Graduated for 4 years, going back to school.for CS degree?

[mahoro]

Graduated since 2008 with a commerce degree
my work experience is all around the banks (chartered bank and custodian.banks)
Starting as Settlement, Business Analyst and now.into Market Data analyst
However, the pay is never rewarding chance to climb is pretty limited unless I stay in here for a decade or so....

A friend of mine has been advising me to study a cs degree, he said there's a lot of tech job around, more so in united state that's start in.70k in the lower end and average about 90k...

I am okay with programming and I can write some fancy VBA.....

I believe the exposure to CS is beneficial but has been wondering if it is worth it to take another 3 years off studying (I did manage to save some $, but not much)...

[JK400]

Sounds like you've already landed an average CS type job (Data/Market analysts is a pretty average CS position). Those 90k jobs down in the states usually go to the superstar coders and programmers who have been coding since they've been 5 years old, the type of people that can read 100,000 lines of code like a novel. For the average CS grad, entry level positions would typically be in the 45-50k range probably debugging, doing low level software development or something in database either as an analyst or dealing with transaction processing or something. Some end up in IT as well, even help desk.

The short and sweet of it, it's a pretty good field to get into IMO if your heart is in it, but I wouldn't go diving in just because you can write some excel VBA macros and because your friend told you about the top jobs in the states. Do some research into the job market and be honest with yourself if you have the ability both in programming and math (the programming is usually at a pretty high level and there are a lot of math courses and applied math courses) to complete the program before quitting your job.

[Troodon]

You should find a part-time program to do so that you can retain your current job. It seems too risky to give up your job for 4 years.

[Applecart]

One of my friends has just got a job offer from Apple and he told me all about the grueling 10 hour group interview that he had to go through against 13 other candidates. Getting $80,000 in base salary and $300,000 in RSU for an entry level position sounds good. And getting $300,000 in base and $1,500,000 in RSU after 5 years sounds even better! However I don't think those Silicon Valley jobs are for an average Joe. Think of it this way. Why this you get your current job instead of being an equity analyst at Goldman Sachs? That's the same thing.

[Mark77]

JK400 pretty much hit the nail on the head, and $80,000 might seem like a lot of money, but it is insanely expensive to live in the Silicon Valley. Further, getting into Apple or Google is often a matter of beating 1 in 1000 odds. Not to be discouraging, but if you're going to make a career plan of it, you need to know the truth.


And getting $300,000 in base and $1,500,000 in RSU after 5 years sounds even better!

Your numbers are way out. Those are executive level salaries in the Valley. If you look at Glassdoor, the average Soft Engineer of all experience levels at Google/Apple is in the $80-$115k range, give or take.

If you're really after upside, then one would probably be best advised to join a startup. But startups are notoriously picky as to who they hire.

Do you really feel that there's nothing you could do with your financial skillset? Like add a MBA or some sort of accounting designation? A lot of CS grads would probably be envious of your position in a bank, believe it or not.


he said there's a lot of tech job around

The problem with this statement is that, while it might appear that there's a lot of advertised tech jobs, its not uncommon to see the same job advertised 20 times by recruitment/head-hunter firms hoping to find the 'perfect' candidate and score a commission. And some job ads are actually fake, posted for the express purpose of qualifying an existing employee for an immigrant work authorization.

[damnos]

I am okay with programming and I can write some fancy VBA......

VBA is quite useless ...


Sounds like you've already landed an average CS type job (Data/Market analysts is a pretty average CS position). Those 90k jobs down in the states usually go to the superstar coders and programmers who have been coding since they've been 5 years old, the type of people that can read 100,000 lines of code like a novel. For the average CS grad, entry level positions would typically be in the 45-50k range probably debugging, doing low level software development or something in database either as an analyst or dealing with transaction processing or something. Some end up in IT as well, even help desk.

JK400 gave a good overview of what is like.
Although 70-80k job in Toronto is not too hard to get after 3-5 years off your graduation, it really depends how you progress in your experience in development.
Sometimes you get lucky where you join a smaller company and ended up with huge responsibilities and get a ton lot of experience in a very short time, skills that you can easily sell to market yourself to the higher end of salaries. A 45-55k range would be average starting salary for devs in Toronto.

[Nyte]

Sounds like you've already landed an average CS type job (Data/Market analysts is a pretty average CS position). Those 90k jobs down in the states usually go to the superstar coders and programmers who have been coding since they've been 5 years old, the type of people that can read 100,000 lines of code like a novel. For the average CS grad, entry level positions would typically be in the 45-50k range probably debugging, doing low level software development or something in database either as an analyst or dealing with transaction processing or something. Some end up in IT as well, even help desk.

