How to Quit a Top Tier Tech Job
oliverzheng.comAbout a year ago, I quit my job at Apple because I wasn't able to apply my technical skills in my role and I was not successful in transferring to another department (full blog post: http://minimaxir.com/2017/05/leaving-apple/ | HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14270897)
Despite the loss of a salary and frustration in getting another job (Tweetstorm about data science job hunting: https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/951117788835278848), quitting was 100% the correct move in retrospect.
I'm currently about to quit Microsoft and am going through the exact same set of questions in my head. I joined the company a few months ago and am blown away by how bad the culture is - or how badly I fit into the culture, take your pick.
If you don't fit the culture, it's time to leave.
A massive issue with Microsoft's college recruiting pipeline (this may not apply to you) is that college hires are placed pretty much arbitrarily without input from the hire themselves.
People interested in backend work get placed on frontend, people interested in frontend work get placed on backend. As a result, retention for Microsoft college hires is rather poor. Contrast this with Google where once you're selected you're often given a choice of a few teams and you can indicate your preference.
I have had the exact opposite experience.
The first thing I was asked when I interviewed with Microsoft was what I wanted to do and what I wanted to avoid. I said, no frontend, something related to distributed systems and they put me up for interviews with an Azure team.
With Google, it was like "interview first, accept the offer before knowing where you are going to be placed, and we will put you in some team".
These are good anecdotes to share. A few years ago when I was a Microsoft college hire I got my impression from gathering anecdotes from others, but maybe it's better now!
Google absolutely has the problem you described and I forgot to mention it in my prior comment. With Google you have no clue what team you'll be on when you're evaluating the offer, but once you've accepted the offer you're given more choice with regards to placement.
That's a really interesting comparison. I've worked at Microsoft and got an offer from Google and found the opposite to be true. I was first offered by the team I interned with, whom I liked, and accepted, so I knew where I was going.
On the Google case, even being an industry hire, it was like pulling teeth to figure out where the offer actually was, and who I would be working for, and being able to actually speak with them (as your manager is key to success). I was also told during the interview that they just interview you in general at Google, not for a particular team, which was also unsettling.
What you say is completely true. If you were an intern at Microsoft you can be pretty sure you're returning to that team (unless there's a reorganization). With Google you have no idea what team you'll end up on when you're evaluating an offer.
However, once you accept a Google offer you're given more choice as to what team you'll be on. With Microsoft (if you weren't a returning intern) you're given very little to no choice and it can be quite arbitrary where you end up.
Certainly both of these systems have massive flaws, but I think the Microsoft system would lead to far lower retention for non-intern college hires.
Sort of true. You get accepted to a division at Microsoft (as a new grad) and if there's headcount on multiple teams for someone of your level you can choose between them. A lot of the time there's only one team that is willing to take on a junior engineer.
This is what I was told when I interviewed with Microsoft... Day of they said "you're interviewing with the SQL Server team" and I was like wtf...
I worked full time as a software engineer before I finished my CS degree, but I wasn't really happy with my situation and wanted to do something else. As I was interviewing with companies through the my university's Career Services department, I recall being complimented by several interviewers on how specific I was regarding my goals and desired position. I wanted to work on a specific OS/platform with specific languages.
I guess I was lucky because I'd already had relevant experience, so I knew exactly what I did and did not want to do. Luckily, the offer I went with was up-front and I ended up doing exactly what I wanted to do.
Playing devils advocate, could it be a lack of experience that is the issue with new hires?
I stayed at Microsoft a lot longer than I should have because I could not imagine what I wanted to do next. That experience ground away at my self-confidence, every day I was there, and I should have left much sooner. Only after leaving did I start to unwind enough that I could imagine other possibilities worth pursuing.
I've heard that the culture varies widely between groups, but the culture in the Visual Studio group was not one which ever had any hope of creating space for me to use the skills and creative outlook everyone genuinely seemed to believe they were hiring me for. If you don't fit the culture, then yes, I agree, leave as soon as you can.
Out of curiosity, which part of Microsoft have you joined? The culture in large companies can vary greatly between divisions.
What aspects of the culture do you not like?
Yes, that's very true of course. I came from a large enterprise company (100,000+ employees) so I know it's really only your immediate team culture that matters.
I joined Microsoft Canada. Perhaps Corp HQ is different, but here in the sub it quickly became clear that a culture of fear and CYA is alive and well. There are dozens of meetings where the primary objective is to make sure that the organizer doesn't get blamed for stuff.
Honestly, what blew me away even more was the terrible quality of execution. It's 2018, and apparently it's impossible to embed a reg form into a page. Everyone agrees that we should do it, but no one is willing to take responsibility. I tried, but multiple teams agreed that it's not my job to do it - it's not their job either, apparently, but it's definitely not mine!
I'm sure Microsoft is a great place to work (I was excited to join as well), and maybe I just got really unlucky with my manager, but the idea of spending my days writing emails for CYA and not focusing on a great customer experience is not my idea of what I want from a job.
Another anecdote - planning and strategy is done by FTE (full time employees), but the execution is often left to vendors - and no one really cares whether customers see a high quality outcome. It's almost comical how bad some things are.
Sigh, I don't mean this to be a rant, but maybe someone else reads this.
At the end of the day, no job is worth being unhappy at - or worth compromising your own personal integrity (to be clear - here I mean my desire to provide great customer experiences - MS is a very ethical and honest company in my experience)
Can confirm. The variety of team cultures I've seen at Microsoft so far is insane, and my guess is that it would be the case for other similarly-sized tech companies. The range has been all the way from atrocious to good to great, with no particular leaning towards one (unlike what I heard about Amazon, though)
Agreed. Softie > 5 years, dramatically different culture amongst the three teams I've been in.
"Joined a few months ago" "blown away by culture".
I don't work at MS but generalizing a companies culture by working for a few months is silly. I've worked for 3 years at a big 4 and have seen excellent culture and poor culture and something in the middle. Don't generalize a company by your departments poor culture, there could be shining stars elsewhere.
I don't know if we know one another, but the same here: quit my job of many years at Apple (engineering, very good rank, loved Apple) because I also wasn't able to apply my technical skills, and transferring to another department is really hard to time such that it works.
Same here, left same company, for similar reasons. It was also about advancement though. Once you’re at level 4 it takes god like technical skills and a lot of political showing-off to get promoted to level 5 or move into management. If you’re an “up or out” kind of person you’re going to be frustrated there!
Do you remember hearing the saying: “It’s easier to get hired at [other very selective tech company] than to move internally at Apple”? So true!
Diagonal promotion is a real thing across Silicon Valley.
