If you graduate from any top 10 school in the US — which plenty of people do — it is indeed a pretty typical offer
Love how I’m downvoted for pointing out a fact. I mean, for fuck’s sake, look at levels.fyi. And look at how many people FAANG and FAANG-adjacent startups hire every year. It’s really not that rare. But hey, stay in denial.
Yeah but this is less than 1/10 of 1% of the number of people that graduate every year. By the same logic you could say that everyone has trust funds, because most of the people in this small slice have them. Just because something applies to the top 0.1% of the US doesn't mean it applies to the rest of the 99.9%. This is the problem with wealth and opportunity disparity in this country. The haves think that the have nots are in that position due to choice. It's not a choice to be born into poverty.
Georgia Tech is consistently ranked a Top 10 CS program (worldwide) and their OMSCS program now accounts for 10% of all MSCS degrees issued. It costs about 6,000 to 7,000 USD total:
"OMSCS started in January 2014 with 380 students. Enrollment increased each semester (excluding summer terms). In 2019 I believed that we were very close to the peak, since we are graduating more and more students. But then, the pandemic hit and we have kept growing every semester. This spring term we just passed a new mile stone – we have over 12,000 students, 12,016 to be precise. We might be at the peak or very close to it. Apparently, OMSCS is the biggest degree program, online or not in any subject in the US and probably the world. More importantly, the degree is of the same quality of the on campus program. We have 56 courses (we started with 5); several courses now have over 1,000 students. We graduated 1,970 in 2021 for a total of 6,470 so far. We are graduating in a year well over 10% of the number of those that graduate with MS in CS in the US." - Zvi Galil
Looks great on paper but the people you really need to reach don't have undergrad done. Is this one of those rare masters one can complete with no undergrad done?
It’s not a choice to apply yourself and get into a good school? I mean seriously, given how hot the US software market is, there’s no excuse.
And FWIW, I come from a poor immigrant background. My family was on welfare. I got free lunch at school. The American dream come true. Sorry that not everyone can hack it in life.
Exactly my point, folks with privilege like yourself don't even understand what privilege they have and have taken advantage of their whole life.
I did (apply myself). I did work my ass off to get into, and out of, (good) engineering school and pay for it also.
It simply wasn't an option for me to go to an expensive private or out of state school with a price tag of a couple hundred thousand dollars. So I went to the best school I could afford. Many folks are in this boat. It's not for a lack of trying or intelligence - it's for a lack of privilege.
Edit - I also want to acknowledge that compared to many folks in the world I am very privileged. It only serves to highlight my point even further. These statements are less about me personally and more about me recognizing that I, and many others in our HN world are very privileged in one way or another as compared to he average American, or Human.
Please stop using that word. It sucks the life from you because you think it excuses you from self analyzing why you aren't happy where you are. Life is not fair if you are a human, cat, squirrel or mouse. We are born into a specific set of conditions...look around and move but please stop using the word privilege. Everyone and everything is different.
I am very happy where I am. Within myself, I am not blaming anything for lack of anything but rather celebrate my successes and what has come from my hard work.
That doesn't mean I can't recognize that folks are different, and that where we start out most definitely has an impact on how far we go.
I actually agree with this, if only because of the political connotations the term “privilege” has acquired.
I think a better term would be “advantages”. It adequately describes the meaning that’s being conveyed without carrying the implication that it’s necessarily completely outside of the individual’s control.
Just what is it with extra privileged people and being allergic to admitting it.
You seriously, honestly, from the bottom of your heart, think that 90% of the 70k people living in the Complexo do Alemão are just lazy and don't fix their lives due to sloth?
Before you start, I'm happy with my life and my circumstances.
I went to a public in-state school with poor parents. Full need-based financial aid in school. I made 6 figures out of school and currently make the big numbers you claim are impossibly rare.
You claim that not everyone is intelligent enough to make it into these schools in another post but we know from science that even just changing the way you study can improve performance by half a standard deviation [1]. So maybe you just didn't work as hard as the competition? Maybe you didn't look at all the aspects of _how_ you work and do some self-reflection about working more efficiently?
Don't blame intelligence when your own decisions have much more impact on overall performance than 10-20 points of IQ do. Why do you think Asians comprise 50% of school populations where affirmative action is banned? Hint: it's not because of superior intelligence, but work ethic.
