In this case, you probably have a few options. The one would be to volunteer at a local High Tech police unit and get some experience that way.
Unfortunately that wont be an option in most cases; to work in a HTCU or in a firm that does work on behalf of a HTCU you'll need security clearance which can take several weeks/months to gain - not a process most organisations will be willing to undertake for a placement position.
.I believe Cheshire have started taking on students for imaging/grunt work. More may do in a recession.
I also recall having a friend who did a year in CCL as part of his degree, might be worth a look.
Yep, as I say most don't some will.
Now, I understand that they will want to take on good people, but surely the point of a placement is for the employer to make me exceptional. Found that quite odd.
This seems to me to be par for the course for modern youth - we have a society that seems to believe that they are entitled to everything.
Agree with you that that attitude stinks but I don't think it's new. To paraphrase JFK "Ask not what forensics can do for you - ask what you can do for forensics". wink
xxxx
As far as I'm aware, purely volunteer. Check with them though.
Been on to CCL and they don't have anything but I'll look into Cheshire, is that volunteering or paid do you know?
Who have you been to? How many CV's have you sent out? - I would have thought the different HTCUs would have been one of your first points of call - I dont think Cheshire is too far from you either.
Why dont you post your CV here for some constructive criticism
xxxxx
I think a brief look at your CV (and thats all it will get initially from a busy employer) possibly shows the root of the problem - one page of A4 and just 5 lines of relevant material - surely after two years at uni you can say more about forensics than that.
As said before you need to sell yourself - explain wha the modules are about, what did you enjoy, what did you excel at, what have you done above and beyond the sylabus…..
xxx
It's not uncommon to want little more than a 1 page CV, just basing it on my old man's experience (who's worked in a ton of companies over his lifetime), there have been numerous occasions where they would simply bin X proportion if they didn't have a degree, or were too many pages, or some other arbitrary reason - simply because of the volume of applicants they were never going to read them all fully.
On the CV point, personally i'd get rid of the CSI stuff. There must be a bazillion people who've watched CSI and suddenly wanted to do xxxx, i'd shy away from saying that's the reason on a CV personally as I think you'd be risking the 'oh no not another one' reaction (even if it is the case) wink
As Paul says, there's not too much forensics related in there, the experience bit takes up a big chunk of the page, i'd possibly have that smaller at the end somewhere as it's not really relevant to the job, and have a bigger paragraph on why they should pick you from the 50 other forensics students applying for the same placement role. Think why would they want you above anyone else.
(on a side note - i'd say considerably more than half of it comes down to personal opinions of who's interviewing you if it gets that far, whether they think you'll fit in / like you, be reliable, up to it technically, so and and so forth. When you have a raft of people to pick from, falling down in just one category is likely enough to rule you out!)
Rich
xxxxx
If I may bring back the topic to it's "generalistic" (as opposed to computer forensic related only) nature of "people not willing to help beginners", I would like to throw in my personal experience, in another field.
Many, many years ago, companies made profits.
These profits allowed - not all, but - many company owners/representatives to "bet" on people.
I mean typically you employed in each office/section/branch one or more "newbies", often not fully "formally educated" and watched how they grew up over a limited period of time (inside the company).
Many ended up not being confirmed after this initial "trial period", but a few showed all the capabilities and qualities to become - in due time - a pillar of the company.
The cost for these internships were negligible (due to the relatively high profits) and when you found, say one out of twenty, outstanding person, he/she would re-pay in time the cost of the other nineteen "failures".
Times have changed.
On one side
- profits (if any) are at the lowest possible level
- formal education has been "pushed up" till it became a "basic requirement" for anything
- additionally most universities/school (they have to survive also after all) tend to send the (actually false) message that once you have graduated with them you will be "top notch" and companies/firms will hire you as soon as you show at their front door because of your academic achievements
- companies/firms were either growing or being static in size since years (and the idea of resizing, downsizing or recession wasn't even take into consideration)
- once you had a job, if you behaved and worked hard, you could have it for a lifetime, and if you were smart and willing it was very likely you could escalate to the management level during your career
On the other
- there are too many (academically) qualified people, or at least too many for the amount of jobs available
- the cost of company internal training has risen and notwithstanding the (theoretical) quality assurance campaigns companies are not interested as they were before to internal resources and to the quality of whatever they do, they prefer (or *need*) to outsorce anything to cut the costs
- you can find experienced professionals (free-lance) to do the job (well) for a smaller cost than what you would have by having the job done (possibly not so well) by a hired beginner (or you can have an external source to do a very poor job, but for a fraction of the cost - just think about the use of "call centers" for assistance to customers)
- people (that used to be once the actual company's most valuable assets) have become "expendable" you just get someone for three or six months, then you fire him because the market is low, and since usually you can choose between complete newbies and experienced personnel at very similar costs and you don't have anyway time - even if you would like to - train them, you get the one that is already familiar with the procedures/tools/whatever.
- there has been a trend with people that (in a perfectly understandable attempt to better their wage/income, call it work mobility or simply flexibility) as soon as they got the hang of it, left the company for your direct competitor, thus vanifyng the costs you had while training them
All in all it is a degradation of the market laws, that makes harder for beginners to start, and deprives the company/firm of trusted, reliable, internally formed professionals.
jaclaz
P.S.
On the topic of CV's, I find the (I presume US originated) tendency to describe (often at great length) personal interests and hobbies to be disturbing. 😯
As an employer I couldn't care less if in your free time you collect butterflies or play squash or like to knit wool!
I am interested in what you do mon/fri 8/17 when you are in the office, and actually having too many "hobbies" is something that always makes me think about how much you care for the actual job and how much you care for your "outside" interests, and how big is the part of your brain dedicated to these latter activities when you are working.
Also, if you apply for a "high skill" job, your (BTW fully respectable) experience as phone sanitizer
http//
appears not only irrelevant, but also perplexing. D
P.P.S. Specifically what kind of impression do you get from someone that posts in place called
General Discussion
Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
when there is a Forum called
Getting Started
Considering a career in computer forensics? Looking for advice on how to get started? Please post questions along these lines to THIS FORUM ONLY, thank you.
?