Alright y'all, let's talk about how to write a data science resume coming from academia

I'm not going to pretend to be the final word on what a good resume is, and I've noticed some themes while trying to help people

Let's ride
My high-level advice is:
1. Get the resume onto 1 page
2. Give yourself credit for progression
3. Show don't tell re: coding + analysis

More details for how to do each of those + resources in the rest of the thread!
1. Get the resume onto 1 page

Folks coming from academia have a lot of fantastic experiences, and the success of a CV is primarily measured in length

Not here

Some application systems will cut off anything after the 1st page, and recruiters spend ~5-20 seconds per resume
What should you drop to get onto 1 page?

- Summary/mission statements (your experiences should speak to this)
- Relevant courses (folks don't care what you took, they care what you can do)
- Positions not related to DS (you can wow them with clinical experience in the interview)
If you're having trouble getting your resume onto 1 page, I'd recommend using this template by @GergelyOrosz

It was originally designed for software engineers applying to tech jobs, and its simplicity + focus on deliverables ports well to Data Science

blog.pragmaticengineer.com/the-pragmatic-…
2. Give yourself credit for progression

Resumes from academia can make people look like they were "stuck" at one level for a long time when nothing could be further from the truth

The lack of formal title progression inside academic structures can hold folks back
Translate your progress into something a data science recruiter can understand

Generally, I recommend PhD students "level" their first 2 years as Data Analyst, the next 2 years as Senior Data Analyst, and the final year(s) of their PhD as Data Scientist
These titles accurately reflect the progression of what a lot of PhD students looking to move to data science positions have experienced!

Of course, this is only one example, and please don't do anything that you feel doesn't accurately reflect your progression
But don't sell yourself short!

Data science recruiters operate with limited information + time. If your most recent title is "Clinical Psychology PhD Candidate" they won't be able to make the translation on their own
People perform an absurd variety of roles in academia, give yourself the most relevant title for the job you're applying to
3. Show don't tell re: coding + analysis

Under each of your levels, you'll want bullet points (This isn't the only way to do the resume, but I've come around to it!)

Each bullet will focus on the data science-specific value you've created using skills employers want you to have
A lot of folks are wise to the idea of using action verbs + quantifying things

The problem tends to be they talk about technical quantities ("Ran ML algorithm with an R2 = 0.48") instead of business-value quantities ("Reduced churn from a digital mental health product by 8%")
I recommend people start each bullet point with the real-world value the analysis or project created

Then show which tools + techniques you used to create that value
A concrete example:

Instead of "Ran multilevel models on over 80,000 participants to quantify changes in psychopathology and published 7 papers"

Try "Delivered 7 mission-critical reports to technical stakeholders based on multilevel analyses conducted using brms in R"
How to exactly quantify + translate value will differ based on field, so brainstorming with #AltAcChats who share your background can help!

You can also follow @AltAcChats for more resources. Their conversations extend beyond data science, so you can also explore other paths
Conclusions/Reflections

I hope this is a helpful resource for folks! I'm sure some folks will have different opinions, and that's great + expected

Resume evaluation is often a bit of a black box, and I don't want to pretend to have any silver bullets
Also, my resume looked like this when I got my first data science job

An updated version is in the works, and you'll notice this version doesn't meet a lot of the standards I set out in this thread!

mcmullarkey.github.io/resume_markdow…
How do I reconcile that?

I'm trying really hard not to give advice solely from a "just do what I did" perspective

That resume got *me* a data science job, and I had a lot of non-generalizable advantages
I know "just do what I did" still infects my advice

And several things make me pretty sure my exact path to a data science job isn't replicable (My positionality + privilege, competing well in a live-streamed ML competition, being mildly Twitter-known, probably other things!)
Still, that old resume is proof you can get a data science job without following this advice!

