5 ms·

> Is tech really that different? Every profession has problems around social social proof. There are limited resources for recruiting and so heuristics that wo

> Is tech really that different? Every profession has problems around social social proof. There are limited resources for recruiting and so heuristics that work get used. But I really can't think of any field that does better than tech in terms of keeping those barriers low relative to possible income and prestige. I know people who dropped out of high school making >300k/yr as software engineers, and god only knows how many college drop outs (myself included) who are also making that kind of money. Conversely, people I know who went to law schools that are not one of the top 10 in the country are never even considered for high paying jobs in their industry. If a path to those jobs is available, it does not appear to be widely known, unlike the path to big tech. Yes, without social proof getting your start is harder, and all else being equal ivy league grads will always have a leg up on you, but these are some truly phenomenal opportunities for people to climb the ladder.

kodah 5y ago
Our experiences are fairly rare from what I've seen. Undoubtedly the door is open, but the weight of that door is still far too high and I would not give tech points in the category of meritocracy for that. Also worth mentioning that 300k is FAANG level compensation, and those salaries are fairly rare and not indicative of where most people with less-than-prestigious backgrounds end up (another commenter posted what I think is a fairly accurate average tale). Not to mention those salaries are often geo-centric.
- Hermitian909 5y ago
  > I would not give tech points in the category of meritocracy for that Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? > and not indicative of where most people with less-than-prestigious backgrounds end up It's hard to tell how much this is an indictment of tech's process versus society at large. Anecdotally, I find a higher proportion of people from more prestigious backgrounds are more skilled at work. This should be unsurprising because people from those backgrounds have generally been given many advantages in life. In a former life I was an educator and was paid a lot of money to impart valuable skills to the children of rich families. If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. Again, I don't want to argue tech is some perfect meritocracy, just that I'm not aware that anyone's done better.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I read the parent/GP as simply saying that while tech doesn't have the same level of gatekeeping as white shoe law does or, for that matter, academia in general, if you have a decent GPA from Stanford things will be far easier than they will be for an equally skilled high school dropout with no connections. The challenge (which has no easy answer) is that it's far easier for companies to focus on the Stanford grads with decent GPAs than all the high school dropouts who upload a resume, especially if they don't have an obviously interesting portfolio/presence in open source communities.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Graduating from Stanford with a decent GPA is itself a useful signal and unsurprisingly things are therefore easier. It gives evidence that not only are you equally skilled as that high-school dropout (as given in the premise of this scenario), but that you have basic life, organizational, planning, and work with others skills to graduate from Stanford.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? Apologies, I was not trying to argue that you were presenting it was. That's my internal ideal: tech should be meritocratic and involve zero prestige. To me arguing whether tech is better or worse than any other industry is fairly futile. It's more important to say, "Should this field require a degree and prestige or not?" The answer in tech is, "no", so the fact that we have it and that it weighs so heavy is what makes it frustrating. It's like saying, "Once you're in it matters less!" In medicine or law, that's entirely different. At the end of the day, the process of interviewing and hiring is still bad (if not worse) so being better (or even drastically better) than other fields means very little. > If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. That's a fair point, prestigious people generally thrive in a meritocracy. Though, I think what this inevitably leads to is "invest more in education and opportunity" platitudes. The fact is, those things are a long way off from getting feasibly better. There are ways to bridge that gap, like offering free courses in algorithms and data structures for people from non-prestigious backgrounds, but I have a feeling the hiring requirements would just shift then.
- lupire 5y ago
  There are about a million people with FAANG-tier software/engineering jobs.
Nasrudith 5y ago
As a technicality the music industry might win out given the successes from the lows and highs of society (even if genre clustered). There are some who got into it by industry connections, some with a background of education, and others through a whole lot of practice to nurture their talent. A good seed alone does not make a bumper crop. The industry is also far more of a crapshoot however as luck, image, and zeitgeist play a role. You might recommend somebody very good at music to give it a try but not an across the board career recommendation.

kodah 5y ago

Our experiences are fairly rare from what I've seen. Undoubtedly the door is open, but the weight of that door is still far too high and I would not give tech points in the category of meritocracy for that. Also worth mentioning that 300k is FAANG level compensation, and those salaries are fairly rare and not indicative of where most people with less-than-prestigious backgrounds end up (another commenter posted what I think is a fairly accurate average tale). Not to mention those salaries are often geo-centric.

Hermitian909 5y ago
> I would not give tech points in the category of meritocracy for that Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? > and not indicative of where most people with less-than-prestigious backgrounds end up It's hard to tell how much this is an indictment of tech's process versus society at large. Anecdotally, I find a higher proportion of people from more prestigious backgrounds are more skilled at work. This should be unsurprising because people from those backgrounds have generally been given many advantages in life. In a former life I was an educator and was paid a lot of money to impart valuable skills to the children of rich families. If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. Again, I don't want to argue tech is some perfect meritocracy, just that I'm not aware that anyone's done better.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I read the parent/GP as simply saying that while tech doesn't have the same level of gatekeeping as white shoe law does or, for that matter, academia in general, if you have a decent GPA from Stanford things will be far easier than they will be for an equally skilled high school dropout with no connections. The challenge (which has no easy answer) is that it's far easier for companies to focus on the Stanford grads with decent GPAs than all the high school dropouts who upload a resume, especially if they don't have an obviously interesting portfolio/presence in open source communities.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Graduating from Stanford with a decent GPA is itself a useful signal and unsurprisingly things are therefore easier. It gives evidence that not only are you equally skilled as that high-school dropout (as given in the premise of this scenario), but that you have basic life, organizational, planning, and work with others skills to graduate from Stanford.
- kodah 5y ago
  > Why? I'm not trying to argue here that tech is a meritocracy but so far as I've been able to discern it is more meritocratic than any other field offering middle class or above wages. If you disagree, I'd be super interested to hear which fields are doing a better job. If you agree, why not give credit to the industry for doing a better job at solving this very hard problem than anyone else? Apologies, I was not trying to argue that you were presenting it was. That's my internal ideal: tech should be meritocratic and involve zero prestige. To me arguing whether tech is better or worse than any other industry is fairly futile. It's more important to say, "Should this field require a degree and prestige or not?" The answer in tech is, "no", so the fact that we have it and that it weighs so heavy is what makes it frustrating. It's like saying, "Once you're in it matters less!" In medicine or law, that's entirely different. At the end of the day, the process of interviewing and hiring is still bad (if not worse) so being better (or even drastically better) than other fields means very little. > If we view meritocracy as judging workers as they are, and not accounting for what they might have been in a more equitable society, that's the outcome I'd expect from a meritorious interview process. That's a fair point, prestigious people generally thrive in a meritocracy. Though, I think what this inevitably leads to is "invest more in education and opportunity" platitudes. The fact is, those things are a long way off from getting feasibly better. There are ways to bridge that gap, like offering free courses in algorithms and data structures for people from non-prestigious backgrounds, but I have a feeling the hiring requirements would just shift then.
lupire 5y ago
There are about a million people with FAANG-tier software/engineering jobs.

Nasrudith 5y ago

As a technicality the music industry might win out given the successes from the lows and highs of society (even if genre clustered). There are some who got into it by industry connections, some with a background of education, and others through a whole lot of practice to nurture their talent. A good seed alone does not make a bumper crop. The industry is also far more of a crapshoot however as luck, image, and zeitgeist play a role. You might recommend somebody very good at music to give it a try but not an across the board career recommendation.