I believe it is because the company that currently employs you knows you relatively well, both your upsides and your downsides, it has seen your good code and your bad code. It has you, and knows your level of work, and assumes you will keep going, regardless.
Whereas the new company has much more limited information and, as it needs someone more, it has to take the plunge.
Other people in the linked HN discussion had similar experiences. It's genuinely weird.
Yeesh, the mindwash is strong. I had a hard time continuing to read this post after the Prestige by Association section. Working at a respected company known for cutting edge work is generally a good sign but it does not make you an Internet God or widen my eyes.
It is like saying you went to Harvard or MIT. That's neat. You are probably reasonably intelligent. However, even that isn't an automatic and I'll reserve judgement until I've made my own assessment.
Association and Reputation puts people into seats on premier nights, or on the streets outside Apple stores, or gets a foot in the door in business. Its a real thing, and people are wise to leverage it whenever they can!
Leverage it and treating it as gospel aren't the same.
Why would anyone confuse the two?
Good on you, but you're also kidding yourself. First impressions matter---and hearing someone went to MIT or Harvard or works at GoogFace immediately implies that they passed their rigorous vetting. In the absence of more information and the time to process it, it's a pretty strong signal.
It also matters socially. I went to an Ivy League grad school and a no-name undergrad, so I can provide a point of anecdata that people treat you differently.
> Working at a respected company known for cutting edge work is generally a good sign but it does not make you an Internet God or widen my eyes.
I suggest you take a walk in the real world.
What real world are you referring to? Non-techies are not blown away by people who work at Google/Facebook/Apple. In my experience they are just always interested in the perks, etc.
What? My experience was the complete opposite of yours. Not a single tech person I interacted with even batted an eye if someone said they worked at Google, most of the time you will just get "nice, what team?" When talking to non-tech people, a lot of them tend to think that everyone working at Google is a super genius changing the world.
EVERY tech article about the hot new startup introduces the founders in the following way. If they previously worked at Google, Facebook, they mentioned it. They don't say "founders previously worked at Google therefore THEY'RE AMAZING". But they mention it. If they previously worked at an irrelevant company, they don't mention the company. What's implicit is that if you worked at Google that's remarkable and worth mentioning.
That is prestige by association. If you can't see it.... well, I just hope it's not because you're in denial.
EDIT: Also, VCs. It's a lot easier to get a VCs attention, or a recruiter's attention, if you say you previously worked at Google. If any of this is news to you, I don't know what else to tell you...
>EVERY tech article about the hot new startup introduces the founders in the following way.
No it doesn't. Just because you see some articles do that doesn't mean all articles do it.[1] Also, keep in mind that the people writing these articles usually understand tech much better than the layman so that's still not evidence of the general public giving a shit about googlers.
Same with schools. If they’re from Stanford I guarantee the article will mention it. If they’re from Generic State University they won’t (unless the article is for GSU’s campus paper).
Yes, if you work for Facebook right now, you might cause a few eyes to actually narrow.
You might not and I agree with you but HR and the recruiting function wont.
As I understood it, the author didn't really claim that working at such a company makes you a god or super hacker, just that it might give you such a reputation among certain circles (not you, but others perhaps) - which many people will derive confidence from. Seems like a reasonable statement.
The article seems to be less about what some objective truth about good jobs is but more about how people perceive themselves, others and their goals in life.
My experience isn't the same as yours. It probably depends on your circle. For my non tech circle, I always come across as some kind of hero, which is amusing. When entering the country, even the immigration officers like to make small chat about my high tech job. But I don't mind it.
Two fucking years of savings? What world is this guy living in?
Sounds reasonable to me.
You should have an emergency fund that covers six months of expenses, ideally you never touch this. If you quit without another offer it's safe to prepare for a job hunt lasting up to a year. Six more months for safety is just smart.
Those types of statements are usually made by people who have never had to scrape by to survive for any major time period.
Work 6 months for minimum wage in a major city and you'll find what most people consider 'low wages' to be laughable.
Of course, you should do everything your power to have and maintain an emergency fund, but two years of savings is insane. Don't waste two years of life if you are unhappy in your job just because you're afraid of not finding new work. 6 months is a good target to shoot for.
Outside of a life-altering sickness I see no way for someone who had worked for a top-tier tech company to go without employment opportunities for half a year, let alone two years.
I think a lot of people forget what it was like during the last tech downturn, or the previous one, or the previous one... or they’re too young to have lived through them. I remember being a month from total bankruptcy, 12 months into a job search, and I had a decade of experience at the time. Almost nobody was hiring. If you haven’t been through it you have no idea. Fund that emergency fund, people!! Minimum 6 months but 2 years is much better.
I don't understand how you couldn't save 50% of your income per year while working at facebook.
Assuming a $200k income, a modest 2bd Bay area house, 2 preschool aged children, between mortgage/rent (4k/mo), childcare (20+k/child/year), car, food, taxes, and other basic life expenses, it's totally possible not to save 50%.
Unless you meant as a childless single person making 200k/yr. Then yes, it's easy.
> Assuming a $200k income... 2 preschool aged children... childcare (20+k/child/year)
Does $200k not seem low for a two-income family? Does paying for childcare not seem strange for a one-income family?
> Does $200k not seem low for a two-income family?
Not really, even in the BA, unless they are both in tech or similar; $200K is nearly double the median household (not individual) income for San Francisco & San Mateo Counties.
The previous comment's scenario was "A Facebook employee", with no mention of another income. Also, many people's spouses are students, or non-highly remunerated.
Hence the other question, "Does paying for childcare not seem strange for a one-income family?"
Not if there is only one parent, or the other parent is a full time student.
It's amazing how much your expenses and tastes can grow with your income.
I didn't get that either.
Surely if you work somewhere like that you're pretty employable and not in the middle or nowhere. Why not just go work elsewhere for a bit while you work out what you really want to do next?
If you're working a top tier tech job, then having savings worth two years of necessary expenses is much, much lower than e.g. two years of income.
You are aware Facebook pays well right?
Unless what you're saying is "Only 2 years?"
It's actually quite hilarious to me this Prestige by Association.
I've worked at a couple very high-profile companies in the Valley and have never felt this prestige primarily because I don't hang out with complete douchebags.
If people get all starry-eyed when you announce the company you work for; run in the opposite direction. Also, don't kidd yourself, you and I know both know you're not working on anything that cool. Especially because almost everyone works on a team so responsibility is pretty spread out.
And even if you are working on the very algorithm that determines which ads are shown when, you're still buried in seventeen layers of process and bureaucracy for a change or product that will probably never ship or will take years to market.
The day-to-day is about unglamorous as it gets. People need to realize the big "names" in the Valley are simply large corporations.
