4 ms·

Market value for engineers in that area is $160-200k. Should OP apologize for declining $100k? He went through an long and arduous interview process, to be rew

Market value for engineers in that area is $160-200k. Should OP apologize for declining $100k? He went through an long and arduous interview process, to be rewarded with an offer that is less than 50% than his objective market value. Should he be grateful? IBM wasted his time and their own. I don't get this strange reluctance to accept that us engineers are finally commanding decent compensation. You don't see CEOs shaming each other for declining low offers. Everyone gets paid as much as they can. Why are we engineers supposed to be grateful for anything thrown our way? Are we morally obliged to race to the bottom?

streblo 8y ago
Market value for new grads is not $160-200k
- gaius 8y ago
  Including RSUs I presume
  - streblo 8y ago
    The original post specified "no stock options".
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > For comparison, the average new grad offer in Silicon Valley at a FAANG company here is $160k. If you play your cards right, you can negotiate this to $190k+. OP is implying that IBM is going for the same caliber of talent as FAANG, then lowballing at the end of the process, after you spent 3 days on site. I had that happen to me with a different company in the valley so I know how frustrating it is. Personally I'd expect IBM to try to compete with FAANG, so I also understand the surprise there. Finally, OP apparently did get his $160k+ offer eventually, so he was right that IBM lowballed him.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    Using FAANG salaries for the market value of engineers is like using Big Law salaries for the market value of lawyers. They represent a pinnacle, not a typical.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      Using FAANG comp is definitely relevant if you have FAANG-level credentials and can get an offer from a FAANG. If IBM is interviewing this type of people, they're expected to make competitive offers rather than waste everyone's time. The whole OP sounds like dictionary definition of HR dropping the ball, doing everything "corporate style", being out of touch with the market and the candidates, and then making unrealistic low offers. They deserve to be called out. Moreover, there was an article about how many companies are trying to compete with FAANG for the same talent by providing higher compensation, which corresponds with my personal experience and that of my friends. Apparently IBM decided to buck the trend.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        > Using FAANG comp is definitely relevant if you have FAANG-level credentials and can get an offer from a FAANG. Then why bother interviewing at IBM at all?
        dunpeal 8y ago
        Because they are a well known company, and OP assumed they could pay competitively? It happened to me personally with another company: well-known in their field, everything they communicated implied they're aware of my current offers and looking to make a competitive counteroffer. Everything goes well... Then BAM, their offer is 20% less than my lowest outstanding offer, which they knew about. Total waste of time. So I understand OP's frustration.
        kamaal 8y ago
        >>Because they are a well known company, and OP assumed they could pay competitively? There is no way IBM would pay $200K to a fresher graduating out of college. I can't imagine any company doing that. Including Amazon. In fact if you remove Ad revenue driven companies, I guess apart from Apple, nobody would pay that much.
greedo 8y ago
Long and arduous? It's not like he had to find a blue flower on the slopes of a mountain and deliver it to Ra's Al Ghul. He had two phone/video interviews and then an in-person competition.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Maybe arduous isn’t the right word, but what do you call a 3 day long onsite?
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Per the article, he went through multiple steps that all seem quite demanding: > The screening interview requires: > A webcam with a clear view of you and your room > Granting a tool (admin) access to your computer to make sure you don't cheat > The screening interview consists of a basic coding challenge and pre-recorded video questions to which you must give a response. Your response must be in video format - it cannot be written. After you are delivered a question via video, you are given about a minute to formulate your response and then are required to narrate it back staring into your webcam. I'd consider this "arduous" for a very first step. Then the final stage is 3 days onsite. I'd consider that "long". My scale is other interview processes, not Batman origination stories.
  - greedo 8y ago
    We had an Oracle position that needed to be filled. Headhunter supplied a candidate, we did a phone interview, then an in person interview. Not very technical from what I understand, just Oracle/DBA basics. He starts at our secondary location, and seems to struggle. Simple tasks don't get accomplished quickly, and more complex jobs are incomplete. A few weeks go by, and our DBA manager visits the location, and realizes that the DBA is a completely different person than the one interviewed. Same ethnicity, but different person. He had apparently hired the interviewee to perform during the hiring process. Took us over a month to get rid of him; it was hard to prove that he had acted fraudulently, and the wheels of justice grind slowly. Between actual costs incurred and opportunity costs, it was a royal PITA. Weeding out these posers can be a problem. Again, his first step of the process doesn't seem arduous at all. Inconvenient and possibly annoying? Sure. But arduous is the incorrect word choice. When I was starting out, I had to interview at a headhunting company 2x. Then 2x interviews with the company I ended up at. I would have loved to be put up at a nice hotel during that process instead of having to drive all over meeting people. IBM is clearly responding to fraudulent interviews, plus signaling two things; that they have enough applicants to impose silly video interview protocols, and that once past the "technical" interview, it's all about schmoozing and politics. These signals tell you a lot about a company.
seattle_spring 8y ago
Market value for the average (not top tier) new grad is 200k? I seriously doubt that.

