Is A PhD Degree Worth It?

Posted in BioEducation

There is no longer any question that it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD life scientists to find jobs. Further, there is no longer any doubt that the academic system responsible for the current glut of PhD life scientists on the market is broken and needs to be fixed. However, it is important to point out that the decision the get a PhD degree is a very personal one and, in most cases, is not based on the prospect of future long term employment.  In fact, most graduate students and postdoctoral scientists that I have talked to over the past 10 years, don’t think about the need to find a job until they learn that their funding is running out.  The point  is, that just because you have a PhD degree it does not entitle you to a job. Further, looking for a job takes commitment, time and a lot of work and unfortunately some PhD scientists mistakenly  think that the “jobs will/should come to them.”  Put simply, if you aren’t willing to put in the work to find a job, which may mean additional training or a possible career change, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

In 1974, shortly after I was admitted to the graduate program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I received a congratulatory letter from my soon-to-be PhD adviser. In the letter he made a comment about “the blood, sweat and tears” that are required to earn a PhD degree.  At the time, I was a youthful, ambitious 21 year-old, who thought he could do anything and I had no idea what he was talking about!  Seven painful and often tearful years later, I finally understood what he meant by those words; because I had lived them!  I  have no doubt that many who are reading this post have had similar experiences. However, earning your  PhD degree is only the very beginning of your journey. And, like it or not,  the only thing that a PhD guarantees is that others will call you “doctor”and that you can add the letters “PhD” after your name!

For the past several months I have been following a question on a LinkedIn group that asked: “If you had to do it all over again, would you have still chosen to get your PhD degree”. For me, the answer is an unequivocal YES!  And, like the first time, that decision would not have been based on the notion that there would or should be a job waiting for me at the end of my training.  My decision was a personal one based on my “love of microbiology” not the guarantee of future employment.

So,  to those of you who feel like the system has let you down and that you have been abused, I feel your pain but offer the following. If you wanted a guaranteed job at the end of your training than you ought to have considered a career in medicine, nursing, law, engineering, physical therapy, carpentry, plumbing or any other profession where a license is required to practice. These professionals offer a “service” to people and, in exchange for services rendered, they get paid for their efforts.  Like it or not, laboratory research is a not a service or fee-based industry and consequently has minimal short term personal value to people. And, not surprisingly, the demand for PhD life scientists, well trained or not, is not high.

In closing, nobody said getting a PhD degree was going to be easy. And, as somebody once said to me, “if getting a PhD degree was easy, then everybody would have one!”  That said, be proud that you earned your degree; but the hard work has only just begun!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

Negotiating a Job Offer

Posted in Career Advice

Because of the challenging job market, I spend most of my time advising jobseekers about ways in which they can improve their chances of landing a face-to-face job interview. However, one of the trickiest parts of the whole job seeking process is negotiating an employment offer if one is extended. And, for whatever reason, there is a lot of anxiety, trepidation and misinformation surrounding the entire job negotiation process. This post provides some insights into negotiating a job offer and debunks some of the urban legends about the negotiation process itself.

One of the more important (perhaps THE MOST important) aspect of the job offer negotiation process is starting salary. While many people tend to downplay its importance, at the end of the day, it is always about money. And, there is no reason why a jobseeker should not try to get the best possible salary from a prospective employer. Therefore, it is incumbent upon jobseekers to gather as much salary intelligence about a possible position before the interview and after an offer is extended. Websites like Salary.comGlassdoor.com and PayScale.com, which list salary ranges based on industry and geography, are a great place to start. However, because these are self-reporting websites, a better option may be to talk with employees working at the company that extended the offer or with others who work for its competitors.

An urban legend that I feel compelled to debunk is the notion that a job offer will be rescinded if the person who received the offer dares to ask for higher pay. Companies spend a lot of time, effort and money to get to the point to extend an offer to the “right fit” candidate. The prospect of starting the job search process all over again or settling for the “second best” candidate is usually not a viable option for most employers. For this reason, I advise persons who receive job offers to not immediately accept them (unless of course they fit into the category of “too good to refuse” which admittedly are very rare even in the best of times). In fact, since this is the last time that a jobseeker will be able to negotiate with his/her employer, I highly recommend “getting as much as you can.” However, as my financial adviser and longtime friend once told me, “the bears and the bulls make money, but pigs always get slaughtered!”