Or you have family/friends that aren't very technical and don't know any better. I saw people's faces change as soon as someone mentioned where I worked to others in my circle while I was at Google. I had never seen that before. It was weird at first and then I just accepted it. Then having to explain why I wanted to/did leave there was just a major PITA.
I'd be lying if there wasn't some reservation or me doubting myself a bit at first when I realized I just wasn't happy there and needed to get out and I'd also be lying if I said some of it wasn't because of the above reaction of family/friends.
I don't know how many non-tech people you hangout with - but these are over reaches:
- That it's wrong to judge using school etc. when you have no other way of judging. For example, if I give you a choice of a cardiologist from hopkins vs someone from a podunk university you haven't heard of, barring no other information - I can put money on your choice being the hopkins dude:)
- The fact that you are working on crud in google is the same as crud in xyz company: No. At least in a true scotsman way, the good teams I have worked on have always had better crud apps than the worse ones.
- That they are complete douchebags. May be a few are, but that's not exclusive to non-tech. (you might not have meant this though)
IOW your familiarity might have bred some contempt / diluted the glamour. For me, I still am very proud of my history of companies.
As someone who works at one of the very high profile companies, on something cool, that people get in contact with every day (and sometimes discuss publicly), I respectfully disagree.
Bureaucracy and process often exist, but it varies extremely. Sometimes it can be quite direct.
(I certainly don't think that "working on the very algorithm that determines which ads are shown" is cool, though, as I work on products.)
Ever had any friends who went to a public (private in the US) school.
One of my mates who went to a mid tier public school and he commented he made sure when sending out his cv the fact that he was a old bedfordian was prominent.
And if I had stayed in Birmingham (UK) and my mum's plan to use family connections to get me into King Edwards had come off dam right I would use that - btw this is the school that is always in the top 3 in the rankings.
he made sure when sending out his cv the fact that he was a old bedfordian was prominent
That’s not prestige exactly, it’s a signal to the Old Boys Network that he can skip the usual process. Some people might describe this as corruption.
> I've worked at a couple very high-profile companies in the Valley and have never felt this prestige primarily because I don't hang out with complete douchebags.
> If people get all starry-eyed when you announce the company you work for; run in the opposite direction.
Get over yourself and out of your bubble. American culture constantly pushes the value of prestige and the way of obtaining that being going to good schools and working at popular companies. If you are a person who didn't go to an ivy league or work at Facebook, it's easy to believe that the person who did is better than you in some way. It is more rare to attain that status, so therefor many people both in and outside of the industry look starry-eyed at them.
I don't work at one of the big tech firms and nor do I want to, but I know for a fact most people in my family would think highly of me if I told them I worked at Google, because it is prestigious whether you like it or not. Does that make them douchebags?
It’s one thing for friends or family to think where you working at is cool and another thing for random people to be inflating your ego. Or you may start to think you’re better than other people because of where you work.
I’ve seen this phenomenon in San Francisco quite a bit. That is where the person and their entire social circles become cliques that serve simply to reinforce their ego.
It’s sad and weird to observe first hand.
I think many people ask that “So... where do you work?” or “What do you do for a living?” question as a polite way to figure out where to stack you on their social status totem pole. At least in the Bay Area and likely other places, you kind of have to go out of your way to find people who dont do this. Usually I just say I’m an exotic dancer, which often gets a chuckle, breaks the ice and subtly sends the message that I’m not interested in being silently judged based on where I work.
He's (likely) Chinese-American. Chinese culture is HUGE on prestige.
Because Americans and Europeans didn't judge people by their schools or careers at all before Chinese came along /s.
As are all others I’ve encountered too.
The OP has joined Facebook in June 2013. Assuming he has 3+ years of experience in Microsoft he must have been hired at Facebook at L4 which puts his salary as 135k + 250K (stock, may be more when Seattle office was just getting started).
Facebook stock was ~$25 in June 2013 which means he has got 10000 RSUs of Facebook while joining. Value of this stock today is around $1.5M. He is in Seattle and his taxes are way low compared to CA.
OP must have been scoring refreshers ($40k (Jan 2014), $100k(Jan 2015), $150k(Jan 2016). Let's assume has around $300K of vested stocks.
OP has made $1.8M in stocks at Facebook and may be some good bonuses and quitting Facebook after has vested his initial grant.
You shouldn't quit Top Tier tech jobs period unless you're this author who has made >2M.
At the growing pace of FB, Google and Amzn, anyone quitting at L5 levels will learn that they could have ended up as Director in 6-8 years if they work hard in these firms.
That assumes he held his stock. Everyone I know seems to sell as soon as it vests. If so he didn't get all the return you quoted.
There are so many ultra-optimistic assumptions in that post it’s hard to pick out just one. If all of those numbers were true it would represent the career/salary growth of an outlier employee. Although I’m sure it does happen every so often, no way the median “rank and file” software engineer at any of these top companies has that kind of outcome.
Let me bring a non SV perspective. A lot of people seem to forget that most developers live outside of SV where the salary vs cost of living makes just as much sense.
1. For a software Engineer who has kept their skills up and lives in a major metropolitan area, it doesn't take 2 years to get a job. It usually takes me about two weeks.
2. Who defines themselves by their job? A job is just a way for me to pay my bills. I go to work, come home and twice a month money appears in my account - no more no less. But see #1 about keeping your skills marketable.
The framework I use for leaving a job is simple. There are three reasons to leave a job - technology, environment, and money.
Technology - if you're learning marketable technology, I can deal with a not so great environment and a below market salary for awhile. Once I build my resume, I can leave for more money. On the other hand, don't stay at a company no matter how good the money is if it will cause your skills to atrophy. You leave yourself vulnerable and you cut off optionslity.
Environment - if I can find another job with a better environment, make the same amount of money and move forward technologically. I'll leave. Life is too short to stick with an environment that you hate.
Money - All other things being equal, why not make as much money as you can? I don't want to be in management but if I can make a significant amount more money doing what I enjoy, why not?
I've been hopping jobs for 10 years after staying at one company 9 years when I should have left after 2. But now, I'm starting to get the job hopping stench about my resume and I'm near the top for my local market. It would be counter productive for me to leave by choice in less than 3 years.
Nice breakdown.
I would add that money comes with responsibility and it's the money/responsibilities ratio that really matters.
I was at a top-tier tech company (the one that's getting all the heat lately) for 2 years in a senior eng role, breaking my neck and struggling to maintain healthy work/life balance. Leaving it felt devastating but in retrospect, it was the right decision. Now I'm at a non-tech company, making almost the same money, having twice fewer expectations. All while working on just as exciting tech and problems.
I can likely get a tech position in finance and make even more, but at what cost to my work hours and expectations? Not worth it.
