I went through the university system with the very unspecific goal of ‘becoming an engineer’. After getting an undergraduate and masters degree in Electrical Engineering, I travelled to the Netherlands, crossed into Mechanical Engineering (emphasis in Control Theory), and earned a PhD. Returning back to the Bay Area, I thought my chances at receiving a job offer as an engineer were good.

However, I found it difficult (really difficult) to find an engineering job in the Bay Area. My experimental work in my thesis and software toolbox (written in Matlab) would get me into an interview but my university experience did not enable me to jump through all the hoops fast enough in the technical portion of the interview. I was not well-versed enough in an industry accepted language, and was not seen as the ‘best fit’.

I slowly started to realize that I was perhaps a false negative that is just an accepted part of the tech hiring process due to the volume of applicants.

Wanting to break into the tech world, I took a job teaching math, which has been a common thread in my work, in EdTech. Within a six months, I created a task management system for my group that would eventually convince my employer to invest in my training as a software engineer.

After completing a three month software bootcamp at Telegraph Academy software immersive, I feel I have now mastered the language of JavaScript, and am employed as engineer, once again. I am one of those lucky few who is fortunate enough to build my ideas in a field that I am very passionate about: improving education.

Even though my PhD work was not working towards the specific job/industry I desired, there are invaluable skills gained during my time as a PhD student that I do use in my new software engineer discipline. I thought I would try to summarize the top four most important skills.

1. The Confidence to Learn Anything

My time as a PhD student in the field of control theory exposed me to some of the most complex and precise mathematics that engineering has to offer. I am certainly not claiming to understand all of it, but there is one thing that stuck. Nothing is too complicated to understand. All complex things are made up of simple parts. Engineers are good at solving problems within their field of expertise, not necessarily good conveying their solutions to people outside their field (aka teaching).

If you don’t understand something the first time, it is usually because there are too many details in the way. Take the time to research the idea on your own, and try to explain it to yourself in a simple manner. Then, look at it again, adding in a few more details. It might take a few looks, but you’ll get there.

2. The Ability to Refactor an Idea

A PhD student is required to write a handful of publications. The first drafts I had written conveyed a rough idea of the solution, and that was just the start of a rapid iteration process consisting of hundreds of iterations. All with the single goal of concisely conveying my idea to others.

Once each draft is complete, take a step back, look at it and try to understand the flow. See if it can be explained more concisely, or if it can be made easier to understand by moving pieces around. Ask others for help. If you take the time to make your solution easier to understand, it will not only read better for others, but may give you new insight into your problem.

3. A Love of Criticism

Going through the peer review process to publish an article is intimidating. You send your idea to several people who probably know much more than you, and whose job it is to find flaws in it. If the details are wrong, then your idea is rejected.

Rejection is tough, but it shouldn’t end there. You and your idea will be much stronger with someone else’s insights taken into account. Always be thankful when people take the time to rip your ideas apart. Understand that their comments are made with the intent that you improve not only the idea, but yourself. It’s not easy, definitely an acquired taste.

4. A Respect for Patterns

As a PhD student, you work with a lot of experts in their fields. People who become experts in their field have done two things: made all the mistakes possible, and adhere to ‘industry accepted’ patterns. If you are not adhering to ‘industry accepted’ patters, people become confused. It will take more effort for them to understand what you are doing and that will make it harder for them to help you. Of course, an industry is a network of people working towards a similar goal, so standardization of protocols/terminology are important for collaboration.

Try to follow any accepted patterns. Any colleague who reads your work will be more likely to accept it and, more importantly, be comfortable contributing to your work. If you choose not to follow the patterns, then at least be aware of them so you can form specific opinions about why your pattern is better.

In closing, if you are someone that is considering becoming a PhD student, then you will hopefully gain an innate intuition in each of the above skill sets. But be aware that unless your research is directly inline with a company, or you want to become a professor, be prepared to go to back to school when you are done so you can learn ‘practical skills’. However, if you take it upon yourself to pursue a PhD, then a relentless pursuit of knowledge is probably something already in your blood.

Finally, to answer the question: if I could go back, would I do the PhD again? The answer for me is yes, definitely yes.

Special thanks to Maurice Heemels and Nathan van de Wouw at the Technical University Eindhoven for guiding me through my PhD and everyone at Telegraph Academy.