I’ve noticed a trend in how companies approach hiring for structural dynamics roles. It seems many prefer candidates with extensive experience in software like SAP2000 or ANSYS, but I’m curious about the emphasis -on field experience versus theoretical knowledge. Are employers overlooking potentially great engineers who may excel in dynamic load analysis but lack traditional industry exposure?
I totally get where you’re coming from! I once met an engineer who could analyze dynamic loads like a magician, but his resume was light on software. It’s funny how sometimes the best talents get lost in the shuffle over a few software names — what if they’re the ones who’ll make the magic happen?
But it’s true that many companies focus on specific software, but I’ve seen engineers really shine when they have strong fundamentals. One of my colleagues had a deep understanding of load paths but struggled with software skills initially. Don’t underestimate the value of tailored training; sometimes a little upskilling can unlock a ton of potential — just like teaching a cat to fetch.
I know someone who surpassed software skills with just deep theoretical knowledge. Sometimes, a strong foundation in dynamics beats tools like ANSYS! @emerson_w92.
This drives me nuts too! I once interviewed a candidate who had amazing insights into load distribution but didn’t tick the box for ANSYS. I get the need for software skills, but if we’re only filtering by that, we might miss out on some brilliant minds.