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Negotiating!!!!!!!!

Alternate Careers: Patent Agents and Intellectual Property Attorneys

Posted in Career Advice

Times are tough for many in the legal profession these days. However, the demand for patent experts including attorneys and patent agents is skyrocketing. Openings for patent attorneys account for more than 15 percent of law firm job openings while only 3 percent of lawyers in the US specialize in this area. The bottom line: it is a great time to be a patent attorney or agent in today’s tough economy.

Not surprisingly, many patent attorneys (and agents) usually have a background in science or engineering. And, because of the scarcity of qualified applicants many law firms are doubling their recruiting spending to meet the growing demand for specialists in intellectual property (IP) and patents.

One of the reasons for the growing demand is passage of the America Invents Act, the largest overhaul in theUSpatent system in the past 60 years. The legislation which changes how patents are reviewed and process is spurring competition between firms to higher IP specialist to ease the transition pain. At present, there are over 230 IP openings among more than 1400 lawyer positions nationwide. Many of the openings have been unfilled for over 90 days and more are added daily.

Currently, there are about 40,000 patent attorneys and agents registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In order to register with the USPTO agents and lawyers are required to pass the patent bar examination. While registered patent agents have taken and passed the exam, they are not lawyers who are required to pass state bar examinations to become licensed attorneys. For those of you who may not know, you don’t have to go to law school to take the patent bar exam nor is a law degree required to take individual state bar exams (however, person who are not law school graduate are likely not to pass the state tests). Patent agents can prepare patents and prosecute cases with the USPTO but cannot litigate in court or draw up contracts. There are roughly 1.2 million licensed patent attorneys in theUSaccording to the American bar association.

The greatest demand for IP attorneys and agents is in information and computing technology and the life sciences. Persons with PhD degrees in the life sciences can sometimes find work at IP and patent law firms. Also, you may be able to find work at a patent examiner with the USPTO! PhD degree holders who have passed the patent bar are even more desirable. However a law degree plus a PhD degree will almost certainly guarantee you employment at most IP firms. That said, before you decide to go to law school, I high recommend that you talk with IP professionals or read a few dozen patent applications (they can all be found at www.uspto.org) in your spare time. If you find the reading interesting or manage to stay awake after reading the fifth application than patent law may be a good choice for you. If not, I suggest that you consider other alternate career options.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

Life Sciences Job Market Outlook: Is the Future Brighter?

Posted in BioEducation, BioJobBuzz

According to a report published in Nature last week, 72% of drug makers surveyed (respondents included company executives and recruiters) intend to boost their research capacity in the next 12 months by hiring scientists, creating partnerships or improving infrastructure.  Further, additional survey results suggested that jobs will grow by 30% among US medical scientists, biochemists and biophysicists by 2020.  While I have not read the entire report, it seems to me that asking company executives (responsible for company growth and maintaining stock share price) and recruiters (who make a living finding difficult to find employees for drug companies) may not provide survey readers with  accurate information that one could use for trend analysis.

Nevertheless, despite the rosy proclamations made in the report, there are a few caveats. First, the 30% increase in hiring by 2020 includes mainly medical scientists (clinical personnel), biophysicists (how many biophysicists are there anyway) and biochemists (are there any really left?).  What about all the molecular biologists, bioinformatics and genomics scientists, physiologists, pharmacologists etc etc?

Second and perhaps most revealing, survey respondents noted that the types of scientists that they want to hire are those who 1) “can develop and manage external partnerships” (translation: business development, marketing, brand managers etc); 2) “know about regulatory science”  and 3) “can manage and analyze big data sets and outcomes research.”  I don’t know about you, but I did not learn any of the above mentioned desirable skills while working on my PhD degree.

Finally, one of the report authors opined that early career scientists looking for employment opportunities need to “think about the entire value chain  that leads to the development of a drug or medical device.”  Really?  First, what is a value chain and second who is going to teach graduate students and postdocs how drugs and devices are developed when nobody at their institution knows how to develop drugs and devices since they work in academia and not industry?  Interestingly, I know many pharmaceutical and biotechnology company employees who don’t really understand the complete drug/device development process because things are done in silos at most drug and devices companies.