I would put that under "environment". An environment that is always expecting you to make heroic efforts and take away from your work life balance isn't worth it. That seques well into my personal priority breakdown. The three most important things personally to me are:
Health - if I'm not healthy mentally and physically nothing else matters. I'm no good to my family and my finances are going to suffer.
Family/Friends - at the end of the day I would rather get a new job than be forced to get a new wife because I'm spending too much time working.
Career/Finances - I've got to work to live but I can't live to work. Your company will never be loyal to you - you are just resource and so are they.
This may be the only 2 word "How To" I've ever written:
Just quit.
1. It's a job, not your life.
2. It's a company, not a person.
3. "Top Tier" means neither.
4. If you were hit by a bus, they'd cry for 7 minutes and never think about you again.
5. "My work is my reference." is my standard response to that request. It works. To those who matter.
6. Moving on can skyrocket your growth when done properly. Listen to your gut.
7. "I stagnate easily." is my standard response to "Why so many jobs?"
8. You'll probably be surprised how underwhelmed they are.
9. You'll probably be surprised how much energy you wasted over this.
10. You'll definitely be glad it's over.
No one from work cares about you nearly as much as you care about your work. Don't make this so complicated.
You have personal relationships you'll miss and don't want to hurt. If that bothers you, quit over beer.
> 7. "I stagnate easily." is my standard response to "Why so many jobs?"
Why would someone hire you for a non-short-term project in that case?
A better response is, "It's the quickest way to get a pay raise."
I've only quit a handful of jobs but every time it has been for a sizable salary increase. Stagnation comes off as frustration with the work when it should highlight the stagnation of salaries and the zero fucks the labor market has about a promotion cycle.
So much salt in this thread. I for one, enjoyed the article. Walking away from a high-paying, generally respected job is not a easy decision for a lot of people and there are a lot of consequences to consider.
I think this writeup addresses them (to varying degrees of success), even if they don't apply to everyone and some folks may think they're arrogant.
It's amazing that there is a widespread tendency in Googlers to think Google is "the best place" and moving is a downgrade (i.e. fear of missing out, where do I go after this), while at the same time many Facebook employees feel exactly the same towards their employer and think moving is likely a downgrade (my friend who left FB to Snap told me that he had that feeling but now that he has moved he sees Snap as clearly better). These feelings cannot simultaneously be true, which shows the Kool-Aid is powerful indeed, and I think systematic and intentional in nature. At least for Facebook, they have an explicit propaganda ministry, ehem..., Analog Research Lab, actively working toward instating this feeling with posters and stuff.
This article is about quitting from the FAANGs entirely. Moving from one FAANG to another does not entail a financial or reputational hit.
Correct. This was not an objection to the article's point at all. I was reinforcing another dimension of the notion described in the article under "prestige" that when you are at any one of them, there's a pressure that makes you think this is the best, but that cannot simultaneously be true at all of them, therefore it is probably a false feeling and you should try to suppress it.
How about just quitting because you don't get good work (whatever that definition might be)?
I find it hard to believe that most people in so called "top tier" tech companies do compelling work. Not everyone gets to work on de jour areas, most people work on maintenance and improving old code bases (BTW, there is nothing wrong with this)
These self-congratulatory articles are always a bit off-putting. I'm not sure if they're meant as a humblebrag, or what. Yes, we get that all jobs can suck. Great, you've got savings. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for doing what countless billions of people have done in their lives: quit a job. But don't consider yourself a daredevil for jumping with "only" a 2 year savings 'net'.
Look, it's not an article. It's a personal blog post on his personal website, that details his personal experience and thought process. He probably figured it would be useful to other people that might be thinking about similar things.
It was certainly useful to me.
That's it. We don't need to project out his intentions any further than that. You're allowed to share your experience and your thought process without it always being some altruistic "save the starving kids in Africa" type message.
The beautiful thing about the internet and the distribution it provides is that you can write content for your niche and actually reach those people fairly easily.
As an extreme example: do you go into Ferrari owner forums and criticize everyone there for being self-congratulatory and living in too much excess? I hope not. Leave them alone and let them have fun with their cars.
>> These self-congratulatory articles are always a bit off-putting.
Are they self-congratulatory or self-promoting? Or both?
Just from the headline (before I clicked through), I wondered to myself "How hard can it be? Give notice. Be professional during your notice period. Leave." To me, TFA is less about "how to" than "things you might want to consider".
What makes good work?
I think in many companies, we can define bad work as lacking agency to do what is needed. I don't think maintenance is all that bad if you have the agency to fix it over time. I've been responsible for three complete rewrites of different systems, and they have gone off without a hitch. The key was building trust with management and making slow tactical decisions which each have impact.
The problem is, what is your alternative? We don't all get to do compelling work. Tade0 said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16707413 that there's a difference between "hard" and "tedious". Much of tech is tedious, not hard. Quitting because you didn't get "good" work means you go somewhere else, and... what kind of work do you get there? Odds are, not "good".
A better answer (and one that the article seems to recommend) is to not find your identity so much in your work.
It's funny, my experience is that the same handful of technical problems keep arising regardless of the age of a code base. After a while, it becomes rarer to find yourself saying something like, "well, I haven't written one of these before."
> Improving old code bases
From my experience, I think there's a great need in large tech organizations for people that are able to advocate for and drive initiatives that can scale up efforts to improve old codebases.
I agree, but that won't happen until large tech organizations incentivize and reward maintenance work. See this related HN discussion about someone who left Google partly because they were not promoted for their documenting and bug-fixing efforts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16483241
I've found working with and improving legacy code to be some of the most compelling work I've done and I'm not alone in feeling this way.
But it's nearly impossible to find that kind of job because employers tend to go out of their way to hide the fact that they even have existing software, let alone that they want someone to work on it.
> that won't happen until large tech organizations incentivize and reward maintenance work.
They do though, through platform teams. The React team at Facebook, for example, goes to enormous lengths to ensure they aren't hopelessly breaking their downstreams even as they try to pay off previous code debt (e.g. the context api efforts).
What makes it difficult for people to "sell" maintenance work (specifically for product work, as opposed to platform work) is that it usually gets framed in terms of maintenance vs new features, as opposed to e.g. improvements in reliability given some metric, etc. Another problem is that developers have a very strong tendency to want to dive straight into coding without necessarily doing the legwork of gathering metrics to show that some work is actually worth doing. This often gets a pass with new features, because it's easier to get people excited about shiny new things, but maintenance work is inherently going to get people asking for "data" to satisfy their reptilian brain's aversion to risk.
They need it, but they sometimes don't realize it.