The short and sweet of it, it's a pretty good field to get into IMO if your heart is in it, but I wouldn't go diving in just because you can write some excel VBA macros and because your friend told you about the top jobs in the states. Do some research into the job market and be honest with yourself if you have the ability both in programming and math (the programming is usually at a pretty high level and there are a lot of math courses and applied math courses) to complete the program before quitting your job.
:arrowu: Well said.


One of my friends has just got a job offer from Apple and he told me all about the grueling 10 hour group interview that he had to go through against 13 other candidates. Getting $80,000 in base salary and $300,000 in RSU for an entry level position sounds good. And getting $300,000 in base and $1,500,000 in RSU after 5 years sounds even better! However I don't think those Silicon Valley jobs are for an average Joe. Think of it this way. Why this you get your current job instead of being an equity analyst at Goldman Sachs? That's the same thing.
Your numbers are misleading.

The interviews are only "grueling" if you don't know what you're doing. Otherwise, it's basically you spending a day talking to employees and doing some problem solving. Also, you aren't competing against 13 other candidates. The competition for employees is fierce, so these companies will take as many qualified people as they can find, (i.e. if all 13 were good enough, they would all get offers).

RSUs have a vesting schedule, so you only see a certain % of that each year. In your first example, assuming the 300K vested over 5 years, the offer is equivalent to 80K base + 60K/yr equity, so 140K/yr which is quite plausible. The second number, while possible, is extremely uncommon. You would need to be promoted basically every year and/or skip levels to do that.

[Mark77]

:The interviews are only "grueling" if you don't know what you're doing. Otherwise, it's basically you spending a day talking to employees and doing some problem solving. Also, you aren't competing against 13 other candidates. The competition for employees is fierce, so these companies will take as many qualified people as they can find, (i.e. if all 13 were good enough, they would all get offers).


Google gets 1000 applications for each SoftEng they hire. Facebook is even worse. You can go onto LinkedIn and see SoftEng positions at Broadcom positions receiving just 300+ applications through the LinkedIn site alone (nevermind what they receive from other channels). Competition for employees is *not* fierce. If "they" think you're too old, too white, too shy, too outgoing, mess up one seemingly trivial question on an interview, or simply don't like even the slightest aspect of you, tech firms don't hesitate to reject because they have hundreds of other people they can look at.

This is the aftermath of a decade of record graduation rates from CS programs + massive immigration of tech professionals + offshoring of many jobs that formerly would have been entry-level + growth rates in employment not sufficient to match.

[Dilton]

Mark77 is right. Too many CS grads out there, not enough jobs for them all. The best will always find good jobs, but the other 90% will not have it easy.

[Dilton]

Graduated since 2008 with a commerce degree
my work experience is all around the banks (chartered bank and custodian.banks)
Starting as Settlement, Business Analyst and now.into Market Data analyst
However, the pay is never rewarding chance to climb is pretty limited unless I stay in here for a decade or so....

A friend of mine has been advising me to study a cs degree, he said there's a lot of tech job around, more so in united state that's start in.70k in the lower end and average about 90k...

I am okay with programming and I can write some fancy VBA.....

I believe the exposure to CS is beneficial but has been wondering if it is worth it to take another 3 years off studying (I did manage to save some $, but not much)...
Perhaps the reason your career is not as successful as you'd like is due to your terrible English skills? Maybe you should work on that instead.

[Mark77]

Mark77 is right. Too many CS grads out there, not enough jobs for them all. The best will always find good jobs,

This isn't correct either. With those 1000 resumes in the queues per position for the decent jobs, many of "the best" don't even get interviews after sending out thousands of applications.

In short, the take-away message is that CS is a real crap-shoot. I've seen mediocre people actually find jobs because they aim relatively low (ie: help desk). And I've seen (and am even an example of) higher-end talent rot away for years because they face the misfortune of their resumes ending up in that pile of 1000. Actually the low-end jobs tend to be more plentiful compared to the high-end jobs, so the bottom end of the classes may very well have better performance than the top.

Of course, we know from statistics that if we buy 1 lottery ticket for 1000 lotteries with 1 in 1000 odds of winning, there is still a very large probability that one won't win the prize.

