If you are talking about think-cell: about 1.5 years ago, I applied, but was rejected after the programming test (even though they liked my CV and had to admit that the C++ code that I sent in was of decent quality).

Let me put it this way: I am more of a deep thinker than a fast thinker and (to put it in mathematical terms) more of a theory maker than a problem solver (i.e. I prefer Alexander Grothendieck over Paul Erdős, even though, of course, both were great mathematicians).

So, I was not capable to solve the hard algorithmic problem that think-cell had in their programming test in the given 9 hours; not for a lack of C++ skills, but for a lack of experience in developing "crazy" data structures and rather being a deep thinker/theory maker instead of a fast thinker/problem solver.

Don't take it the wrong way and don't take it personally, but herein may lie the problem: companies are rarely looking for a deep thinker, but for said problem solver and someone getting shit done. At least, that's what most software development is about. Building things that can be sold.

That is why I wrote "(to put it in mathematical terms)": also Grothendieck and his scholars solved hard problems.

If you compare mathematical style of the mentioned Alexander Grothendieck and Paul Erdős, you will sense that they represent very different styles of doing mathematics. That is what I am referring to.

Solving interview problems is something that can be trained fairly effectively. Investing a few dozen hours into doing that improves your chances in coding interviews a lot. I tanked my first job interview (at Google) because I didn't know how to prepare. The next interviews I did much better.

Oh hey, I figured out why you can't get a job as a software developer. You didn't mention in your first post you refuse to get good at interviews.

Solving hard algorithmic problems in a job interview is a very uncommon interview practice in Germany. In all other job interviews that I had, the programming questions were ridiculously easy. UPDATE: I actually got rejected in one job interview because I knew too much about some quite subtle details of the C++ language (claimed reason: I am not "sufficiently pragmatic" as a programmer).

But I actually did solve some really hard algorithmic questions in my doctoral thesis - they are just of a very different kind than the "algorithmic brainteasers" that seem to be common in job interviews in the Silicon Valley.

I'd say for most jobs you are overqualified and people are afraid you would be bored after some time. If I were you I'd apply at an institute like the DFKI, I'm sure they would be glad to have you and provide you with a good challenge.

The things recruiters told you ("not sufficiently pragmatic" or that you belong in academia)... they didn't tell you this to talk down to you but to give you hints.

> The things recruiters told you ("not sufficiently pragmatic" or that you belong in academia)... they didn't tell you this to talk down to you but to give you hints.

I would have loved to stay in academia. The problem, why I left academia is the infamous Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz, which gives you an employment ban on temporary contracts in academia after 6+6 years. Since nearly every employment contract in science is temporary, this actually implies a nearly complete employment ban in science after at most 12 years.

I think you can stay longer if your position is paid for by a private party instead of publicly funded. That could very well be the case at an institute. Maybe reach out to them, best a professor and explain your situation.

Link in german:

https://www.forschung-und-lehre.de/die-zehn-haeufigsten-irrt...

Nr 3