streblo 8y ago

Market value for new grads is not $160-200k

gaius 8y ago
Including RSUs I presume
- streblo 8y ago
  The original post specified "no stock options".
dunpeal 8y ago
> For comparison, the average new grad offer in Silicon Valley at a FAANG company here is $160k. If you play your cards right, you can negotiate this to $190k+. OP is implying that IBM is going for the same caliber of talent as FAANG, then lowballing at the end of the process, after you spent 3 days on site. I had that happen to me with a different company in the valley so I know how frustrating it is. Personally I'd expect IBM to try to compete with FAANG, so I also understand the surprise there. Finally, OP apparently did get his $160k+ offer eventually, so he was right that IBM lowballed him.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  Using FAANG salaries for the market value of engineers is like using Big Law salaries for the market value of lawyers. They represent a pinnacle, not a typical.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Using FAANG comp is definitely relevant if you have FAANG-level credentials and can get an offer from a FAANG. If IBM is interviewing this type of people, they're expected to make competitive offers rather than waste everyone's time. The whole OP sounds like dictionary definition of HR dropping the ball, doing everything "corporate style", being out of touch with the market and the candidates, and then making unrealistic low offers. They deserve to be called out. Moreover, there was an article about how many companies are trying to compete with FAANG for the same talent by providing higher compensation, which corresponds with my personal experience and that of my friends. Apparently IBM decided to buck the trend.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      > Using FAANG comp is definitely relevant if you have FAANG-level credentials and can get an offer from a FAANG. Then why bother interviewing at IBM at all?
      - dunpeal 8y ago
        Because they are a well known company, and OP assumed they could pay competitively? It happened to me personally with another company: well-known in their field, everything they communicated implied they're aware of my current offers and looking to make a competitive counteroffer. Everything goes well... Then BAM, their offer is 20% less than my lowest outstanding offer, which they knew about. Total waste of time. So I understand OP's frustration.
        kamaal 8y ago
        >>Because they are a well known company, and OP assumed they could pay competitively? There is no way IBM would pay $200K to a fresher graduating out of college. I can't imagine any company doing that. Including Amazon. In fact if you remove Ad revenue driven companies, I guess apart from Apple, nobody would pay that much.

greedo 8y ago

Long and arduous? It's not like he had to find a blue flower on the slopes of a mountain and deliver it to Ra's Al Ghul. He had two phone/video interviews and then an in-person competition.

pmiller2 8y ago
Maybe arduous isn’t the right word, but what do you call a 3 day long onsite?
dunpeal 8y ago
Per the article, he went through multiple steps that all seem quite demanding: > The screening interview requires: > A webcam with a clear view of you and your room > Granting a tool (admin) access to your computer to make sure you don't cheat > The screening interview consists of a basic coding challenge and pre-recorded video questions to which you must give a response. Your response must be in video format - it cannot be written. After you are delivered a question via video, you are given about a minute to formulate your response and then are required to narrate it back staring into your webcam. I'd consider this "arduous" for a very first step. Then the final stage is 3 days onsite. I'd consider that "long". My scale is other interview processes, not Batman origination stories.
- greedo 8y ago
  We had an Oracle position that needed to be filled. Headhunter supplied a candidate, we did a phone interview, then an in person interview. Not very technical from what I understand, just Oracle/DBA basics. He starts at our secondary location, and seems to struggle. Simple tasks don't get accomplished quickly, and more complex jobs are incomplete. A few weeks go by, and our DBA manager visits the location, and realizes that the DBA is a completely different person than the one interviewed. Same ethnicity, but different person. He had apparently hired the interviewee to perform during the hiring process. Took us over a month to get rid of him; it was hard to prove that he had acted fraudulently, and the wheels of justice grind slowly. Between actual costs incurred and opportunity costs, it was a royal PITA. Weeding out these posers can be a problem. Again, his first step of the process doesn't seem arduous at all. Inconvenient and possibly annoying? Sure. But arduous is the incorrect word choice. When I was starting out, I had to interview at a headhunting company 2x. Then 2x interviews with the company I ended up at. I would have loved to be put up at a nice hotel during that process instead of having to drive all over meeting people. IBM is clearly responding to fraudulent interviews, plus signaling two things; that they have enough applicants to impose silly video interview protocols, and that once past the "technical" interview, it's all about schmoozing and politics. These signals tell you a lot about a company.

seattle_spring 8y ago

Market value for the average (not top tier) new grad is 200k? I seriously doubt that.