Job advice

Hello, I am currently a computer science major in my senior year at my university. I really want some advice. So I still have no idea on what I want to do after I graduate. I have not taken any internships or have an offer at all. I applied to so many companies and have gotten rejected and I have not gotten a single chance to take an technical interview or somewhat similiar. I have only taken less than 5 background interviews and still rejected. I have already improved my resume with so many languages and a few projects in class and clubs as well. My gpa is somewhat fairly decent. I have a mixed feelings of not wanting to continue with computer science and choose another career. I am not super good at programming would like to somewhat avoid doing some super hard development stuff.

What options should I think about? I would like to have some suggestions please.
Employers aren't only looking for programming skills, but also about how well a candidate fits in a team and can handle deadlines, maybe you're not confident enough.

It's hard to judge your programming skills without seeing code, a portfolio helps a lot, don't clutter your resume, use a portfolio for showing code. Get involved and contribute to an open source project, show that you actually have a passion for programming.

If you get to the technical part, remember that interview problems are completely different from production code. My advice is to get "Cracking the coding interview", do all the interview puzzles and questions from there and you will find interviews much easier.
Last edited on
Doesn't your university provide any help ?
What about job centres ?
Maybe try to find a professional career adviser ?
I am in my second year computer science. I heard contributing to other people's github project is helpful too. Also, you might want to find a team that is willing to build something for fun or just for learning experience.
I have already improved my resume with so many languages

Employers aren't looking for a laundry list of tools, because most of them are easy to learn, not all of them will be useful to your employer, and as a whole, a long list will probably fail to communicate anything meaningful about you or your abilities.

If you list tools, list the few you are most expert in, and that the particular employer is searching for. Communicate your expertise, but keep the list short, and pick the list items with purpose. Consider using the extra space for something else, or remove the content completely, if your paper could be shortened.

I've mentioned my philosophy about learning tools on this forum a few times. The idea is that unless you learn tools that challenge your way of thinking, the process won't teach you anything significant. Tools that don't teach you much are barely worth mentioning at all and have no place on a resume. Keep this in mind when trying to decide whether or not to list tools, and which tools to list.

Also, if you don't enjoy programming it's hardly a good idea to program for a living. In any event, consider posting your resume. You may get better feedback that way.
Last edited on
So if I know that I may not be a strong programmer, is it likely that I'll need to pick a new career that is not related to computers?
I thought computer science is much more than programming. So why not find an IT job without programming ?
So if I know that I may not be a strong programmer, is it likely that I'll need to pick a new career that is not related to computers?


Not in my opinion. You almost certainly don't need to leave the field entirely, or even to leave programming.

You will become a better programmer, as long as you put the effort in to improve. Entry-level candidates aren't expected to be experts, and school is supposed to be challenging. Do you believe you're not a decent programmer, or merely not "strong"?
Last edited on
So if I know that I may not be a strong programmer, is it likely that I'll need to pick a new career that is not related to computers?


That's a lazy excuse for lazy people. You aren't (inherently) good at something, you become good at something. Proficiency without (hard) work doesn't exist.

This is also a common mindset in art: "I can't draw because I haven't got any talent", you can't draw because you don't draw. I don't deny that some people have a natural talent, but that doesn't mean that people without it can't learn to draw, you can obtain talent.
Last edited on
That's not true. There's people who are inherently bad at X and have to work much harder than other people just to get to a passable level of proficiency. Someone who was born blind would be a terrible archer. A dwarf with no training would not be equally good at basketball as a normal person with no training.
At the entirely opposite end of the spectrum you have freaks like Mozart, who can perform complex activities well from the get-go, and then with practice get better even faster than normal people.

Yes, practice is important, since no matter who good you are inherently you can get better. But the role of genetics should not be disregarded.
Last edited on
Registered users can post here. Sign in or register to post.