Personally I had trouble selling it but that's probably my fault. One had "clear text passwords of C-execs" before it got any attention and rewrites.
"How about just quitting"
That might be irresponsible, from one point of view. I think TFA takes that stand.
What's TFA
An acronym for The (fucking) article. From RTFM/RTFA. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TFA
Despite the expletive it's not usually used in anger.
"The Fine Article"
Sometimes another four-letter word is substituted for "fine".
Well, 7-letter.
RTFM is to RTFA as TFM is to TFA
what rmcpherson said, including the part about it not being used in anger.
Sure, he rightly points out that you need a plan. My comment to "just quit" was specifically to convice yourself that it's time to leave, with the assumption that you have a plan in place.
> Being told something like "you are intrinsically amazing and working here proves it" flatters in a deep existential way but also insidiously creates a dependence on that validation.
Well that hit home.
Some big consulting firms are also notorious for this kind of flattery. It comes through in their meetings with clients. Some clients get wide-eyed and pay them because they're "experts". The smart ones laugh and walk out.
I also quit fb in 2017. A large part was the arrogant attitude shared by many of my young peers like OP. Another factor was the over-sweetened coolaid. Fb is not the end-all, be all. It's a great place, sure, but there are smart teams and people everywhere. I couldn't finish the article.
This is exactly how I imagine how FB's culture would be, towards the arrogant side, I would like to be wrong on this though. Would like to see if anyone else had this experience.
There are still many a+ employees who just want to build and learn. Follow the c++.
"Your legal status in the country does not depend on your continued employment. If it does, stay away from this train of thought. The destination is a depressing and harsh realization."
Its sad - but most of us are out at this point..nothing more to add.
Most? No. There's a lot of workers in our field that are here as non-natives but they are not the majority group. The majority group are fully fledged citizens who do not have this issue to deal with.
Most of us? I suspect that most of us do have the legal status to remain in our country of residence, even without continued employment. While there are a significant number of expats on HN, I'm pretty sure they are not the majority...
Yep, definitely stayed in a job longer than I wanted to because of VISA issues. No happy thoughts there.
I quit my job around two weeks ago (post: https://danshumway.com/blog/leaving-oracle/). I'm mostly working on Open Source now, might expand to contracting in the future.
It was not an easy decision to make; I don't know if that's because of the culture I was in or just because of me. What eventually pushed me was realizing that it wasn't an all or nothing venture; the most realistic worst case scenario is that I flesh out my portfolio, learn a bunch of skills, and then join another company via a better resume.
I disagree about a lot here though. 2 years of income is unnecessarily lavish for most people. If you've worked at a reputable company for a few years, the "prestige" will follow you. No one will care if you worked there for 3 years or 4.
"I will be resigning effective two weeks from now. Let me know what I can do in the meantime totrain my replacement or otherwise smooth the transition."
Done.
IKR, save the bridge burning for the last day so you can all enjoy the blaze.
> you have enough savings to last at least two years.
I've always heard it as being 6 months. Especially with his next point assuming you can certainly find employment.
Or maybe that's what I chose to remember, because I'm lucky enough to work in a high-employment sector in a region that can't fill enough positions: i.e. my profile is in high demand.
(... for now. I know)
Almost no one has enough savings to last two years. It's an absurd metric and enforces how out of touch the author is. It reads as nothing more than a brag.
Anyone good enough to get hired by Facebook in the first place is going to have no problem finding a job in two weeks, nevermind two years. Quit, shop around and burn some savings until you find something good enough. If it's not your dream job, stick with good enough while you shop around some more.
No one worth working for actually cares about some amount of job-hopping. More employers care about long gaps than about minor job hopping. Neither is a showstopper if you find a good destination.
> Almost no one has enough savings to last two years. It's an absurd metric and enforces how out of touch the author is.
You should check out r/financialindependence sometime. A whole community of people (358k subscribers at present) who would consider that amount table stakes. I'll admit not all 358k of those subscribers would actually have that much money but it's still hardly "almost no one".
It really is almost no one.
57% of Americans with less than $1000 dollars in their savings account. Only 25% with more than $10,000. What fraction of those with more than $10,000 do you think have enough to live for two years on it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-i...
> Almost no one has enough savings to last two years.
This doesn't seem correct to me, but people don't like to talk about their personal financial situation (any of income, expenses, and savings) sooo... I guess hard to say.
I'd definitely be able to live for 2 years on my savings, but I'm pretty frugal and am privileged to not have student loans. I recognize this is not everybody's situation, but I don't think it's helpful to constructive to frame it as "bragging" or "humble" or any such words. People have different situations and I think it should be OK to talk about that.
That said, it's probably overly conservative to say 2 years as a minimum. I'd use the standard 6 months figure for that. 2 years is a good idea if you can swing it, obviously...
According to this source, only 25% of people have greater than $10,000 in a savings account.
Most people are going to need much more than $10,000 to live for two years so I think it's pretty safe to say that almost no one has enough savings to last two years.
57% percent of Americans, according to my source, have less than $1000 in savings which isn't enough to last a month for many of them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-i...
Yeah that struck me as a little strange.
If you have a "top tier tech job" then I don't really understand the need for two years of savings. Do you think you won't find a job before two years? I guess it depends on location.
I've left jobs multiple times to take a few months off to work on stuff before job hunting again and I definitely didn't have more than one year of savings.
Are people at top tier tech jobs (FANG) so secure in their jobs that they aren't saving for retirement? I had two years of living expenses saved up after two years at my first job out of college making 63K. Yes it was a cheap city, but I decided I wanted to start saving early after I noticed tech companies had so few employees over the age of 40. No, I wouldn't be living grand if I had to rely on these savings, but it would get me by in a small apartment.
It's very usual for Bay Area people to pay 50%+ of their gross for housing, so new grads at FANG companies don't necessarily have a lot available after taxes, basic living expenses and debt repayment to save.
Also, FANG comp packages have significant equity components and IMO it would be foolish to rely on that portion of comp for anything important; you can treat vested RSUs as windfalls to add to the retirement savings but should not rely on RSU grants to meet your goal of x% savings rate. New grads will have nothing vested for a few years so their ability to save is especially limited during that time.
Most young people aren't saving very much for retirement regardless of where they work.
You are in a very small minority if you saved up that much in your first two years out of college.
You know, in this day in age you really need to give more then a two weeks notice. Maybe 6 weeks or more. I've had to fire clients before by giving notice and I always try to work out the best possible scenario where the least amount of damage is done. I even had to deal with yelling, screaming, threats of lawsuits. I always keep my cool and do everything I can to de-escalate the situation, stay professional, etc and try to minimize damage. Every single time this has happened I get some kind of contact or letter of appreciation thanking me for keeping things professional no matter how bad things got. It just makes me feel better as a person to know that I did everything I could to minimize potential damages and to seek the best possible scenario.
