29 and still interning - is it a career failure?

 

How to undergo another career transition ?

31 y/o. I have been working as a web developer since completing a code bootcamp in early 2020. I landed a great job, was able to support myself and was proud of it. Long story short I took a chance and left my comfortable job to join a startup and got let go within a few months. Had to move back with parents a year ago(a blessing) and have been driving uber and working short dev contracts for the last two years.

With the tech market “returning to normal”, AI, and everything else going on, it feels like web development and even software development are just not a stable career path. I feel that I must pivot once again but I have no idea what to do..I hope this isn’t too open ended but I feel lost and would greatly appreciate any guidance.

Jobadvisor

This is a rough spot to be in, and it makes sense you're feeling lost — you built something once, watched it get harder to hold onto, and now you're trying to figure out if it's even worth rebuilding in the same direction. Let me actually think through this with you rather than just offering generic pivot ideas.

A few things worth separating out, because they're getting tangled together:

"Web dev is unstable" vs. "my situation right now is unstable." These aren't the same thing. The tech market did contract hard after 2022, and entry-to-mid-level roles got more competitive — that's real. But you're not actually unemployed-and-starting-from-zero: you have 4+ years of experience, a track record of getting hired, and you've been doing contract dev work this whole time. That's a very different position than someone with a bootcamp cert and no experience trying to break in today. Worth being honest with yourself about which problem you're actually solving.

What actually failed wasn't your skill set. You took a risk on a startup and it didn't pan out — that happens to people constantly and it's not a verdict on whether development is a viable career. Startups fail or cut staff for a hundred reasons that have nothing to do with the person's competence.

So before jumping to "I need a totally new field," it's worth asking a more specific question: is it that you don't want to keep doing dev work, or that you don't trust the stability of dev work right now, or that the last two years of gig-contract instability have just worn you down and any path forward feels shaky? Those point to pretty different next moves — one is "explore adjacent or new fields," another is "find a way back to a stable full-time dev role," another is "the instability itself is the thing to fix, regardless of field."

Which of those feels closest to what's going on for you?

Anyone from global logistics field? NEED INSIGHTS!

I'm currently learning and self studying about global trade particularly in logistics domain and aiming to be freight forwarder. So is anyone in India from similar background or experience..?

As I've talked to few of my collegemates, they asked me India don't have such exposure for these career. (freight forwarding) and I should aim to move abroad like Singapore and Malaysia. But I want my stepping stone in India like some internships or entry level job.

Please guide me,!

Jobadvisor

It looks like this is a different Reddit post you're sharing rather than a continuation of your own situation — happy to dig into it either way. Here's a straight answer on the freight forwarding question:

Your collegemates are wrong that India lacks exposure. India has a genuinely large freight forwarding and logistics industry — it's just less globally known than Singapore's because Singapore markets itself as a trade hub. India moves enormous volumes of import/export cargo (ports like JNPT/Nhava Sheva, Mundra, Chennai, plus major air cargo hubs in Mumbai and Delhi), and there's a real ecosystem of forwarders, CHAs (customs house agents), NVOCCs, and logistics companies operating domestically. You don't need to leave the country to start.

Realistic entry points in India:

• Global players with India offices: DHL Global Forwarding, Kuehne+Nagel, DB Schenker, Expeditors, CEVA Logistics, Agility — these run structured graduate/entry-level programs and are a strong first stop because you learn standardized global processes.
• Strong Indian/regional players: Allcargo Logistics, TCI (Transport Corporation of India), Gati, Om Logistics, Seaways — good for hands-on exposure, sometimes faster growth into ops roles.
• CHA/customs brokerage firms near port cities — smaller shops, but this is where a lot of people learn documentation and compliance from the ground up.
• Freight marketplaces/tech platforms (Freightwalla, Cogoport, etc.) — decent if you want a more digital/ops-analyst entry rather than classic forwarding.

What actually gets you hired at entry level:

• A certification helps a lot here — look at IATA courses (if you want air freight/cargo agent credentials) or a diploma in international trade/logistics from an Indian institute (IIFT, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, is respected; there are also shorter diploma programs). Employers in this field weight practical documentation knowledge (bill of lading, letter of credit, HS codes, Incoterms) heavily, even at junior level.
• Internships: directly reach out to branch offices of the global players listed above in port cities (Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Mundra/Kandla area) — a lot of forwarding hiring happens locally and isn't heavily advertised on LinkedIn.
• Entry-level titles to search: "Customer Service Executive - Freight Forwarding," "Documentation Executive," "Import/Export Coordinator," "Junior Ops Executive."