Nonsense, you were privileged to be the right kind of "poor", the kind of poor that the system caters to. Just because the system gave you a big hand up does not imply that it does for everyone in equal conditions. You were privileged and you don't even realize it.
There are many poor people that are never given that opportunity regardless of ability. To those people, you had an easy path.
>>> So I went to the best school I could afford. Many folks are in this boat. It's not for a lack of trying or intelligence - it's for a lack of privilege.
and
> But you had the privilege [o]f uncommon intelligence and test taking ability. Not all privilege is money.
Not really. It's not so black and white. My point is that above a certain threshold of GPA/test scores/"intelligence" college is free. If you are below that threshold college is not. For those of us that were below that threshold, for whatever reason, we had to figure out how to pay for it. Within that bucket there are people who's family can just pay for it, no matter how expensive (these are the people going to Harvard and Wharton out of pocket), and there are those who simply can't afford to pay 200k for an education because they don't have it. Those folks then choose state Schools (which I went to and are wonderful). My point is that the average graduate of Wharton has a much higher average starting salary than the average state school. Therefore tying a family's ability to pay more tuition with a graduates average salary being higher.
It's simply the way the world works. The rich get richer.
So just to be clear, you're repudiating your statement that when people can't afford to attend college, that's not for lack of intelligence on their part?
Sorry, where did the "reduction" occur in rephrasing "above a certain intelligence, college is free" to "if you can't afford college, you're missing some intelligence"?
The one is just the logical contrapositive of the other.
Those aren't the same thing, that's where the reduction occurred.
My statement, which is the simple reality of the world, was that top performing students who are able to prove so via grades, test scores and other admissions requirements and scholarship requirements, are able to have top tier educations paid for via scholarships and similar aid. For folks, like me, who weren't in that bucket, have a different set of opportunities and tradeoffs. Those include paying for a 200k "top tier" education if our situation affords it, or the choice I and many others make which is to go to the best state school (or other "affordable") option.
I'm not complaining, it's just how the world works. If you were to create a flow chart for college that covers any input (student), this is what it would look like.
Reducing the above to "college is free above a certain intelligence" is missing the point and focusing on a needless obsurd detail.
Ah yes, after all a lottery winner will advise everyone around them to play lottery - clearly it works, they are the best example.
Once again, you are refusing to acknowledge that the word "typical" is not appropriate here. Even in your example it's not typical for American people to achieve that American dream, as America is absolutely awful on the social mobility scale.
Edit: also it's really classy you are just deleting your replies to my comments instead of actually engaging in a discussion. Your choice I suppose.
Oh I know I have it good. 1% in terms of income. And I come from a really unprivileged background. Uneducated parents, family on welfare. Shit man, we were so poor, I got into college for free based on needs.
Were your parents - I'm quoting you here - "dumb and lazy"? Since they didn't pull themselves bup by the bootstraps like you did, and yet they allegedly had the same opportunities as you.
They did actually, work their way up from where they started. And eventually got to immigrate to America, where opportunities are much better and their kids could thrive. It’s the stereotypical thing where immigrants to this country are much more hardworking and appreciative of the opportunities they have here compared to their home country, versus the native population who doesn’t appreciate just how good they have it in America. I wouldn’t be surprised if my kids turn out that way — it’s just how it is.
I like how the person above can also say the following.
> Why is it nonsense? The wealthy and connected can already give their progeny undue access to opportunities via their social networks, and can afford the best education that money can buy. That's already way more of an advantage than the average citizen gets.
Besides, the whole point is to maximize equality of opportunity.
For computers, not everyone can afford computers in America. I was lucky to find a job walking fields as a child to afford one but that opportunity doesn't exist for everyone.
Spoiler - it's because it's seen by kids. If a kid in Jamaica wants to be a runner it's obvious to them what to do. Its being told to them every day in their sports entertainment, local events, advertising, etc. It a kid in Jamaica wants to be a CS person, they have no clue what to do. No TV ads, local clubs, events, races, all grooming them day by day to he a better programmer. We have that in the US, in the Bay area, etc. We are grooming young STEM folks from the beginning.
The book « The Sports Gene » discusses that the West African heritage of Jamacians actually gives them a genetic advantage. I forget the details but basically, to resist malaria they have sickle cell anemia which leads to powerful anaerobic systems ideal for sprinting.