Why would you give companies this kind of consideration? Most will not certainly hesitate to walk you out the door when times are bad.
I have some friends who have told bosses they and leaving. By the end of the day they are told to pack their personal belongings and leave.
Two weeks is the law for an employee giving notice. There aren’t many laws protecting employees especially in Work at will states.
Where are you located where two weeks' notice is law?
If you are in an "at will" state, the law applies in both directions. Two weeks is a professional courtesy. An employer that is neither deserves nothing.
I've seen contracts that say both "at will" and "14 days notice required". Not sure if those are in conflict.
It doesn't really matter, though. Always give 2 weeks notice, as professional courtesy, but also take any of your fragile or expensive stuff home first. Depending on your employer, you may not even get a chance to revisit your desk, and instead may be escorted to the door and met with a box of your belongings.
(Most employers don't pull that shit, of course, and instead are very happy to have you tie up loose ends and commit any relevant documentation before you go.)
If you are under a contract, then you are under the terms of the contract.
The "at will" we are talking about here are typically employees in US states that were not offered an employment contract.
You are free to go when you please, just as the employer is free to fire you at any time (not counting certain protected classes and etc)
It is not usually about the employer, more about your management chain.
Yeah the company might have laid you off / have made bad moves, but the question is do you want to leave a bunch of your co-workers in shit without enough knowledge transfer etc. because you are pissed at some part of it. And yeah, these things come back around as well sometimes.
Tit for tat works between true equals, may be. In any case, You are not equal to a company. So yeah, they might not give a second thought about firing you, but as long as you want to be employed by someone in the same industry, burn less bridges :)
That's quite generous of your time. In the US in an at-will employment state it's often two weeks. For senior or executive positions you'll often offer a month or so but it's rarely longer.
My personal and recent experience is that an employer can lay you off with no to little grace period. It's an asymmetry exploited by bad employers. Unfortunately, it's too late by the time you figure out if they're a bad employer.
Really? Cause every place I've worked blacklists anyone who quits, two weeks notice or not.
The taboo of not giving two weeks notice is something that benefits the company only, the same as not discussing salary with other employees.
You can even put a number on it if your new position is getting a raise. Whatever your yearly rate/26 is, is how much money you are losing by being nice to an entity who will walk you out the door the moment they are done with you
No, 2 weeks is pretty standard and entirely appropriate for managed employees. If you're in a contracting situation it might be different.
In Europe 4 - 12 weeks are normal. But that goes both ways.
......................
Unemployable after 2 years? In what world?
People take sabbaticals all the time. They raise kids. They start businesses. They take care of sick family members. They work on personal projects. There are a shitload of reasons people take time off. And then they pick up at a new job.
..
I disagree.... I am doing this, and I have friends that did the extended "1 year" + holiday/sabbatical, and yes they found jobs fine after it.
We're all supposed to imagine that software is Very Hard Work that changes Very Quickly and so, you know, it just can't be done if you're too tired to come in at 9AM -- better to get your rest and get your brain ready for the Very Difficult Work Ahead -- and you'll fall irrevocably behind if you step away for a year.
Of course, that's all nonsense. But it makes us feel so, so good.
You sound like somebody that doesn't understands the issue the author is conveying. While it might not apply to everyone, it applies to many people that work at top companies.
When leaving a company that has coddled you for years (think top offices, great food all the time, drinks, snacks, perks of traveling, people recognizing the brand, etc...), it can be a tough adjustment for the first two months. You might not miss the work, but you will miss the perks for sure.
Also, the two years salary requirement is a good rule of thumb. It gives you enough time to: 1) Relax, travel, and decompress for few months and 2) Start your own project, and see it to completion (any non trivial project will take at least one year).
I did something similar, and I think the author's advice is good.
> That said, you're going to be unemployable after 2 years.
This is just BS. I quit about 2 years ago, and am turn down recruiters quite often, very employable.
Stop trying to scare people on the fence.
> That said, you're going to be unemployable after 2 years.
Sure, if you sit on your ass for two years. But people reenter the workforce after even longer hiatuses all the time. Is it harder than getting a job while currently employed? Of course. Is it impossible? Not at all. Ask the scads of former SAHMs who went back to work eventually.
> That said, you're going to be unemployable after 2 years
Bullshit. 2 years means time for personal projects that could even make you more employable. Even then, your skills and experience don't suddenly become obsolete. You might not get another job at Amagoosoftple but there are a lot of other companies out there that seek skilled workers.
I don't think not working for 2 years would make someone unemployable so long as they are continuing to hone their craft.
It can raise doubts and suspicions with employers though. Why wasn’t he employed? Does he have a problem with work? Was he in jail? etc. Even if misplaced, you, can’t stop people thinking that way
Thing is, you don't need every job, you just need one job. It's not hard to find teams that are reasonable and don't get obsessed over traditional "red flags" that actually carry almost no useful signal.
Agreed. In fact, the opposite may be true.
If your company is working with outdated software, or ignoring software best practices like testing or security, or even if you've just started to specialize in a very narrow way, it can sometimes be difficult to translate the skills you're using there into other companies.
It's very common for people to start to specialize the longer they work at a company. You can end up knowing a few things really well, and not much else.
He didn't say 2 year's salary, but 2 year's spend.
I urge everyone in tech to try and get to at least 1 year spend saved up.
I didn't live through dot com crash #1, but if #2 is anything like it, a lot of us may be fighting for the same jobs and having your budget right will help.
The dynamic I've seen in myself doesn't sound too far off from your prediction.
When you start at a place some parts of it are great and some are not so great. A few are bad. You chip away at the things you can but at some point you've fixed everything you can. If you're content at that point than great. But if your itch for growth isn't being satisfied in some other way then you start to become uncomfortable.
On the other hand, Facebook is made of people, and if the people leave, there isn't a Facebook. If it's not going to happen all at once, it has to happen gradually.
The candidate pool for good devs is still relatively small, too. It does hurt them, incrementally.
Facebook _is_ crumbling and, for all we know, it's actually because the author left.
"You have enough savings to last at least two years." - fuck. me.
I don't understand why you can't just get a new job before quitting the old one. That's what everyone does.
The current style of tech interviews makes it very difficult. A lot of places have a long interview that you end up burning a whole day on it and you only have so many vacation and sick days
I agree it's a pain, but I work in the industry and most people I have known don't quit without another job lined up. Facebook gives 21 vacation days; Google (relatively stingy) gives 15 or more. Plus you can call in sick (I don't recommend this but if you're out the door anyway it's an option). I just don't think it's good practical advice to follow the procedure in this article.