I'm just doing my best to smooth the way for folks who don't have all the (unearned) built-in advantages I do

Open to good-faith feedback, have no time for "why leave academia??"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Michael Mullarkey

Dr. Michael Mullarkey Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mcmullarkey

Nov 2, 2021
Y'all, I'm a bit shaken

This study showed *increases* in depression & other bad outcomes after folks in the general population started therapy

The causal inference was sophisticated + across two large samples in US & Germany

Authors also cautioned against overinterpreting
A 🧵
For example, folks who are seeking out therapy could have gotten even worse over time if they hadn't seen a therapist (There are other potential alternative explanations as well)

Still, we should take any possibility therapy is making people worse on average seriously
If this result feels really counter to other results you've seen, you're not alone! There's even a meta-analysis from some of the same authors showing people in ~117 therapy randomized control trials (RCTs) tend to see helpful changes

doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi…
Read 16 tweets
Oct 22, 2021
I really enjoyed this @RottenInDenmark piece, and I've been thinking about its applications to other "knowledge work" like science and science communication

It's much easier to seem savvy than do the work required to get actionable insights

A 🧵

michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/savvy-pundit…
A better, shorter shorter version of my thread on why "it depends" can be an empty phrase:

When people say "it depends" they are often performing savviness - appearing practical, perceptive, and hyper-informed - rather than providing any real insight

Performing savviness is one way we LARP our jobs in knowledge work

LARPing our jobs = "show[ing] evidence that LOOK, OVER HERE, I AM WORKING." - @annehelen

There's systemic pressure to show we're working way more often than we can make good end products

annehelen.substack.com/p/larping-your…
Read 8 tweets
Oct 13, 2021
Sloppy data science from > 10 years ago and a viral thread filled with mental health treatment misinformation this week: A horror story

🧵
More than 10 years ago, a landmark new theory about how human memory works dropped in a major scientific journal

The oversimplified jist: Having someone recall a scary memory makes it so you can more easily modify or even erase that memory during a limited period of time
This theory had HUGE implications for treating all kinds of anxiety, and especially post-traumatic stress disorder

Imagine the promise of being able to erase, or at least make way less scary, a memory that's haunted you for decades
Read 23 tweets
Oct 7, 2021
One trope coming out of the Big Tech & mental health discussions is the presumed weakness of self-reported well-being

Folks don't have perfect insight into what impacts their mental health

And how folks perceive their own well-being is more important than any "objective" metric
I've found this thought exercise helpful

A close friend tells you they're having a hard time getting out of bed every day and feeling really down

They get a new Not-Theranos blood test that "detects depression" and test negative

Do you believe your friend or the blood test?
This dynamic is what makes most mental health diagnoses simultaneously much trickier and much easier than most physical health diagnoses

Even if we don't expect perfect insight, how people feel about their lives often matters more than any "objective" test
Read 5 tweets
Oct 1, 2021
If you ever want to sound like an expert without paying attention, you only need two words in response to any question

"It depends"

A thread on why we should retire that two word answer 🧵
When people say "it depends" they often mean the effect of one variable depends on the level of at least one other variable

For example:
You: Does this program improve depression?
Me, Fancy Expert: Well, it depends, probably on how depressed people were before the program
Understandably you'll want some evidence for my "it depends"

Luckily my underpaid RA has already fired up an ANOVA or regression, and *I* found that how depressed folks were before the program moderated the effect of the program

"It depends" wins again?

Nope, so many problems
Read 23 tweets
Sep 30, 2021
Figuring out what causes what is SO HARD

And especially if you have a psych background, you might think we *need* an experiment to understand causes

While I love experiments, here's a thread of resources on why they're neither necessary nor sufficient to determine causes 🧵
This paper led by @MP_Grosz is a great start! It persuaded me that merely adjusting our language (eg saying "age is positively associated with happiness" instead of "happiness increases with age") isn't enough

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
If our underlying research question is causal, we still need causal methods! But if they're not just experiments, what are the options?

Luckily for us @dingding_peng has a must-read primer on using causal methods with non-experimental data

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25…
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(