You could put someone of different genetic stock in the same culture bit they wouldn’t be as successful at sprinting.
>>If you graduate from any top 10 school in the US — which plenty of people do
Yes, and globally that's still nothing. You are talking about the elite of the elite, chosen ones among the chosen ones. In other 1st world countries, and even in majority of USA no, recent graduates are not paid quarter of a million dollars. There's a select, very exclusive, very limited group of people who do. But like others have pointed out already - that's not "typical" by any definition of the word.
I wasn't aware that "elite of the elite" included many public schools that aren't even that difficult to get into. If you're a California resident UCSD, UCI, UCB, UCLA, UCSB are all accessible schools that give you a very solid shot at a FAANG job out of college. If you're a Michigan resident, same goes for UMich. Illinois, UIUC. Georgia, Georgia Tech. Texas, any number of great state schools. These schools are not that difficult to get into. They're also public, so there is no legacy shenanigans happening to boost wealthy applicants.
If you grew up in a shitty high school, you can go to a community college and then transfer to one of these state schools. I know for certain California has excellent policies that favor CC applicants transferring in. There are multiple ways in the door if you apply yourself.
Perhaps consider that a student that can't even get into a state school has no business or ability to write code at a level that would merit a 250k salary. The bar is on the floor.
That was literally me. Went to community college and, as you say, had a much easier time transferring to a UC. I wasn’t even among the smartest graduates in my program — not by a long shot. And yet, opportunities abound.
Like I said, the software engineering job market is red hot right now. I rejected a few offers and they still asked me a few months later if I would be interested in joining. That’s how desperate they are for anyone with even a reasonable amount of talent.
Which again supports the idea that it's about applying yourself and not about privilege or any other excuse that people use to justify their own shortcomings.
Exactly. Even if we take MIT which seems to graduate AT MOST 10,000 students each year -- times 10 (10x)-- it's only 100,000 graduates. The 1 million comes from where?
But we are specifically talking about graduates being paid quarter of a million dollars, so why are you bringing absolute numbers into the mix? Should I compare it against the absolute number of people working everywhere in the world? Because then that million won't be so large suddenly.
If you want to do this properly tell me how many graduates out of all graduates per year get paid quarter of a million dollars when they start. Because it will be such an insignificant number that again - using the word "typical" to describe it will be just delusional.
The Median Income in King County, where you work, is 90k / year. That's absurdly high in this country; but it's still less than HALF what you make. Check yourself.
When a large part of the compensation is stock, it's worth remembering that share prices can go down too.
Meta/FB is down 35% since September. Many public mid-cap software unicorns are down 50%. Smaller companies that IPO'd last year are often down even more than that.
If you joined one of these companies last fall and got a $150k base salary + $400k stock grant that vests over four years, your total compensation was $250k when hired, but is now down to $200k after the stock has lost 50%. Of course the stock price may go up again. (But it also may not, as anyone who lived through 1999-2001 remembers.)
Good point. I mean “typical” as in, entirely expected within a nontrivial portion of the population. Where absolutely nobody would be surprised that you’re making this much.
Is it typical for the general population to make a million a year? No, but it is entirely typical for investment bankers and quants at hedge funds. To say that is atypical of the average worker in America — well, of course, but that isn’t a very meaningful statement when you’re specifically discussing people in investment firms. And that’s what this article is about — the subset of the population for which this is entirely normal and expected.
You realize rarity is referencing the relative percentage of an event or item and not the absolute number right? If you have 1 million people in the numerator, but 100 million in the denominator, then the rate is pretty rare
Those salaries are only possible, because most of it is stock compensation, highly inflated due to the biggest stock market bubble of the last 30 years.
As of next week, as soon as the Fed starts raising rates, the stock market will crater. These compensation values will then become what companies are really willing to pay. Not much different from other parts of the world.
If you factor in the risk of bankruptcy in the US due to unexpected medical bills
and that you have to be on the 0.1% of Developer pools in the US, does not make it so amazing.
GP said quarter mil was typical of new grads (unqualified), not typical of elite new grads. A glance at BLS data shows that's multiples of the median wage in software.
It is highly likely that the former vice president of a startup is actually from one of those two small corners of the US (given that these also seem to be hot startup scenes), so it isn't a weird assumption for senior roles (not new grad ones). It isn't mentioned if she is a SWE or not, however, which would make a huge difference.