On the "move abroad" advice — that's not wrong as a later move (Singapore/Dubai/Malaysia do pay better and are major trans-shipment hubs), but it's much easier to make that jump after 2-3 years of Indian experience with a known company, since those global forwarders often transfer people internally. Starting abroad with zero experience is a harder door to walk through than starting in India and moving later.

Want me to look into specific current openings or internship programs at any of these companies?

Which is better for getting a job in Chemistry: CSIR UGC NET or GATE?

Hi everyone,
I’m 26 and feeling quite confused about my career.
I completed my Master’s in Chemistry, then moved to Canada where I completed a postgraduate diploma in Clinical Research. I’ve now returned to India and am trying to rebuild my career.
Because of this journey, I have nearly a 3-year gap from my chemistry degree, and I’m worried about my career prospects in India.
I’m considering preparing for either CSIR UGC NET or GATE, but I’m not sure which would be the better choice for getting a stable job.
My goals are:
Better job opportunities.
A stable career with good growth.
Keeping my options open in industry as well as academia.
Given my background, would you recommend preparing for NET or GATE? Which one offers better career prospects? Or should I focus on applying directly for jobs instead?
I’d really appreciate advice from anyone who has been in a similar situation or knows the chemistry job market in India.
Thank you!

Jobadvisor

Let me check current details on both exams since eligibility/format details matter here and could have changed.Also worth flagging upfront: a significant change is expected from the December 2026 cycle with the introduction of a "Joint CSIR-UGC-DBT-JRF-NET Examination" that will streamline the selection process for Junior Research Fellowships across CSIR, UGC, and the Department of Biotechnology — so whichever path you lean toward, keep an eye on that transition since it could change format/timing.

On your actual question — these two exams aren't really competing for the same goal, so the "better" one depends on which door you want to open:

CSIR-UGC NET (Chemical Sciences) is built for the academic/research track. It's a single MCQ paper split into three parts: Part A covers general science, quantitative reasoning, and research aptitude; Part B is subject-specific; Part C tests deeper application of scientific concepts. Clearing it (especially with JRF) qualifies you for:

• Junior Research Fellowship — funded PhD-track research positions
• Assistant Professor eligibility at Indian universities/colleges — as per UGC regulations, qualifying NET is a mandatory criterion for teaching at higher education institutions, and it ensures the quality of educators entering the academic system in core science subjects
• Scientist-track roles at CSIR national labs and similar government R&D bodies

But it's not a magic ticket — while CSIR UGC NET grants eligibility, it does not guarantee a job; universities release their own recruitment notifications, and your NET score along with academic record and research experience, especially a PhD, plays a crucial role in getting shortlisted.

GATE (Chemistry) is the industry/PSU/higher-education-abroad route:

• Gateway to M.Tech/MS admissions with stipends (useful if you want to formally credential into a technical specialization rather than pure chemistry)
• Direct eligibility for PSU recruitment — companies like BHEL, NTPC, and IOCL run research positions in materials science, chemistry, and petrochemicals, with selection processes often involving a written exam sometimes based on GATE scores, followed by group discussions and interviews
• Also opens DRDO Scientist 'B' roles — the selection process involves a valid GATE score (sometimes exempted for PhD holders) or a written exam, followed by an interview

Given your specific profile, here's what actually matters: you have a 3-year gap that includes a clinical research diploma from Canada — that's not really a gap, it's an adjacent credential, and it changes the calculus a bit. If pure academia/teaching is genuinely what you want, NET is the direct path. But given your Clinical Research background, it's worth noting that a lot of CSIR/PSU project positions (see the CDRI and CECRI postings above) explicitly accept either NET or GATE as qualifying credentials for Project Associate roles — essential qualifications frequently list "M.Sc. Chemistry... and qualified CSIR-UGC/ICAR/ICMR NET including lectureship/assistant professorship or GATE" as interchangeable. That means for many industry-adjacent research jobs, you don't have to choose — either clears the bar.

So the real fork is about what career you actually want:

• Want to teach / go deeper into research / possibly PhD → NET is the more direct and relevant credential.
• Want industry, PSU, or a technical specialization (and possibly to leverage your clinical research background toward pharma/biotech-adjacent chemistry roles) → GATE opens more doors, especially combined with your Clinical Research diploma, which could position you well for pharma industry R&D.
• Want maximum optionality with one exam → GATE arguably keeps slightly more doors open (PSUs, M.Tech, some CSIR project posts) without shutting out academia later, since many project posts accept it as equivalent to NET.

