these jobs because of family obligations.
But which came first? Companies downsizing and laying off employees or employees job hopping. But, a company that develops and nurtures its employees will have less turnover than companies that are completely focused on the bottom line. And it costs more money and time to train a new worker to your company's peculiarities than it does to retain a worker who already knows your company. It appears that a good many people aren't concerned about the degree at all. So it ends up being experience vs. education rather than experience AND education vs. just education alone. The thing that always struck me as funny was seeing companies that would require education and significant experience for jobs that were once considered to be entry-level. And often the company would not increase the salary for said job despite wanting someone with significant experience. And that was even during the boom times. I recall seeing ads during the late '90s wanting a college degree and five years experience for a job that paid $7 per hour. It wasn't in computer science, but it was a professional-type position. Needless to say, I saw that ad run a lot and for a long time. I doubt it was ever filled by someone who had exactly what the company was looking for. Even recently, I've applied for jobs that I'm qualified for, according to the job posting itself. I don't get called in for an interview, which would be fine if they found someone to fill the position, but usually, those jobs continue to be advertised as open (or a new ad is placed looking to fill the same position). I know of what should be an entry-level assistant media planner position that's been open since August. They've yet to hire anyone, but they've also not bothered to respond to my inquiries. I suspect that they've set the bar too high for potential applicants. I suspect they want someone with education and significant experience and want to pay them crap wages, etc. But this is a job that no one with experience would take unless they were desperate for a job. And those desperate for a job will leave the first chance they get. They're 'slumming' by taking a job that is beneath their abilities. The second someone better comes along, they're gone. And while they're there, they may not be as productive as someone who is trying to prove himself. A person who is overqualified for a job still has to be trained to do things your way, but that also often means unlearning what they've done at another company. And since they're slumming, they might well not feel it all that necessary to work as hard as they could. Since they're working at a level that's below their experience, they're more likely to view the position as a job, rather than a stepping stone to learn and to work their way up. But if you take someone who is straight out of college, train them a little bit and let them gain their experience and attempt to work their way up the ladder at your company, they're more likely to stick around. And they're more likely to work harder to prove themselves. They're more likely to want to learn because they haven't already been in the job elsewhere and think they've got it down. I mean, Wal-Mart could require college graduates to work as cashiers. And in downtimes, they could probably get plenty of them to work there. But those people are never going to be happy working as a cashier at Wal-Mart and as soon as something better opens up, those people will leave. Whereas a person without a college education might well find Wal-Mart to be the best job they'll ever be able to get and work harder to stick around, get raises, etc. So requiring overqualified people for your jobs simply costs companies money because of higher turnover. Sure, it seems nice at a time to get someone who is overqualified for the open job, but doing so may well cause problems, both financially and productivity-wise. So companies are setting themselves up for higher turnover by not hiring people who would be more likely to be more loyal to the company, more likely to work harder to prove themselves and so on. I can relate this to my movie thing. I'd much rather have someone who doesn't have a whole lot of experience. Those people don't have a lot of preconceived notions of how things are "supposed" to be done. There are hundreds of different ways to make a movie, but invariably, those with experience believe there is one way. And whatever that way is, it isn't the way I do things. So, I end up having to argue with this person nonstop because I'm not doing it "right", according to his worldview. And that person doesn't work all that hard. They do the minimum, if even that. It costs me time. It costs me money. It can even torpedo an entire project. So when I go looking for crew, I don't want someone who has a whole lot of experience because that person is far more likely to be a pain in my ass. Someone who's got less experience is far more likely to be open to my way of doing things and far more likely to work his butt off because he feels like I'm doing him a favor by allowing him to be on my picture. And I treat that person better because they seem happy to be here rather than copping an attitude about how thankful I should be that person is there because he's so freaking experienced. And I invariably get results that are just as good, if not better, from the guy with less experience. If that makes any sense at all.
Similarly, employees change companies frequently these days to advance their careers, rather than sticking with a perceived "dead-end" job.
Young professionals are staring at a losing proposition. I worked three co-op terms at some pretty big companies while I was in college. The first company, after two workterms, had a hiring freeze after a merger (HP-Compaq), and cut the co-op program for a while. The second got bought out by another company and went into a hiring freeze. They didn't tell me I wasn't coming back until the month I graduated (12-2002). So, now I'm working as a "Field Engineer/Trainer" for a small company in Houston. I will have almost have two years worth of work experience here soon, and I'll have placed myself out of the entry level market. I'm looking for a job in either Houston, Dallas, or Austin that's more technically demanding. Right now grades don't matter (Graduated with Honors, BSEE). Experience sort of matters, to an extent. The only thing that really matters is who you know and who they know. That's pretty much the only way you'll get an interview, much less a job these days. I'm still holding out hope something else comes along, but it looks more and more likely that I'll be doing this for a little longer until the economy picks up. On a side note, I have a friend who is going into law school with an engineering degree (bio-med EE), apparently law schools love Engineering majors. Oh yeah, any help you guys can give in terms of openings, I most certainly appreciate.
Patent Law is a very good field. I would recommend this course of action if economically feasible. A high undergraduate GPA with good 1st year law school grades should serve you well in your job search.