Yep. Say you have ten days of vacation per year (welcome to the USA!) This means you can “get serious” with max 10 companies per year. I’ve in the past interviewed with that many companies in only a month! You need to be very creative with your time to do serious interviewing while still working.
The pay is good at a top tier tech job.
This is America with much less social safety net than most eu countries.
My thoughts exactly.
There is nothing different about quitting a job at a brand name than most other places except in people asking you "You worked for WHO? WHY?????" And issues regarding bonuses and stock award vests.
Unless you came to such a company through a visa. Things get harder when the implication of quitting is "get shipped right back to where you came from."
2 years of savings is a crazy suggestion. 3-6 months should be fine especially if you've got top tier company on your resume.
Why would you quit before finding a job? I work on a relatively mundane but desirable platform at a boring megacorp and get hit up by recruiters on LinkedIn weekly.
When I moved to the Bay my wife got a job before I did and I was fortunate enough to be able to take some down time before taking my current role.
That time was priceless. I was able to fully decompress from past work stress (shocking how much you build up), get my gaming fix out of the way, and then move on to be incredibly productive with self-driven education with coding things I'd wanted to learn.
I also had a massive amount of creativity come back to me because I was well rested and not stressed or distracted.
If you are ever in a position to do something like a multi month or year break in between jobs, I can't recommend it enough.
Take some time to work on stuff you find interesting? That's been the reason I've done it so far.
If you are in the financial situation to do it I would recommend. Granted I work in a location where no one cares if you have a two year gap, let alone a two month, on your resume.
The real trick is not just bum around the entire time otherwise then yes it was probably a bad call.
Why is it crazy? You can never start retirement saving (and I'm talking outside of a 401K) too early. If you've worked at a top-tier tech company for > 5 years and been even slightly careful with your money you're going to have that much saved up without even meaning to. Exhibit A: https://www.thefrugalgene.com/dumb-luck-rich/
It's not crazy to have 2 years worth of savings. It's crazy to think you need that to be in a position to quit your job.
Oh good lord. If you want to quit a job, quit it. Top tier tech is no different to anything else. OP should have titled this post "How to not realise you're having an existential crisis and respond to it by massively over-complicating a very simple career decision."
Fundamentally this is true, but bringing yourself to the point where you "just quit" is quite difficult.
I think you're ignoring a lot of human things like that a lot developers are quite isolated and working 60+ hours a week. Their social group is quite likely just their co-workers. Especially for new devs who have relocated.
That's a good point I didn't think about. Assuming you are most likely burning some midnight oil at a top tech company, you'd be stressed to keep up a social circle besides your coworkers.
I think that plays a bigger part in it than we are thinking
This is one of those posts that should really be written in the first person, perhaps titled "How I decided to quit my job at Facebook".
Although I work in the same industry as this person, my point of view couldn't be more different. None of this is useful to me and I don't know what he is talking about.
It's presumptuous to assume others share your viewpoint and values. It feels like he is living in a bubble, which is not an uncommon criticism of Silicon Valley employees.
Most people who want to quit, will. It is more a question of when. There are many valid reasons for sticking around a while -- to try to invoke change, waiting on vesting, set up your next move, etc. But I have talked to very few people who, in hindsight, wish they had stayed longer. Most people who quit, when looking back... they wonder why they ever stayed so long in the first place.
The article is blocked for me, but writing a blog about why you quit and what you plan to do next seems to be pretty effective. Any insider blog or article about FANG seems to do well, but one's which describe why a person DOES NOT want to work there have increased likelihood of going viral. I'm sure those writers get flooded immediately by recruiters and the like.
Why is it untenable to want to quit a job? If you want to quit a job (or make any other life choice), and you can afford it, go for it.
The article isn’t talking about someone quiting just any old job, but about the situation in which they believe they already have one of the best possible jobs in the industry.
In such a case, I imagine it’s easy to keep putting it off, precisely because you can’t think of a better scenario for yourself.
The person at at top-tier company who can't think of a better scenario AND has two years of savings seems to have no imagination or desire to enjoy life in any way...
For some reason, I was so sure it was a sarcastic post, that while clicking to read it I was already half-smiling imagining the first topic would be:
- "First, make sure you write a public post announcing to the world that you quit Facebook/Google. What's the point of quiting if you can't tell anyone??"
Imagine how disappointed I was.
Quitting a top tier tech job isn't the difficult part. The difficult part is figuring out what to do next.
I quit my job as a Head of R&D for a major tech/publishing company and started https://tradedash.io (crypto desktop trading platform) with an old friend of mine who also quit his job as one of the first employees in a major fintech unicorn. For both of us, it was hands down the best decision we've ever made career wise.
For years we were depressed, working jobs that we didnt value only for nothing other than the money and stability. Even though I make a whole lot less today, I haven't had a single night where I don't sleep like a baby. Quitting our jobs was the easy part once we figured out what it is that we wanted to do.
For anyone looking to quit their job: figure out what to do next. Once you know what you want to do, everything else will become much easier.
Because the author is delusional and thinks people actually give a shit about their "top tier" company...which most likely just sold ads on the internet.
I think my comment in this link applies to your comment as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16711642
Is this person not allowed to put his own thoughts down on his own personal website? It's not like he's getting on CNN and preaching.
My comment was mostly in regards to the snobbiness of the "top tier" aspect. The person is free to explain his decision to leaving a job of course, but the bragging is just sad.
I think that's fair. Either way people don't need to be so unnecessarily harsh. It was pretty clear OP didn't intend anything particularly harmful. It was probably just naivety or a lack of self-awareness...but people are talking in here about it as if it were pure evil.
> "I stopped having a career vision for myself for the last year or so of my tenure at Facebook, for no particular reason."
Author cites "career vision" as motivation for leaving, but why no moral qualms about working at Facebook?
Beyond 2 years salary in savings, one should also factor in the cost of medical insurance. One bad accident or illness will eat that savings account in a heartbeat.
The two year salary metric is very strange in my opinion. I've quit jobs and taken time off without anywhere near two years of savings.
The article actually says
> enough savings to last at least two years
That's good, because you should lose the mindset that salary is equal to spending in a hurry!
Savings that lasts two years accounts for all of your expenses over a two year period. Yes, if you need medical insurance, and it was supplied by your employer, it no longer will be, and you need to factor that into your expenses.
Only in America
How to Quit? really?
"Hey Jerry, got a min? Look, I don't think this is working out. Here is my letter of resignation, and my two week notice. Thank you."
Done!
How hard is that to do? There is nothing holding you in chain in that job unless you are actually being held in chain in that job, at which point you should seriously analyze your life choices.
