News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by devonkim on Friday December 18, 2015 @12:13PM (#10759511)
It's kind of difficult to have start-ups hire juniors because they desperately need people to be productive and so I'd caution that start-ups that accept junior coders straight out of school may not be the kind of start-ups that give the kind of experience that's desirable even for a year.

Instead of recommending what people should go after college for their first job, I'll recommend what people should not do:

1. Work for a consulting / contracting company that has companies people don't like to work directly for. This is probably the worst arrangement of bureaucracy possible because you have the maximum possible layers of management overhead combined with business incentives to keep your compensation and impact upon the business as little as possible. Working for a web development shop that has big customers doesn't count here IMO because your work as an engineer is largely unchanged regardless of your customer paying you $2000 or $200k.

2. Work in corporate IT. These are high-turnover positions for many reasons. It seems like there's a lot of money in it, but it's mostly going to those that sell software to these places. People are miserable enough in F500 companies as it is, this is probably among the worst places for combination of stress, pay, and career mobility.

3. Work in a non-software company. A company whose business doesn't take its software seriously invariably treats its software and IT resources as cost centers meant to get maximum cost savings for as little money as possible via opex reduction and will, ironically, likely fail to make bigger expenditures required to keep costs (and really, wasting time) lower.

Being around non-motivated people in a demoralized environment is a great way to kill any starting career and learning what the signs of these organizational attributes are have important for avoiding really bad career moves.

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by jtbigwoo on Friday December 18, 2015 @03:30PM (#10760744)
>> Work in a non-software company. A company whose business doesn't take its software seriously invariably treats its software and IT resources as cost centers meant to get maximum cost savings for as little money as possible via opex reduction and will, ironically, likely fail to make bigger expenditures required to keep costs (and really, wasting time) lower.

To expand on this, there are some companies that seem like non-software companies, yet still treat software as a competitive advantage rather than a cost center. I worked for a big bank that did their best to stay six months to a year ahead of other banks on technology. The marketing folks were constantly coming to us and saying, "Give us cool features that we can sell." It was a fun place to work.

I also worked for an insurance company that viewed technology as a necessary evil that should be as cheap as possible. The marketing folks there were constantly complaining about how much time and money the company was wasting on technology. (Curiously, they also complained that the company's technology offerings were hopelessly far behind its competitors.) It was a miserable experience.

If you're looking for a job, ask questions about management support and budget priorities. If they're evasive or they say things like, "we're proud of how far we stretch our investment," it's not a good place to work. You can also ask how the company compares technically to its competitors. If they're evasive or talk about how they're trying to catch up, that's a bad sign, too.

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by devonkim on Saturday December 19, 2015 @11:41AM (#10764007)
The more correct rule is that you should try to find companies that have closely aligned business and technology objectives (which I haven't found outside of finance and the usual SV companies in the F500), but I have my doubts even that is the case because I'm working for a large organization that meets this criteria and I'd never think of advising a young, ambitious recent graduate to even reply to a recruiter for this place given the horrifically bad budget situation. Just because business leaders want something and try in earnest to plan for it doesn't mean much if they don't have the resources and momentum to execute.

A good example of what I mean are large, innovation-less companies with "start-up in a large company" efforts to bring themselves some relevance that almost always become the worst of large company inertia / legacy with the fiscal and market position disadvantages of start-ups. I've been through at least 4 of these efforts with varying degrees of "success." And while they're a large part of my career and I want to believe it can happen, I have no evidence of this working out well and am convinced it's a rather high risk to take with disproportionate upside.

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by mailshanx on Monday December 21, 2015 @02:33AM (#10770046)
I have an offer to do data science work for a large, public insurer. I will work inside an "innovation lab", and was promised lots of freedom and authority during the interview process. They say they want the "innovation labs" to run like startups, trying out new products and ideas at a fast clip.

Do you have any thoughts about what the general environment will be like, and is there any chance the place will be mired in bureaucracy? I'm relatively early in my career as well, and have never worked for a Big Co before.

I'd love to get in touch with you, but you don't have contact info in your profile. I'll be grateful if you can drop me a line - mailshanx at yahoo dot co dot in

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by devonkim on Friday December 25, 2015 @08:04PM (#10792873)
It's hard to tell without context but I don't recommend most big company jobs that are not working on things that are high risk and high reward for recent graduates normally. There's a lot of questions to be asked about what the objectives of the project are, executive backing, and (most importantly) how strong the funding is to demonstrate the worth. As an example, my customer has made huge investments in attempts to hire developers while skimping tremendously on dependent efforts that would remove barriers for those developers to the extent that most developers are doing 9-5 jobs and unable to accomplish a lot while a lot of the infrastructure teams are working 12+ hour days working on very much solved problems from decades ago that only exist due to lack of respect and understanding of basic automation principles required to scale software companies of any sort. Everyone wants to work on modern, relevant problems - make sure that people are specific about their current barriers as being technical rather than organizational as a prospective employee.

Look for a deep culture of respected and accomplished leaders in software up and down the hierarchy. If nobody in a position of authority has delivered software successfully before that you can recognize as an engineer, pass because culture and experience among executives is massively important and their priorities should focus on long term growth (Amazon was ridiculed by enterprise vendors while I screamed that they will eat their business in a decade - they don't care because they'll go somewhere else while I have to deal with the very expensive consequences of bad software). There are too many great companies around today to waste time on mediocre companies - it is better to be jobless for months or years waiting for a great company to accept you for your talents than to waste some of the best years on companies where your best efforts will result in second rate winnings. It's a huge risk to work for mediocre companies that will not put the work you will have to put in themselves.

My e-mail is djk29a on Google's e-mail service. Not sure how the first part of your e-mail works out and I'm several days late so hopefully this is relevant advice.

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by aantix on Friday December 18, 2015 @12:40PM (#10759680)
If you take a startup job out of school, make sure that they embrace pair programming. Work for a Pivotal Labs. Work for an Andres Camacho. Work for a Chad Fowler. Or an Ernie Miller.

Find the leaders that understand all programmers need training (especially around process and coding standards). Sell that on your passion and that you want to become good _quickly_.

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by devonkim on Friday December 18, 2015 @12:48PM (#10759720)
Pivotal is pretty awesome, definitely on my list of "seems cool, bro" companies. A lot of the criticisms I've heard hardly are a concern for me because everything I've known is that they're so busy coding they're hardly able to mess around taking submissions from others outside the company.

And to be a little cheeky, Pivotal (compared to Pivotal Labs, not the same but still) is nowhere near a "start-up" company by most definitions. They're planning for an IPO and are pulling in many millions in revenue like Cloudera and HortonWorks, it's hardly possible to keep these plans from being kept under wraps.

Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by thedufer on Friday December 18, 2015 @06:24PM (#10761672)
Pair programming is not for everyone. More generally, you want to be somewhere you can learn from senior folk. Pair programming and high quality code reviews are both great for this, and will appeal to different people.
Re:Big Company vs. Startup Work and Compensation by henrik_w on Saturday December 19, 2015 @12:04PM (#10764094)
Strongly agree on point 3. On top of my list of requirements for places to work is "the product is software", just before "great colleagues".

http://henrikwarne.com/2013/03/26/what-do-programmers-want/