5 ms·

The comment I'm replying to specifically mentions Leet Code (I am assuming that is what LC stood for) which is the only reason I brought it up. Your point is ex

by throwaway2016a 5y ago

The comment I'm replying to specifically mentions Leet Code (I am assuming that is what LC stood for) which is the only reason I brought it up. Your point is exactly my point, leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for. So assuming Levels.fyi is accurate (their numbers are $20k more than salary.com which is more accurate in my opinion): my point was that I am average, right in the middle. But this article is telling me (and by extension, since I am at the mean, 50% of software engineers) are extremely underpaid. And maybe on a nation wide scale that includes non-Boston metros, I am. But for Boston... I'm not over or under. I'm right in the middle. Basically based on my research I think this article is for a very niche group at the top 25% of pay ranges and is not accurate or relevant to 75%+ of software developers (numbers are ballpark).

throwdecro 5y ago
> leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for Leetcode is relevant to getting the money though. It may be the case that inexperienced new hires with Leetcode proficiency make significantly more money than CTOs in the positions you're considering.
Jensson 5y ago
> Your point is exactly my point, leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for. But the jobs you'd get with leetcode would pay twice your current expected liquid compensation at least (assuming 0 stock growth) for your experience level. If you don't want those then fine, but then you can't complain about threads like this either. Google has jobs in Boston, I bet there are many other tech companies paying similar as well. Pay at these varies by location, but not more than around 10% within USA, so it isn't like it is your locations fault, if you worked at these companies you'd be earning very close to the same you'd earn in silicon valley.
- throwaway2016a 5y ago
  I'm not complaining, if you read my posts am saying the article is not representative of a majority of software engineers' experience. Using my career as an example. I even explicitly say that in the very comment you are replying to. Not everyone works for FAANG. Also, leet code is not relevant because the questions asked at that level are typically not algorithms. I passed the leet code stage in my career 10 years ago. Questions I get asked are typically around architecture, distributed systems, scaling, etc. So what you are saying is someone who can answer the leet code questions easily (and has been able to for a decade) AND is an expert architect, should get paid less than someone who can only do leet code?
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > leet code is not relevant because the questions asked at that level are typically not algorithms Top companies still ask algorithms at these levels and fail people at these levels if they don't perform at least as well as juniors. If you are L6 at Google you are looking at liquid compensation around $500k a year, and they still require mostly leetcode questions. Of course you wont get considered for those positions without a ton of experience, but to get them you have to do your algorithm homework. > should get paid less Not should, will. I didn't make any claims to what things should look like, I am talking about what the market looks like now. Your ability to do algorithms is more important for your compensation than your ability as an architect or as a leader except for extreme cases where you start to get into higher management positions at big companies. Edit: And if you are great at algorithms as you say, but doesn't leverage that skill to get higher pay then that has the same effect on your compensation as not knowing algorithms. It is simple. So your insistence on only looking for jobs that doesn't test algorithms is probably the reason your salary didn't balloon as you'd expect.
    - throwaway2016a 5y ago
      I've never gone through a FAANG interview but I have gone through some fortune 100s and never once been asked an algorithm questions. But I have no reason not to believe you about FAANG. Saying questions asked at that level are not about algorithms was based on my non-FAANG experience. I shouldn't have been so absolute. But with that said, to back up and restate where I was trying to get. What I was trying to say is that algorithms are table stakes, you should absolutely know them at a senior level but the actually questions you should be being asked should be more advanced than that.
      - dfadsadsf 5y ago
        Big difference between FAANG and other fortune companies is that FAANG expect their managers up to very senior level to be technical and be able to code even if they do not code day to day. Other Fortune 100 companies are happy to have non-technical managers to manage engineers with mixed results. In all SV companies coding interviews are strictly required at interviews at M1/M2 level (up to 60-80 reports) and required at some companies at D1 level (150 reports). CTO at start up with 20-30 reports is M1 and will have to do coding 100% and failing coding interview is automatic no hire.

throwdecro 5y ago

> leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for Leetcode is relevant to getting the money though. It may be the case that inexperienced new hires with Leetcode proficiency make significantly more money than CTOs in the positions you're considering.

Jensson 5y ago

> Your point is exactly my point, leet code is not relevant to the type of position I'd be looking for. But the jobs you'd get with leetcode would pay twice your current expected liquid compensation at least (assuming 0 stock growth) for your experience level. If you don't want those then fine, but then you can't complain about threads like this either. Google has jobs in Boston, I bet there are many other tech companies paying similar as well. Pay at these varies by location, but not more than around 10% within USA, so it isn't like it is your locations fault, if you worked at these companies you'd be earning very close to the same you'd earn in silicon valley.

throwaway2016a 5y ago
I'm not complaining, if you read my posts am saying the article is not representative of a majority of software engineers' experience. Using my career as an example. I even explicitly say that in the very comment you are replying to. Not everyone works for FAANG. Also, leet code is not relevant because the questions asked at that level are typically not algorithms. I passed the leet code stage in my career 10 years ago. Questions I get asked are typically around architecture, distributed systems, scaling, etc. So what you are saying is someone who can answer the leet code questions easily (and has been able to for a decade) AND is an expert architect, should get paid less than someone who can only do leet code?
- Jensson 5y ago
  > leet code is not relevant because the questions asked at that level are typically not algorithms Top companies still ask algorithms at these levels and fail people at these levels if they don't perform at least as well as juniors. If you are L6 at Google you are looking at liquid compensation around $500k a year, and they still require mostly leetcode questions. Of course you wont get considered for those positions without a ton of experience, but to get them you have to do your algorithm homework. > should get paid less Not should, will. I didn't make any claims to what things should look like, I am talking about what the market looks like now. Your ability to do algorithms is more important for your compensation than your ability as an architect or as a leader except for extreme cases where you start to get into higher management positions at big companies. Edit: And if you are great at algorithms as you say, but doesn't leverage that skill to get higher pay then that has the same effect on your compensation as not knowing algorithms. It is simple. So your insistence on only looking for jobs that doesn't test algorithms is probably the reason your salary didn't balloon as you'd expect.
  - throwaway2016a 5y ago
    I've never gone through a FAANG interview but I have gone through some fortune 100s and never once been asked an algorithm questions. But I have no reason not to believe you about FAANG. Saying questions asked at that level are not about algorithms was based on my non-FAANG experience. I shouldn't have been so absolute. But with that said, to back up and restate where I was trying to get. What I was trying to say is that algorithms are table stakes, you should absolutely know them at a senior level but the actually questions you should be being asked should be more advanced than that.
    - dfadsadsf 5y ago
      Big difference between FAANG and other fortune companies is that FAANG expect their managers up to very senior level to be technical and be able to code even if they do not code day to day. Other Fortune 100 companies are happy to have non-technical managers to manage engineers with mixed results. In all SV companies coding interviews are strictly required at interviews at M1/M2 level (up to 60-80 reports) and required at some companies at D1 level (150 reports). CTO at start up with 20-30 reports is M1 and will have to do coding 100% and failing coding interview is automatic no hire.