One direct question: does your interest lean toward pure chemistry research/teaching, or toward something that bridges chemistry and your clinical research diploma (like pharma R&D, drug development, quality/regulatory)? That would sharpen which one is actually the better use of your prep time.

Why is it that being an introvert bothers your colleagues so much?

Some colleagues will look at you differently if you do not talk a lot, get lunch with them, go to their parties etc. As for you, you would rather go to work, do what needs to be done then go home. I’m not talking about being dead silent but mostly minding your own business.

Jobadvisor

This is a really common frustration, and it's worth separating out what's actually happening here, because I think a couple of different things get bundled under "introvert bias."

Part of it is genuinely unfair bias. Plenty of workplaces run on an unspoken assumption that visible sociability equals trustworthiness, team spirit, or even competence — people conflate "I see them chatting and joining things" with "I know them and like them," and that familiarity gets mistaken for a signal about work quality or loyalty. That's a real bias, and it's not something you did wrong by not participating in it.

But some of it isn't really about introversion specifically — it's about in-group formation. Humans build trust largely through repeated informal contact: lunches, small talk, parties. It's not that colleagues are offended by quietness itself; it's that they read your absence from those rituals as "opting out of the group," and people tend to feel a little rejected by that, even if that's not remotely your intent. You're minding your business; from their side, it can look like you've decided you're above the bonding stuff — even though that's not what's happening at all.

Why it "bothers" them specifically (rather than them just shrugging) usually comes down to one of these:

• They value team cohesion and worry a quiet person is a flight risk, disengaged, or hard to read — managers especially do this, since they can't tell if you're happy or checked out.
• Office culture treats visibility as a proxy for contribution — the person who talks in meetings and shows up to things gets remembered as "engaged" even if their output isn't better than yours.
• Some people are just uncomfortable with silence or ambiguity and unconsciously project meaning onto it ("are they judging us? do they not like us?") when there's no meaning to project.

What tends to actually help, if it's worth the effort to you: it's rarely about becoming chattier day-to-day. It's more about a few deliberate, low-cost signals of goodwill — showing up to the occasional lunch or party even briefly, a bit of small talk at the start/end of a meeting, being warm in the interactions you do have. That reads as "chooses not to overdo socializing" rather than "opted out of the team," which is a very different impression even though your actual behavior barely changes.

Is this something you're trying to navigate at a current job, or more just something you've noticed pattern-wise across jobs?

How much would I be ruining my life by quitting?

I (31) am seriously considering quitting my job this week because I can't handle it anymore :(.

Recently, I was giving a job to rewrite a document that is so poorly written it's awful and I know I'll never be able to do, at least in anywhere near the time I'm supposed. I'm not doing so well. Moreover, I can't handle my job anymore. I started here 4 years ago as a stepping stone to better things and I haven't done the things I wanted to in my career.

I still live at my mom's house and don't see how I'll be able to move out anytime soon. My company has thrown me under the bus a few times too.

I know I'll be setting myself back by at least a few years in life.

Would quitting my job be the end of my life? How bad would it be?

ATM I just can't handle it anymore and want to know how bad things will be when I leave.

Jobadvisor

This sounds genuinely overwhelming right now, and the fact that you're asking "how bad would it be" rather than just quitting on impulse tells me you're actually thinking this through carefully, even under a lot of pressure. That's worth noticing about yourself.

Let me answer the actual question directly: no, quitting a job is not the end of your life, and it doesn't "ruin" your life in any lasting sense — millions of people quit jobs they can't handle anymore and go on to rebuild, often better than before. The real question isn't "will this ruin me," it's "what does quitting without a plan cost me practically," and that's much more answerable and much less catastrophic than it feels at 11pm staring at an impossible document.

Here's the honest breakdown:

What quitting actually costs you:

• A gap in income, which matters more or less depending on your savings and whether you're living with your mom (which, practically, is a safety net here, not a failure — it buys you runway most people quitting a job don't have).
• Some awkwardness explaining a short tenure or a gap in future interviews — this is very manageable and interviewers have heard every version of "the role wasn't sustainable" or "I needed to step back for my wellbeing."
• Momentum loss — you'll need to job search again, which is its own stress, especially if you're already depleted.

What quitting does NOT cost you:

• Your entire career trajectory. Four years isn't a small stint, but it's also not your whole professional identity — you already know this job wasn't taking you where you wanted, by your own account.
• Your worth or competence. Being handed a document that's badly written and being told to fix it in an unreasonable timeframe is a structural failure of the job, not a referendum on your abilities.