The point that I am trying to make, is that nobody can predict what the job market for life sciences professionals will be in 2020.  The best advice that I can give is to develop a career plan, remain flexible and have at least two or three contingency in place!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

 

A Possible Dark Side of a Career in Big Data Management

Posted in Career Advice

For the past year or so, I have been touting the job opportunities in the field of “big data” in which massive amounts of personal data including medical information, social media usage, mobile device usage, buying behaviors, etc are accumulated, analyzed and used for marketing purposes. While there may be growing career opportunities for life scientists in the field, especially bioinformaticists, computational biologists and database managers, before you take the plunge you may want to read an article in today’s NY Times entitled “You For Sale: Mapping, and Sharing the Consumer Genome” (great title for us biologists).

The articles walks readers through how Acxiom —a 40 year old data mining company and the second largest provider of consumer information in the US—mines and “refines” (Acxiom executives call what they do, refining rather than mining”) personal information and sells it to paying customers. Admittedly, I previously knew little about how data mining algorithms work but I must say reading the article provided me with me insights and clarity about the pervasiveness and potential for misuse and abuse of the services and features offered by Acxiom and other companies of its ilk. BTW, the largest provider of data mining services in the US is Epsilon.

According to the article, “Acxiom maintains its own database on about 190 million individuals and 126 million households in theUnited States. Separately, it manages customer databases for or works with 47 of the Fortune 100 companies.” And, not surprisingly the company hires top talent from the software industry including its CEOScottE. Howe, previously a corporate vice President of advertising at Microsoft and Phil Mui, formerly group product manager for Google Analytics as it chief product and engineering officer.

There is little doubt that electronic healthcare records will help to improve patient access and health outcomes once it is fully implemented. And, the success of this new industry will be contingent upon hiring talented biologists, healthcare professionals and software engineers. But, for every benefit that a new technology can bestow upon humanity, there is always a down side.

To that point, it is important to get a complete picture of an industry before you make a decision about a career in it! If big data management is the direction that you want your career to take, then go for it but remember to keep your “eyes and ears open.”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

 

Optimizing a LinkedIn Profile to Land a Job

Posted in BioEducation

Social media platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook and niche career development communities like BioCrowd are being used to identify job candidates by hiring managers, employers and professional recruiters. For those of you who may not have been paying attention, LinkedIn is the largest professional social networking site on the web today. Most companies allow their employees to post profiles on LinkedIn and many do not block access to the site during working hours. Like it or not, this means that if you are looking for a job you would be a fool not to have a complete and up-to-date profile on LinkedIn!

However, while you may think that your LinkedIn profile is sufficient to help a recruiter or hiring manager find you among the other 129 million or so LinkedIn members, it probably is not. This is because, in order to be found, your LinkedIn profile (much like your CV/resume) must contain key words that identify you as a person who possesses the right qualifications and skill sets after the hiring manager or recruiter searches the LinkedIn database using those words! This begs the question: what are the keywords to use in my LinkedIn profile so that I can be found?

The best way to identify keywords is to read as many job posting as you can with titles similar to the ones that you are interested in landing. Typically, they can be found in the qualifications and skills set requirements displayed in the ad. Many times these may be buzz words or jargon unique to your field of study. The point here is to identify the key words and then to artfully and judiciously incorporate them into your LinkedIn profile. But, most BioJobBlog readers will ask (because you are scientists) how do I know if the keywords I chose are the correct ones?

Ian Levine, who runs CareerBrander.com, offers a clever test (described below):

  1. Go to the peoples tab @ LinkedIn and hit advanced search.
  2. Now enter a keyword or keywords associated with your targeted position. Ex: regulatory affairs
  3. Now enter a geography zip code and a distance quotient.
  4. Then select an industry or multiple industries that apply to you. (Understand the broader you make your search the lower your ranking will be).
  5. Hit search. Can you find yourself in the first few pages of the LinkedIn results?