[Dilton]

This isn't correct either. With those 1000 resumes in the queues per position for the decent jobs, many of "the best" don't even get interviews after sending out thousands of applications.
But of those 1000 resumes, most are from people mail-bombing their resumes to thousands of positions in the hope that they'll land an interview, and most of them are not qualified for the position they're applying for. Look through those 1000 resumes and throw away all the ones where the person does not meet the minimum requirements in the job ad, and how many are you left with? A lot less. Anyone who sends out thousands of applications and doesn't get interviews is most certainly not anywhere close to the best. When I was looking for my last job 2 years ago, I'd say one in about 20 resumes resulted in an interview, and I don't consider myself among the best in my field. As tough as the job market is, companies need good people. Thousands of people get hired each month, so it's not as if there's no hiring at all going on. My own company is looking for a few software devs, and what we're finding is that most people we interview are mediocre. Even the ones who have really great looking resumes turn out to be mediocre candidates when you actually meet them in person. If you're brilliant at what you do, you'll definitely find something. If you're average, you'll have a much tougher time, and if you're below average... well, Walmart can always use someone to stock shelves.

[Mark77]

But of those 1000 resumes, most are from people mail-bombing their resumes to thousands of positions in the hope that they'll land an interview, and most of them are not qualified for the position they're applying for.


Not from what I've been told by the individuals on the 'other' side of those resumes. A local telco recruiter I've dealt with received 50 resumes for an entry-level job recently -- nearly all of them had a fairly strong nexus to the position. They can only really interview 4-5 people, so 45 resumes basically went into the garbage. Who knows what sort of talent they threw out in that pile?



Look through those 1000 resumes and throw away all the ones where the person does not meet the minimum requirements in the job ad, and how many are you left with? A lot less.


I disagree. Maybe 10-20% aren't qualified, but the rest tend to be. People don't generally waste their time filling out long application forms unless there is at least some sort of strong nexus betwen their qualifications and the job itself.



Anyone who sends out thousands of applications and doesn't get interviews is most certainly not anywhere close to the best.


How would anyone know if they don't get interviewed? That's the problem -- we have the situation of thousands of top quality grads out there submitting resumes, but they get lost in the overall sea of resumes. And the glut means that labour mobility is extremely difficult even for experienced people.


My own company is looking for a few software devs, and what we're finding is that most people we interview are mediocre. Even the ones who have really great looking resumes turn out to be mediocre candidates when you actually meet them in

Maybe there's something wrong with how you approach candidates then? There's a tendency, amongst software people, to think that things they work with on a day-to-day basis, in and out, that are highly technical/in-depth, are matters of routine knowledge to even people who have a broader overall amount of technical training in their field.

For instance, if you're used to sitting there for months and using a certain API that is very specific to your project, the tendency will be to formulate interview questions based on that specific API. Now, of course, if someone with excellent knowledge of programming, but no knowledge of your specific API comes in, you're probably going to come to an errorneous conclusion as to his/her skill level and aptitude. Even if your API would only take weeks to learn. All too often tech firms just sit there with their thumb up with their ***** , "OMFG, there's a shortage of labour, we can't find someone who knows our private XYZ123 API, we need more tech immigrants."

The better way to test people is on overall aptitude. Look at their transcript. See if they took the hard courses and how well did they do in them. Ask to see or hear about examples of the projects they've done in the past, whether it be in CS (engineering) school, in open source, in free time, whatever.

The tendency these days is to throw a big coding test infront of them right away, with no tall cup of coffee, probably on some little laptop, in an API or IDE that they're not familiar with -- and then write them off as incompetent when they can't work under those conditions in the five minutes you've alloted.

[Dilton]

Not from what I've been told by the individuals on the 'other' side of those resumes. A local telco recruiter I've dealt with received 50 resumes for an entry-level job recently -- nearly all of them had a fairly strong nexus to the position. They can only really interview 4-5 people, so 45 resumes basically went into the garbage. Who knows what sort of talent they threw out in that pile?
I doubt that, I suspect you're making this up to bolster your argument.


I disagree. Maybe 10-20% aren't qualified, but the rest tend to be. People don't generally waste their time filling out long application forms unless there is at least some sort of strong nexus betwen their qualifications and the job itself.
It's the other way around, from my experience. People will apply to any position that they think they're even remotely qualified for, even if they're missing some significant qualifications that the position requires. So it's no surprise that most positions get tons of applications, but that's irrelevant when only a small portion of those applications are worth looking at. And applications forms don't take long to fill out, maybe 5 minutes, especially since most people do not tailor their resume to the position, they just send the same resume everywhere. Our company doesn't even have an application form, just an email address you're supposed to send your resume to.


