I'm gonna second this. Started my career as a software dev at a commodities exchange. Pay was excellent for the area I lived in and my experience level, 9-5 was 100% standard and enforced by the team culture, on-call was nonexistent as dedicated support people handled that, bonus was better than the ones I got while working at Microsoft, and got to work with some of the best software engineers I've ever met. Incredible job security, no one got let go or put on any kind of PIP as everyone was pretty self motivated--even if they weren't the best. All in all, I would highly recommend this as a good career path.

I left because it was my first job out of college and I wanted to see what else was out in the world. But it stays a fond memory of a solid job.

There's a very strong correlation "you have to dress like an adult", and "you will be treated like an adult".

Yes, a lot of adults wear sweatshirts and hoodies now. However, if you wore a shirt and tie to a high school, they would make fun of you for dressing up like your dad. We have collectively agreed on a "grown-up" attire.

In other countries, it's very common for boys to wear a shirt and tie to school. Even here it's part of the uniform at many private schools and some charter schools, and it's the norm for children at formal events. It's not 'grown-up' attire, it's 'serious' attire.

I wore a tie to school every day in high school. Then I did it again at a well know startup. In both instances someone pulled me aside to tell me "keep dressing like that and you're going to stand out."

Yes.

I attended catholic high school in nyc from 1965 to 69 and we wore a sport coat and tie with dress slacks. Hair length inspections were conducted. It didn't kill anyone as far as I know.

The way I've always seen it, if you insist on being able to dress the way you want as a means of self-expression, then you really don't have anything worth expressing.

Dressing for comfort, or to suit the physical demands of your job are valid motivations. I wore a shirt and tie at my first job (back in 1987), but within a few years, I didn't bother any more because no one else did. Nowadays, "business casual" is fine by me.

"If you insist on being able to dress the way you want as a means of self expression then you really dont have anything worth expressing."

My initial reaction was to guffaw at the ridiculousness of such a statement. Expression through fashion and attire is pretty much the entire reason we dont all wear the same thing as each other every day. I feel the exact opposite as you: people who dont dress with the awareness that their appearance is a statement to the world they walk into are missing a massive opportunity to affect their day. How people treat you. How people respond to you. Etc.

But since I'm growing less cynical in my old age, I would care to learn more about your perspective if you care to share.

Well if you think about it in terms of the man-hours that must have been wasted doing "hair length inspections", it's probably equivalent to at least one person dying young :P

The zeitgeist in tech and in culture generally is a moving target. Look at dandyism in the 19th century, no one would argue that is how grown-ups dress today.

Well, there is Connecticut.

I wore a blazer, shirt and tie for every year of school from 11 to 18 years old, everyone did. In fact the last two years we a full tweed jacket that spelt like wet dog when it go wet and was nigh on indestructible.

> got great experience...

Which, of course, tech companies don't value at all. From what I've seen, they much prefer to hire a fresh grad over somebody with a long record of proven performance.

So, I agree that one should seek work in tech at a non-tech company.

Interesting! How would you recommend someone transition from a startup-y job to one of those? Anything they look for in terms of qualifications?

Apply. I would like nothing more than a flow of applications from smart software engineers with BSs over scientists exiting of postdocing and MCFs.

The skill I look for over all others is an understanding of the standard principles of software design, and principles of testing is a bonus. I want to see that the candidate is honestly interested in our language to the extent that they are familiar with the obvious pitfalls of the standard language features. Candidates who prepared by writing option pricers and passing leetcode challenges won't necessarily understand any of these, because they are simply writing functions.

I assume that anyone who got through a rigorous engineering undergrad has the mathematical preparation to perform as a quantitative developer. This won't be true for all roles, but it's true for all of the QD roles that I have contact with at BB.

If you are interested in a dev role in finance, and see requirements for basic financial knowledge, risk, etc. -- as long as the requirement isn't quite specific, such as experience pricing specific option types, pricing complex products, or with a specific product, I would just ignore it and apply. Many of these concepts are quite simple compared to what SEs are trained to model and implement, and the people on the team who need help know that.

I've seen GPU and C++ skills requested for a Pandas shop. Just apply.

I think hiring managers and HR think they will attract better candidates by adding these things, but it is counterproductive.

From what I can tell from salary surveys, we pay an entry-level dev better than many others. >150 guaranteed all-in first year, and better than that afterwards if you just do your job. Promotion path is good because modern skills are in dire need.

They're large companies recruiting pretty much in all area of technologies. If you have experience in something, you should be able to get an introduction through a recruiter or find an existing employee to reference you.

The only trouble is that finance is only in the NYC area. You can't be there if you are in the valley.

"The only trouble is that finance is only in the NYC area. You can't be there if you are in the valley."

There used to be some in Chicago. Bank of America, Swiss Bank, First Chicago. Swiss Bank is now UBS and I don't know where they do their trading system development. First Chicago got absorbed by JP Morgan Chase. B of A might still do some trading development there, but I have no idea.

Back in the 90s Swiss Bank and First Chicago used NeXT for trading apps, and Swiss Bank had Symbolics machines here and there.

That might be the difference between "investment bank" and "bank" because I've heard stories about near-unhirable people who've been toiling away with Java 1.5 (as late as 2016) at (German) banks. They hated it, wanted to get out, but they'd lost touch with current tech unless they managed to sneak in some off-work hours with non-ancient stuff :/

Working at a (German) investment bank still using Java 6 and Perl 5 extensively in 2018, I can assure you it's not just retail banks. Legacy technology mires are everywhere in the enterprise world and often the premia to work in those places is precisely for dealing with this kind of old technology and decades of technical debt.

In any case the same bank with Blockchain and big data lakes will also be working with mainframes and COBOL, so generalisations about technology aren't particularly useful when it comes to organisations that are so large.