If your name appears at or near the top of the search page results (with the words that were used in the search highlighted) then your LinkedIn profile is optimized and you will likely be found. If your name is not near the top (or on the list) then you have some work to do. Not surprisingly, one way to optimize your profile is to visit the profiles of those whose names do appear on the top of the search list for the type of job that you want!

While it may take some time to fully optimize your LinkedIn profile, it will be time well spent! At present, over 80 percent of hiring managers and close to 100% of recruiters use social media platforms at some point in the hiring process.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

 

Improve Your Job Prospects By Using LinkedIn

Posted in Career Advice

Last week, financial analysts and social media enthusiast were all a twitter (sorry I couldn’t resist) about LinkedIn’s multibillion dollar IPO. There is little doubt that LinkedIn has emerged as the preeminent job search social media platform. However, there are a few “tricks” that jobseekers ought to consider to improve their job prospects and subsequent employment.

To that end, Paul Boutin wrote a great piece in the Gadgetwise section of the NY Time yesterday entitled “Three Things All LinkedIn Users Should Do.” It was so well written that I reproduced much of the post below.

“Post a photo – A few years ago, people who posted photos of themselves to the Internet seemed self centered. In the Facebook, era, though, an account page without a picture seems like the work of someone who didn’t put much effort into it. It doesn’t need to be a professional headshot. Just stand against a white wall in business attire (or, if you’re a software engineer, a Rush t-shirt) and have someone take a cellphone photo of your face and shoulders. To upload your photo, choose the option Profile -> Edit Profile at the top of your LinkedIn page, and look for the Add Photo link.

Think keywords – On the same Edit Profile page, take a good look at your resume. If your past employers gave you odd titles like “gatorbox wrangler” or vague ones like “senior administrator,” replace them with industry standard terms like “sales engineer” and “accounts payable specialist.” Otherwise, you’ll never be found, because no one will type those terms into LinkedIn’s search box.

Search experts call this problem “discovery.” Other people won’t find you if they aren’t searching for words that match your entry. Pack your LinkedIn profile with as many popular job terms as you can think of related to what you do. If you can honestly change a past job title from something like “Web producer,” to something more senior like “product manager,” it’s better to put it  in your profile, so you can at least get found and get an interview.

Ask a question – A LinkedIn spokeswoman told me that sending a question to your LinkedIn network is one of the best ways to remind people that you still exist, and are still looking for work. Click the menu option More -> Answers at the upper right of the LinkedIn home page, and look for the box that says “Ask a Question.” Get to the point: “Does anyone know of an office administrator position with a full-time salary and benefits?” These days that might get you a part-time contract, but it’s probably better than blindly sending out resumes and watching your inbox in vain.”

If LinkedIn is too overwhelming or more time consuming than you are willing to invest, check out BioCrowd, an online networking site designed EXCLUSIVELY for life scientists and other bioprofessionals.

Hat tip to Paul Boutin and the NY Times!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting  (check out the BioJobCenter)

 

BioCareers: Online Networking Tips

Posted in Social Media

I recently wrote a professional development article that appeared in the May edition of the American Society of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) monthly publication entitled “Why Online Networking Can Make a Difference in Your Job Search.” The reason I wrote the piece was because an increasing number of social medial-savvy, younger scientists have been successfully generating job leads by belonging to online social networking sites. Some of the more useful online networking sites for bioscience jobseekers include BioCrowd, LinkedIn (join groups), Twitter (follow scientists and other life sciences professionals) and others. 

Unfortunately, many scientists do not see any value in belonging to online social networks and a few have even derided them! I suspect that those are the folks who are having trouble getting responses or interview offers from prospective employers. In any event, for those of you who are intrepid enough to give online networking a try, there are five tips that I can offer before you take the plunge.

  1. Choose the online networking sites that are appropriate for you (hint:  Facebook doesn’t count)
  2. Create a professional user profile devoid of personal information but replete with scientific accomplishments
  3. Connect with others on the site who share your interests and may be helpful to you in a job search
  4. Expand your network by inviting colleagues and professional friend to join (remember, it is the quality not the size of your network that matters)
  5. Google yourself occasionally to manage (edit, delete, retract, add) the information on the web that is available to prospective employers.

For those of you who may be interested in reading the entire article please click here.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

A New Role for Academic Scientists in New Drug Discovery and Development?

