baroclinic_instability

Agreed. I agree with your assessment that some of the best meteorologists I have met were non-American. Great mets come from everywhere , I guess. Perhaps a discussion for a different thread, but great minds come from all backgrounds.

Yeah I knew this may come up. I am not stereotyping. I am explaining my experiences, and that is how it was. Simple fact was they were amazing research students, and their overall math background was light-years beyond the rest. As for forecasting, the group I knew didn't even try forecasting since it wasn't at the top of their agenda. Could they if they did? I would bet yes, and quite easily. Did I stereotype? NO.

Very interesting comment. Almost all Asian professors/students I have known/met are of Chinese descent and are obtaining some kind of graduate degree here in the states. Almost all are from China (born), and almost all have research aspirations. At UND, we had/have quite a few Chinese students and they were all very talented researchers with amazing mathematics backgrounds. None of them could forecast worth a lick either, but they had far better research backgrounds as a whole compared to their American counterparts.

This has been discussed in publications before. I think a recent BAMS article may have even had a blurb about this in a study regarding upper air analysis and undergraduates. John Knox's article in AMS regarding meteorology/atmospheric science employment from a few years ago as well? Either way, from experience, I say the 10-15% is about right.

Umm, the Anchorage one was the first I have seen in a very long time asking that question. Almost all intern openings don't ask anything about peer reviewed publications.

I don't remember exactly, but it started at zero of course then it ramped up quick. I think there were 5 bins skewed towards the low figures to account for the fact even most M.S degrees will likely only have one, maybe two if they did a really good senior project.

I am not, and I don't think he is either. It was a little absurd though because the higher bin went up to 18 peer reviewed published publications in a major journal.

I hear ya bud. Good luck to you, and I wish luck to everyone on here looking to eventually get into the NWS. It is a tough market, but hopefully hard work will get you and us through. I love meteorology too much to do anything else, and I plan to eventually get into NOAA someway/somehow because that is what I always wanted to do. Grad school looks likely. Grad school is becoming a likely scenario for me. I actually don't mind research, and I think my private weather experiences and my undergrad experiences will suit me well to research. I have a pretty strong programming background with a lot of numerical modeling experience.

Yeah that one was weird. I wonder how many folks besides post-docs have 18 peer reviewed publications.

Agreed. I think certain regions this is certainly more important, especially in mountainous zones or along the coasts where forecast difficulty increases exponentially.

This is nothing new. The private sector has long been a haven for new undergrads looking for experience.

I think we can chalk this one up to conflicting information. Also seems isohume may be on to something as well regarding what/amount of information they divulge. I wish I could get a straight answer, but it seems nobody truly knows.I truly hope I am wrong, but the latest trends seem to indicate some sort of change has occurred in the recent months.

From what I understood before, GS-9 for scientific positions (incuding met) had to be competed for. In other words, 5/7 veterans did not beat out GS/9 gold category non-vets. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

There is a difference. Panel is the top group who make an interview.

This is exactly what I thought too until I talked to NOAA Workforce mgmt. Both MIC's I have talked to and NOAA Workforce Mgmt have been pretty vague, but I have specifically asked if one vet blocks everyone, and the definitive answer has been yes. Just talked to NOAA Workforce mgmt for Alaska region and he said the same thing.

I don't think this is true since it would go against what NOAA Workforce management and the hiring MIC at my last interview passed along. Give NOAA workforce management a call, any of them. I was specifically told since Nov 1 they are more agressively hiring Veterans and now a veteran at 5/7/9 will block out a non-vet at any level. They only refer non-vets if too few vets apply. I was told by the NOAA Workforce manager in central that they use 5-7 as a general cutoff now. I was told by a different office MIC this last month that the one vet that was blocking all others was hired by a different office, hence why we were considered.

This is interesting because there is no definitive word on our end either. I have heard many conflicting reports from folks within the NWS, NOAA workforce, and hiring MIC's. Unfortunately the latest trends suggest veterans block everyone. That has been confirmed by NOAA workforce. The only hope now is that this ruling changes and/or there was something lost in translation. For now, we can only go off current trends, and those trends are nobody besides veterans are getting the intern openings, and those who made panels before no longer do because the hiring official deems the panel "over-populated" with veterans. In other words, if they think non-vets have no chance because too many veterans made 5/7/9, then they don't bother passing on non-vets.

http://www.americanw...post__p__120232 This thread doesn't explain it all, but any changes likely would have been made in concert with this. I can say, after talking to hiring MIC's and NOAA workforce, they have actually said that any vet grade 5-7-9 blocks out non-vets and they mentioned the Nov 1 change. Perhaps there was something lost in translation, but it seems to match the recent trends in a number of us not making any panels. I was also told by NOAA workforce management that the hiring official for the opening can decide if they choose to pass on non-vets if they believe too many veterans are on panel.

Check the job thread in the Met only forum. But yeah, after talking to 4-5 MIC's and NOAA workforce management, veterans now get all jobs 5-7-9 and non-vets are completely blocked. I believe November 1 was the ruling change. I can also confirm that after this ruling, I make far less panels, and the one interview I was lucky enough to get had the one veteran--who was on panel blocking everyone--eventually was hired at a different office...it was why we were eventually considered. The MIC said without him leaving he would have been given the job. This fits with what others have found as well. We discuss it more in the met only section.

These are good points, but a lot has changed since then. Most notable is the change in the veterans preference as before they were awarded additional points, now they are given the job. If a vet is on the panel at grade 5-7-9, after this new ruling passed down by Obama, they get the job. In other words, they will block out all other candidates from even being considered. Right now, since the November 1 ruling, veterans are pretty much blocking out everyone. Even positions in Alaska are being blocked by veterans. God Bless the veterans, but I wish being a veteran was not a requirement to get a job. Regarding SCEPS, that has become even more challenging, and apparently they moved all SCEP decision making to Maryland instead of allowing the regional headquarters to make the decisions. Word is SCEP applications have exploded and most who eventually get it have a way in already.

The atmosphere is a gas. We have to have a background in chemistry even if we don't use it much in meteorology. It is used quite often, however, in the fields atmospheric chemistry and climatological modeling, for instance.

That, combined with the RUC for the near-term...who needs forecasters?

Grades have nothing to do with how qualified you are. You should make the distinction between how qualified someone may be and how well they happened to perform in college. Thankfully employers look at other aspects including internship experiences, student projects, and forecasting/communications ability as opposed to simply basing qualification on grades. That would be silly. I think every undergrad student can name various students who had 4.0's and made the cirriculum look easy but couldn't forecast a lick or communicate with non-meteorologists without mentioning QG Omega/Chi. Thankfully employers don't look at grades only or I never would have had a chance based off my below average Calc grades. I guess that means I am unqualified? Moral of the story here to potential meteorology majors, don't quit just because your calculus scores happen to be low or you have a less than stellar GPA. It doesn't matter if you show dedication and hard work.