> at which point you should seriously analyze your life choices
As the article notes, there are very common cases where you can't just pick-up-and-leave (visas, debts, etc.)
Like any job. since the meaningless "top tier tech" in the title. being a top tier tech doesn't make it any different.
Then there's the part where Jerry asks "what are you gonna do?" And you tell Jerry "Go travel or maybe "do nothing but relax for a bit." And then you see the look of envy register in Jerry's eyes.
It's not hard at all. The author turned this into a slow dance of neurosis. A job at a big SV company is still a job that eats up the majority of your waking hours. Nobody find's themselves on their death bed wishing they had worked more.
I think the chain in this case was unvested Facebook RSUs.
> and my two week notice
That might not be a good idea to give.
Contrary to the downvotes, I agree with this sentiment. Technically you don't even need to give 2 weeks notice at most tech firms, it's completely at-will, so you can quit any time you like. Very few people do that though, and for good reason: unless there's a majorly important reason (i.e. death in family, horrible work incident, etc.), doing so leaves coworkers and management in the lurch.
Now, you might think, "I don't owe the company anything", and that's totally true. But at the end of the day, you are in fact working with other people, and how you treat other people (and how they perceive you are treating them) has consequences both on your interpersonal relationships with these people, and potentially on your future career path. Tech is a pretty small community, and people have a funny way of having way too many mutual connections, so quitting (and leaving colleagues in the lurch) might come back to bite you somewhere else down the line.
My advice is usually to quit with enough time to wrap things up or hand them off gracefully, and not to blindside anyone (unless, again, of extraordinary circumstances). This amount of time is totally position-dependent; for some it could be 3 days, for others (maybe the director of an organization) it could be months. But 2 weeks in all cases is nonsense - it's totally dependent on your situation and rapport with colleagues.
What makes you say that?
Some companies may not accept the two week notice, and may ask you to leave immediately. This may be true even if you have a good manager or relationship with the company.
When I quit my job, I intended to give four weeks notice, and to offer to work part time for a month later if they wanted it. Manager took the offer to their upper-management, upper-management came back and said, "nope, two weeks max."
I had prepared for that, but did not expect it, at all. Generally speaking you should only give notice if you're also willing to leave that day.
2 weeks is the norm for regular jobs, but top tech companies are really struggling to fill top talent spots these days. While it is perfectly legal to give only 2 weeks notice, it's normally better to ask your manager how much time they'd reasonably need to fill your position, then have a conversation.
So, I'd re-phrase the original conversation as
"Hey Jerry, got a minute? Look, I don't think this is working out. I intend to give you a letter of resignation by the end of the day, but I want to discuss how much time you'd need to reasonably fill my position before I give my notice."
Then again, if you
1. hate your job, or
2. your manager is being unreasonable about how much time they need to fill that position, or
3. don't care about burning your bridges
Then go right ahead and give 2 weeks notice. It's up to you to decide how you want to frame the conversation.
> top tech companies are really struggling to fill top talent spots these days
Maybe they should do something about their interview false negative rate then.
> While it is perfectly legal to give only 2 weeks notice
Where I live, it's perfectly legal to say "I quit" and leave immediately.
I believe the title should be, “How to quit like a loser”.
> If your company's reputation can widen the eyes of everybody you meet when they learn where you work, your company has given you a very powerful perk.
But you worked at FB, so everyone knows you're just a PHP monkey. j/k
To be fair, in my eyes working at Facebook is now a red flag.
I find the only people whose eyes go wide almost popping out of their head are younger people just entering the workforce whom may have never met someone who works at a big company whose products they use everyday (or recruiters I guess). It's like you're a celebrity to them. Hell, some of these kids used to get pumped when I was telling them I was merely heading to some Apple conference or Google I/O.
No one with experience in the industry gives two shits even if you worked at Facebook, Google and Apple, because they have no illusions about what it means to work there or what it must say about you.
Distance makes things appear shinier than they are. It's not just new-to-tech people who find these companies prestigious. It's anyone who is sufficiently far from the industry, and especially people who are in other status-oriented professions. For example, bankers and lawyers, who are themselves in high-status professions and at high-status firms within their profession, find G/FB/AAPL very prestigious.
It's a credential, and like all credentials, if you can precisely measure the thing the credential is certifying, the credential loses its value. Having worked at these companies or at least worked with people who have, many of us feel the credential is not useful. We can personally evaluate each other's skills. But from outside of Silicon Valley, the credential appears, and probably actually is, useful.
I think it's a California thing. No one in SF or the Bay Area gives a shit about my job title. When I go back East to MA? Everyone's eyes are popping.
They don't know. Over on the east coast some of those far away tech companies sound exotic and prestigious.
Speak for yourself. I would definitely give a shit if someone who applied to my theoretical company worked at a top-tier company.
Do so at your own peril. Google is approaching 100,000 employees. The vast majority do boring data pipelines for CRUD apps.
Top-tier company != top-tier employees.
You're forgetting they all read all the way through cracking the code interview, the most difficult math book in history.
Coding interview books: how to use bit fields to save a marginal amount of memory while making your algorithm work only with values of n <= 64.
That's both funny and true. ValueClick hired some celebrity nerds to write a new ad platform, and I hear it supported exactly 32 advertisers. :)
Which only says that they are good at solving artificial puzzles, but nothing about whether they are good developers or generally intelligent.
> the most difficult math book in history
It is not a math book rather more of a puzzle book. On a side note - it's full of mistakes (your experience may vary though)
If you like to see difficult math then please try to apply for a self-driving car engineer's job.
whoosh
Pretty sure the prize for 'most difficult math book in history' goes to Dummit and Foote's ponderous tome, Abstract Algebra.
If you are suggesting deep learning involves difficult math then I have just had a stroke
Besides, cracking the code interview is definitely the hardest. Just check out the amazon reviews
i like your sarcasm :D.
Even with a top-tier company, recruiting top-tier employees, doesn't implie top-tier-interesting-work. I do think many of the top-tier companies do have good people, because they can pay for them, but it almost seems like it's a defensive move to keep talent away from other companies, rather than utilizing that talent to the utmost.
>Top-tier company != top-tier employees.
True, but it typically means top-tier interviewer...which would make it more difficult to discover areas where they are lacking.
Sounds great but not a good idea in practice. A company should always be designed in a way that it works smoothly even with people of modest backgrounds. Especially as it grows larger.
Otherwise your "top tier" employees become liabilities, and it becomes unsustainable to rely purely on everyone being a top player. Basically you want a company that can still operate effectively even if everyone was a dumbass.
I'd kinda see it as a semi-red flag. Why would they leave a top-tier company to work for me? Why did they quit? Etc.