Posted in BioBusiness

There has been some buzz on LinkedIn and Facebook about an article that appeared in the March 3, 2011 issue of Nature Magazine. The article entitled “Traditional Drug-Discovery Model Ripe for Reform” and basically chronicles the decline in emphasis being placed by most companies on traditional in-house drug discovery as a source for new candidate molecules. Also, it points out that most big pharma companies now agree that they are not good at drug discovery but excel in clinical development and marketing of new medicines. Industry’s new view of itself is supported by the fact that over 200,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology workers—roughly 50% were discovery scientists—have their lost jobs in the past three years or so. This begs the question “who is going to discover the new molecular entities that large drug companies are going clinically evaluate and ultimately market? According to the article, academic researchers are likely to play a pivotal role in this newly emerging drug discovery paradigm. 

The new model proposed in the article goes something like this. First, all intellectual property rights for certain compounds will be lifted or removed. Compounds of interest would subsequently be evaluated in small clinical trials for safety and possible efficacy. And, interested drug makers would only compete with one another on specific molecules after they were deemed safe and potentially effective. Up until this point, all data on prospective drug candidates would be openly published and freely available to interested parties.

Proponents of the model contend that the approach would allow drug targets to be more quickly validated and developed less expensively because there would less duplication of research activities. Further, it would reduce the exposure of patients to experimental molecules that have already deemed to be ineffective. Interestingly, the new model would rely exclusively on academic scientists who would be supported by a global initiative that cost about $325 million per years— with half coming from the pharmaceutical industry and half from the public. Finally, drug candidates identified in the initial screening process would be available to companies that participate in the initiative (presumably to the company that invested the most?)

While the proposed model is clearly “wishful thinking” on behalf of academics who are struggling to win grant support, it is deeply flaw and was obviously proposed by academic scientists who lack a clear understanding of the industrial drug development process. First, intellectual property (IP) and patents are the life blood of the industry and are in fact what allows drug companies to prevent competition in certain therapeutic areas maximize their return on investment on the drugs that they develop. Therefore, it is highly  unlikely that any drug maker would agree to lift or suspend IP around a novel new molecule. Second, must academic scientists are not qualified nor trained to engage in industrial drug development. Unlike academic science, industrial research is highly regulated and must be performed according the regulations and guidelines established by various regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration. If the research is not conducted in a regulatory compliant manner, then the prospective new drug will not be able to win regulatory approval. Third, eliminating IP would prevent university tech transfer offices—which exist almost entirely to manage a university’s IP—from negotiating lucrative licensing deals with interested companies or other parties. This, in turn, would reduce the contribution of funds by technology transfer offices that is used to run many academic research centers. Finally, the model is based upon the assumption that academic scientists (unlike drug companies) willfully and freely share information with one another for the “common good.” However, based on my experiences as an academic for over 20 years, most scientists don’t subscribe to the level of altruism and philanthropy attributed to them in the article. In fact the ego-involvement and competition amongst academics is so fierce, that  many academic refuse to share important new information or breakthroughs with their colleagues until grants are funded or the data are published in peer reviewed journals. Put simply, most academics are trained to work by themselves in their own laboratories and are neither interactive nor collaborative by nature.

There is no question that the old industrial drug discovery model is in transition and a new one will ultimately emerge. However, the role of academics in the new model is likely going to be less than proposed in present article. Too many systemic changes would be required for this model to be effective. That said, providing graduate students and postdocs with training in regulatory affairs and new drug development could be a step in the right direction! Nevertheless, a better solution to the problem may be a greater role for government in new drug discovery and development. To that end, the UK Medical Research Council has established the Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme that supports the development of promising basic science research into new drugs and medical devices. Also, Francis Collins, the current head of the National Institutes of Health has proposed the creation of a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to transform basic science into prospective new drugs and treatments.

