Internal recruiters have hinted that my Software QA Engineer background + no CS degree implies I have no technical skill.
Internal recruiters have hinted that my Software QA Engineer background + no CS degree implies I have no technical skill.
My own experience was that my initial position as a software performance engineer resulted in a perception that I was a "tester" without technical skills despite having multiple CS credentials and published code in practitioner-oriented sources.
Overcoming recruiter biases was such a struggle that I now routinely counsel students and early career programmers to carefully consider whether job role perceptions would negatively affect their future prospects. I also tell them, when financially viable, to not take on roles where hiring orgs cannot give them a day-to-day job description that directly matches their desired career path.
This advice seems quite challenging or maybe misguided for data science careers though. It seems like just getting an entry-level data science job might require a dedicated MS in either CS or stats, with a healthy set of projects in whichever of those two subjects you didn't spend grad school working on to prove yourself . . .
This trend will probably continue until someone decides to up recruiter pay and hire engineering background candidates for recruiting roles (if possible).
Contrary to what the reddit folks would have you think. The ONLY thing that consistently get someone through the door is demonstrable real work experience, on real projects, in the industry (read: not academia). Side projects are not a substitute and the lack of degree is a barrier.
It turns out that QA was only the tip of the iceberg. You have a job title as "QA" and a job title as "support".
You will NEVER get any development or engineering job with that. Expect 90% reject in the resume screening because you are not a developer.
If they were development jobs, replace both by "software developer".
My most recent job is obfuscated a bit in the public eye/only visible to logged-in LinkedIn users, for good reason. (I politely request people looking into it not discuss it)
You remove the experiences you have and wonder why your resume doesn't pass a screening test? Must seem quite empty.
Are you applying online or via getting coffees with people in the data science team and just talking shop? The latter seems to have a high conversion rate if you can nail it.
In the OP's case I would change their title (if applicable) to "QA / engineer" as a) that probably paints a more accurate picture of what you were doing and b) gets around yokels that look down on QA/SDET.
Others have said the same, but I'd wager the biggest issue is (a) the limited past roles that directly dealt with data science/analysis or (b) SF's narrow-minded hiring practices. Maybe a masters or data science bootcamp would go further than more blog posts?
They're really trying to mitigate risk that they pass you along to engineers and the engineers say "why am I looking at this person with no formal qualifications" and then the recruiter feels like they've wasted the time of the engineering team. It's stupid but insidious.
If you can I would suggest trying to bypass the recruiters and contact the engineers/hiring manager directly; ask them out for coffee and ask for advice on starting a career in data science, or show them your portfolio via email there.
edit: spelling
I realize that most startups recruiting through HN are looking to hire for web, app or backend development, but there are a few data science jobs. Since people recognize you here on HN, you have a much better chance of landing a job.
It's unfortunate that most recruiters primarily screen based on resume.
I don't know if Triplebyte [1] helps people find data science jobs, but do check with them.
It's OK to leave stuff out on your resume if it's not relevant (and maybe even harmful) to the position you're applying for.
Sure, but that doesn't sound unreasonable.