The part worth sitting with before you decide: you said you "can't handle it anymore" — that's real, and I'm not questioning it. But there's a difference between this week is breaking me and this job is broken. If it's the former, it might be worth seeing if you can get even a few days of breathing room (sick day, talking to your manager about the timeline, anything) before making a permanent decision while in crisis mode. If it's the latter — which it sounds like, given the four years, the pattern of being thrown under the bus, and the stalled career — then quitting isn't reckless, it's overdue.

One practical note: if you can hold on even a few weeks while quietly looking for the next thing, you avoid the income gap entirely and walk into interviews from a position of "I'm looking for what's next" rather than "I have no job." That's not a rule you have to follow if you're at a breaking point, just something worth weighing given you have some stability at your mom's.

How close to a breaking point are you feeling right now — like, is this "I need out this week" territory, or is there room to catch your breath first?

Am I expecting too much from my manager's onboarding, or is this actually poor management?

I recently joined a very early-stage startup (it's basically just the founder and me). My role is Client Operations Manager.

Before I joined, I was given a beautifully written onboarding guide. It talks about a structured first week with things like:

• Daily discussions with the founder

• Walkthroughs of the company's sales process

• Shadowing sales and client calls

• Learning the company's frameworks

• Getting access to playbooks, templates, proposal examples, etc.

In reality, my experience has been very different.

On day one, I was given a few documents and access to tools I'd never used before (CRM, booking software, AI tools, etc.). There wasn't really a walkthrough. Instead, I was immediately assigned real client-facing operational tasks and expected to figure them out from documentation.

One example:
I had to configure a fairly complex booking/qualification system in software I'd never used before. The specification document was detailed, but because I lacked the business context and tool knowledge, I missed one configuration step that wasn't obvious. The founder wasn't happy with my work.

The pattern has been:

• Here's a document.

• Here's a new tool.

• Figure it out.

• Deliver something that meets my standards.

Another thing I've noticed is that almost everything revolves around Claude AI. The onboarding documents, specifications, playbooks, and even hiring assignments seem to be AI-generated or heavily AI-assisted. I don't have an issue with using AI (I use it myself), but sometimes it feels like AI is replacing actual onboarding and coaching rather than supporting it.

At the same time, I want to be fair.

I know startups are chaotic. I know founders are busy. I also know I have things to improve. Looking back, I probably should have:

• Asked for examples sooner.

• Validated my assumptions before completing an entire task.

• Asked more questions instead of trying to figure everything out myself.

So I'm genuinely trying to understand whether my expectations are unrealistic.

For people who've worked in early-stage startups:

• Is this kind of "throw you in the deep end" onboarding normal?

• Is it reasonable to expect a new hire to perform at the founder's level within the first week?

• Is relying heavily on AI-generated documentation instead of walkthroughs becoming common?

• Where should I be taking more responsibility, and where do you think the management could be better?

I'm not looking to complain or blame anyone. I genuinely want to know whether I need to adjust my expectations or whether this onboarding process would be considered difficult by most people.

Jobadvisor

Both things you're weighing are true at once, so let's untangle them rather than pick one verdict.

Is "throw you in the deep end" normal at early-stage startups? Yes. Founders are often stretched too thin to do structured onboarding, documentation lags reality, and new hires frequently learn tools by doing rather than by training. That part of your experience isn't unusual and isn't really a red flag on its own.

Is the gap between the written plan and the actual experience a problem? Also yes. There's a real difference between "we're scrappy and you'll learn by doing" and "here's a polished onboarding doc promising daily discussions, shadowing, and walkthroughs, none of which happened." The second one is a trust issue, not just a chaos issue. It suggests either the doc was aspirational and never operationalized, or it was generated as a deliverable (maybe by AI) without anyone actually planning to execute it. Either way, it's reasonable for you to have expected at least some of what was promised, and reasonable to feel a bit misled when none of it materialized.

On performing at founder-level in week one: no, that's not a fair expectation, and being unhappy with a first deliverable that involved a brand-new tool and missing business context is more on the manager than on you. A missed configuration step in software you'd never touched, with no walkthrough, is a predictable outcome of the process, not a sign you're underperforming.

On AI replacing onboarding: using AI to draft playbooks and specs is increasingly common and not inherently bad. But there's a difference between "AI helps us document faster" and "AI-generated docs are the entire onboarding, with no human context-setting." Documents can't answer "why do we do it this way" or catch that you're about to miss a step — a person walking through it with you can. If a spec is detailed but assumes context you don't have, that's a documentation problem, not a you problem.

Where you could reasonably take more ownership, per your own instinct: asking for a working example before delivering a full task, flagging assumptions before you're deep into execution, and treating "I'm not sure this is right" as a checkpoint to raise rather than something to resolve solo. That's a fair adjustment regardless of how good the onboarding is.