Despite the good intentions of the article, the path forward for academic scientists is not going to be easy. To make matters worse, it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD-trained scientists to find jobs. That said, if you are truly interested in industrial drug discovery and development I highly recommend that you take some regulatory affairs course or enroll in a certificate or MS degree program in biotechnology that teaches the business side of the life sciences industry.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

 

The Job Search: Tips for a Successful Phone Interview

Posted in BioJobBuzz

Life sciences employers ranging from academic institution to private sector companies are increasingly turning to telephone interviews as an initial means to screen prospective job candidates. While in many instances these interviews are perfunctory, they are conducted for two main reasons. First, the employer wants to verify that the information presented by the candidate in his/her curriculum vitae is correct and accurate. Second, and perhaps more importantly, to determine whether or not a candidate has sufficient oral communications skills that warrant the cost necessary to bring a candidate in for a face-to-face on site interview. 

The use of telephone interviews has become increasingly popular because of the escalating costs associated with bringing candidates in for onsite interviews and a growing number of foreign born applicants applying for life sciences jobs. Put simply, a prospective employer can easily determine an applicant’s command of the English language and his/her immigration status in a telephone interview. Both immigration status (permanent resident or citizenship) and outstanding command of the English language have become of paramount importance to most life sciences employers over the past five years or so. However, it is important to note, that individual employers place different emphasis on the qualifications and skills of applicants for different job opportunities within an organization.

Like it or not, you may find yourself in the position of having to participate in a telephone interview before a decision is made on whether or not you may be invited to visit for an onsite interview. To that end, Pete Kistler, CEO of Brand-Yourself.com, recently posted a great piece that describes how to best prepare for a phone interview. He offers seven easy-to-follow tips that are likely to increase the probability of a visit for an onsite interview.

1. Use a landline. You don’t want to risk having problems with cell phone service. It is irritating for employers to conduct interviews if the call breaks up frequently or is dropped completely. If you don’t have a land line at home, just make sure you are in an area with as much cell phone service as possible. Do what you can so the process runs as smooth as possible.

2. Keep your materials handy. In fact, lay everything out in front of you. This includes your resume, notes about your career objective (even if it isn’t included in your original cover letter it’s a good idea to have this out depending on the questions he will ask you), a pen and pad of paper for note-taking and anything else you think may be helpful during your interview. Because you won’t have to schlep into an office, you can have anything out in front of you to aid with your success.

3. Steer clear of distractions. Find a quiet place to interview and stay there! There shouldn’t be any noise in the background to distract you or your potential employer. However, it is understandable that this can be tricky if you have young children at home who need your attention. When you set up your interview appointment, try to schedule it for as precise a time or window as possible. That way, you are able to avoid possible distractions (ex.: your phone interview is between 4 and 4:30, so no one can have company over during that time, the kids are fed and occupied or a sitter will watch them, if need be.)

4. Speak slowly and clearly. When you speak to people face-to-face, you are able to understand what they are saying more clearly because you can see their mouth move. So in a way, you are reading their lips! Neither you nor your potential employer will be able to do this over the phone of course, so speak clearly and a little bit more slowly than you would if you were talking to this person in person. If you can’t hear him, drop hints that he isn’t speaking clearly or loud enough by politely asking him to repeat himself. If this makes you uncomfortable at all you can always blame it on your phone: “I’m really sorry, it’s hard to hear you, the volume on my phone just won’t go up!”

5. Remember – you can’t be seen. That means that anything you say cannot be interpreted by your body language. Beware of jokes or sarcastic remarks that would have been harmless had he seen your facial expression. Maintain your professionalism; stay on target with the interview topics and focus on the key information about you that will get you hired.

6. No eating, drinking or chewing gum! This is self-explanatory. But, we humans are creatures of habit and might pop a potato chip in our mouths at just the wrong moment. However, when I say no eating or drinking I mean during the phone interview. You should eat beforehand to get your brain going so you can focus.

7. Prepare questions ahead of time. Just like in a personal interview, prepare a few questions to ask your potential employer at the end of your phone interview. Some examples are:

“What is the start date for the opportunity?”

“What software/equipment would I be using?”

Remember – do not ask about salary or benefits until the employer has brought it up.

Fortunately, it can be less intimidating interviewing over the phone with these telephone interview tips and you may even feel more confident that you’ll do well. Great! As long as you are fully prepared and take the necessary precautions, there is no reason why you shouldn’t have a successful phone interview.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

SocialTwist<br />
Tell-a-Friend