How would anyone know if they don't get interviewed? That's the problem -- we have the situation of thousands of top quality grads out there submitting resumes, but they get lost in the overall sea of resumes. And the glut means that labour mobility is extremely difficult even for experienced people.
If they were truly top quality, they would be smart enough to make their resumes stand out from the rest. If your resume does list all the necessary skills and experience the job requires, then it's unlikely it would get thrown out, assuming the job posting was legitimate. At least at small and medium companies where a person reviews each resume. Large companies sometimes use filtering software which will discard resumes (for example if the words "java" and "sql" don't each appear on the resume 5 times then it gets discarded) and this can sometimes result in the occasional qualified candidate being overlooked.


Maybe there's something wrong with how you approach candidates then? There's a tendency, amongst software people, to think that things they work with on a day-to-day basis, in and out, that are highly technical/in-depth, are matters of routine knowledge to even people who have a broader overall amount of technical training in their field.

For instance, if you're used to sitting there for months and using a certain API that is very specific to your project, the tendency will be to formulate interview questions based on that specific API. Now, of course, if someone with excellent knowledge of programming, but no knowledge of your specific API comes in, you're probably going to come to an errorneous conclusion as to his/her skill level and aptitude. Even if your API would only take weeks to learn. All too often tech firms just sit there with their thumb up with their ***** , "OMFG, there's a shortage of labour, we can't find someone who knows our private XYZ123 API, we need more tech immigrants."
Actually lack of technical skills are not the only problem. A significant number of candidates seem to have a serious lack of other soft skills and social skills, I wouldn't hire them even if they knew every API in the world. For example, people whose command of the English language is so terrible you have to ask them a question 5 times before they understand what you're asking, people who have not even visited your company website, people who have no idea what your company does, people who claim to have a CS degree and can't answer basic questions about CS concepts that a 1st year CS student would know, etc.


The better way to test people is on overall aptitude. Look at their transcript. See if they took the hard courses and how well did they do in them. Ask to see or hear about examples of the projects they've done in the past, whether it be in CS (engineering) school, in open source, in free time, whatever.
Those are really only applicable to recent grads. If you've got several years of experience under your belt, no one's gonna care how well you did in your university courses. Lots of people have book smarts, but can't get things done.


The tendency these days is to throw a big coding test infront of them right away, with no tall cup of coffee, probably on some little laptop, in an API or IDE that they're not familiar with -- and then write them off as incompetent when they can't work under those conditions in the five minutes you've alloted.
I've never seen that, but what we do is have them write some code on the board, usually something not too difficult, like write a function that takes in a string and reverses the words, or a function that reverses a linked list. Something that any average software developer should be able to do. Most can't.

[damnos]

Google gets 1000 applications for each SoftEng they hire. Facebook is even worse. You can go onto LinkedIn and see SoftEng positions at Broadcom positions receiving just 300+ applications through the LinkedIn site alone (nevermind what they receive from other channels). Competition for employees is *not* fierce. If "they" think you're too old, too white, too shy, too outgoing, mess up one seemingly trivial question on an interview, or simply don't like even the slightest aspect of you, tech firms don't hesitate to reject because they have hundreds of other people they can look at.

This is the aftermath of a decade of record graduation rates from CS programs + massive immigration of tech professionals + offshoring of many jobs that formerly would have been entry-level + growth rates in employment not sufficient to match.

Mark77 - you forgot to mention and blame Nortel

[Nyte]

Google gets 1000 applications for each SoftEng they hire. Facebook is even worse. You can go onto LinkedIn and see SoftEng positions at Broadcom positions receiving just 300+ applications through the LinkedIn site alone (nevermind what they receive from other channels). Competition for employees is *not* fierce. If "they" think you're too old, too white, too shy, too outgoing, mess up one seemingly trivial question on an interview, or simply don't like even the slightest aspect of you, tech firms don't hesitate to reject because they have hundreds of other people they can look at.

This is the aftermath of a decade of record graduation rates from CS programs + massive immigration of tech professionals + offshoring of many jobs that formerly would have been entry-level + growth rates in employment not sufficient to match.

Getting lots of applications is not the same as getting lots of qualified people. If it were only as simple as you make it out to be to find people, company's wouldn't be paying between 2k - 10k in referral bonuses. I mean, if those thousands of people coming in were so good, why waste that kind of money?