Where the management could be better: the plan itself set expectations it didn't deliver on, there was no verification step before you were evaluated on a first deliverable in unfamiliar tools, and "documentation exists" was treated as equivalent to "onboarding happened." Those are fixable, and worth naming — not as blame, but because if you're staying, you'll want to explicitly renegotiate what onboarding support looks like going forward, since the current pattern will probably keep repeating on the next tool or process too.

If it'd help, I could draft a short, non-confrontational message to your founder proposing something concrete — like a quick 15-minute walkthrough before new tools/tasks, or a first draft/check-in before final delivery — so you're not stuck relitigating this each time.

29 and still interning - is it a career failure?

Hi everyone, I’ve been feeling very anxious about my situation. I need to get this off of my chest.

Background info: I’ve never been someone who knew what to eat for lunch, much less what to do with my life. I’ve thought about every possible job, at some point. Doctor, lawyer, painter, firewoman, everything.

Got several degrees because I didn’t know what to focus on, they’re pretty useless, to tell you the truth. I still don’t know what I want to do when I „grow up”, just keep constantly figuring things out as they come.

I started interning during my studies, when I was 23. I got into doing PR work for one startup during summer, then marketing for a big corporation, a year later. Decided it wasn’t for me, switched to IT: a summer internship, another internship, and finally a full time position. Again, decided that position wasn’t for me, took a year long break to travel a little and gain qualifications needed for my next venture. Got into a very prestigious company as an intern.

So, that’s where I am today: doing yet another internship at 29. While every other intern I meet is 22, maybe 24 tops.

I stopped mentioning my age to others because, quite honestly, I’m deeply ashamed. There’s also a lot of young managers, younger than me, who were assigned as our buddies and I feel embarrassed each time I’m asked which uni I’m attending, if this is my first job, etc.

I also feel like other interns change their attitude towards me a little, once they learn of my background. Like I’m no longer part of the group. So, I’m also a little lonely due to this.

What’s your take on this situation? Would you find it weird if you were to manage/work with an almost 30 year old intern? How to stop feeling like I wasted all of my 20s, while my peers and younger adults make it to senior positions?

Jobadvisor

No, this isn't a career failure — but I understand why it feels like one when you're surrounded by 22-year-olds and doing the math on where "everyone else" is.

Let's separate the facts from the story you're telling about them, because they're pointing in different directions.

The facts: You've had PR experience, marketing at a large corporation, multiple IT roles including a full-time position, deliberate travel and upskilling, and now a role at a prestigious company. That's not directionless drifting — that's a person who tried things, made honest assessments of fit, and kept moving. Most 29-year-olds haven't touched that many functions or industries. Some of what looks like "still figuring it out" from the inside reads as "unusually broad, deliberately gathered experience" from the outside.

The story: that this makes you behind, embarrassing, or a waste of your 20s. That's not a fact, it's an interpretation — and it's one you're measuring against a very narrow yardstick (age at internship stage) while ignoring a much more relevant one (skills, adaptability, self-knowledge). Someone who's 29 and knows precisely what doesn't fit them, and why, is generally in a stronger position than someone who's 25 and has never had to find out.

A few things worth naming directly:

Would it be weird to manage a 29-year-old intern? Genuinely, no — not to most people who've been in the workforce a while. It might register as slightly unusual for half a second, then it becomes irrelevant, because what matters day to day is whether you're competent, easy to work with, and adding value. The interns who shift their attitude once they learn your age are, frankly, revealing something about them, not about you. You're not obligated to keep their good opinion by hiding facts about your life.

On feeling like you wasted your 20s: it might help to notice that this frame assumes there was a "right" path you deviated from. There wasn't one — there was just a series of real decisions, made with the information you had at the time, that got you real experience. Regret is a heavier word than what actually happened, which is: you explored, and exploring costs time. That's a trade, not a failure.

Practically, going forward: the shame about your age seems to be doing more damage right now than the age itself. Concealing it is costing you connection with your cohort and probably costing you energy you could spend elsewhere. It might be worth deciding, once, what you'll say when it comes up — something brief and neutral, said the same way each time, so it stops feeling like a confession. Something like mentioning you took a more varied route to get here. The people worth being close to won't care much past a beat of surprise; the ones who do care aren't the ones whose approval you need.

If it'd help, I'm glad to think through how you'd want to talk about your path in interviews or with colleagues — since reframing how you narrate it to others is often the first step to changing how you narrate it to yourself.