6 ms·

Here's a question. Why isn't Wolfram Research considered a sexy employer? They have cool research and technical problems and cool software. I looked a bit into

Here's a question. Why isn't Wolfram Research considered a sexy employer? They have cool research and technical problems and cool software. I looked a bit into it but I could only see them hiring in 3rd world countries, and only contractors. So are they a bad employer or what gives?

danpalmer 3y ago
I think they're very traditional – I don't think software or engineering is their edge, and I suspect they outsource a lot of that to cheaper locations – they seem themselves as being more research focused. Their Glassdoor reviews used to be a bit dodgy too, nothing you wouldn't be able to guess after watching 10 minutes of any video of you-know-who though. They are also just small, only a few hundred people if I remember correctly.
- dachworker 3y ago
  Wait, isn't software their product? Or are you distinguishing between their infrastructural and their math/science libraries?
  - bmitc 3y ago
    I sent them an email asking what .NET version their .NET link library used, asking if it was still .NET Framework or if it had moved to .NET Core or 5+. The question seemed incomprehensible to them. They barely understood what I was asking, and I never heard back from them.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    Software is their product, but my guess is there's a separation between the product and research side which will be filled with Phds, and the "build" side which I expect is outsourced or offshored. What I really mean is that I don't think they see themselves as an engineering company in the way FAANG do, or an "AI" company, but probably more like a maths/science department at a university.
martinky24 3y ago
- They pay like shit (compared to "sexy employers") - Headquartered in Champaign, Illinois (not a bad town, but not sexy) - As "cool" as their software is, not a lot of people use it. Python is eating their lunch, ESPECIALLY outside of academia. Although, they're losing ground in academia as well - Stephen Wolfram isn't a charismatic leader who is fun to work for. There's no shortage of stories of him short circuiting in meetings and treating employees disrespectfully. - They're not doing quite as much cutting edge stuff (that matters, at least) these days. Their AI/ML suite isn't that interesting, numpy/scipy does a lot of numerical stuff better, Matlab does a lot of stuff (like digital signal processing, for example) better. And Python, being free and open source, is a better prototyping language for most stuff. Symbolic computing is probably the one place it is actually a leader in... but for so many applications in the real world (engineering, r&d, real-time algorithms, etc) symbolic computing simply isn't needed. As you hint at, they can attract some talent because there are opportunities to work on some niche stuff that's hard to work on elsewhere. But that's a minority of roles at the company. Source: Used to work there.
- dachworker 3y ago
  Thanks for the insight. I used to be a mathematician and looked a bit into working as a numerical mathematician on numerical or optimization software. What I noticed is that salaries do tend to be significantly lower than FAANG. Maybe that's because it is a niche and there aren't lots of employers around doing that sort of work.
  - looofooo0 3y ago
    I know some mathematician working for big chemical company which has a huge internal Fortran Software stack for numerical optimization.
  - namirez 3y ago
    I believe the main reason is that the skillset in this domain has a small overlap with what is needed at FAANG. This is done mostly in academia and as such the salaries are in line with the salaries at universities.
  - 3y ago
namirez 3y ago
I had a friend who worked there. A very smart Ivy League-educated math PhD. He was very critical of the work culture at Wolfram Research. Apparently in his experience Stephen Wolfram treated people badly.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > Apparently in his experience Stephen Wolfram treated people badly. Are you able/allowed to provide more details?
  - namirez 3y ago
    I’m a bit apprehensive since I don’t know SW personally, but what my friend described sounded like a borderline abusive behavior. Basically he treated people like they were stupid and shouted at them when they made mistakes.
    - nomilk 3y ago
      I think it’s a shared trait among the ultra successful (think: bezos, jobs, musk, wolfram), that they unrelentingly pursue good ideas. In that relentless pursuit, people will inevitably have their (bad) ideas shot down. Wolfram becomes audibly irritated at bad ideas, but mostly only when they should have been better, more complete, better explained (in their interest of time, for example) etc. I think most of those who work with him know that he pursues truth, not what will make people feel good in that moment/meeting. I’ve worked around people who are the opposite and try to morph reality so that whatever flimsy idea is suggested is somehow considered ‘correct’, and it results in long term frustration and inefficacy.
      - martinky24 3y ago
        > bezos, jobs, musk, wolfram One of those things is not like the other lol
        nomilk 3y ago
NelsonMinar 3y ago
Here's one example why, an ugly incident involving Matthew Cook's work proving a theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cook#Work_with_Stephen_Wolfram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cook#Work_with_Stephen...
bmitc 3y ago
I looked into it a while back and the synopsis was that you needed to move there and that they paid poorly.

danpalmer 3y ago

I think they're very traditional – I don't think software or engineering is their edge, and I suspect they outsource a lot of that to cheaper locations – they seem themselves as being more research focused. Their Glassdoor reviews used to be a bit dodgy too, nothing you wouldn't be able to guess after watching 10 minutes of any video of you-know-who though. They are also just small, only a few hundred people if I remember correctly.

dachworker 3y ago
Wait, isn't software their product? Or are you distinguishing between their infrastructural and their math/science libraries?
- bmitc 3y ago
  I sent them an email asking what .NET version their .NET link library used, asking if it was still .NET Framework or if it had moved to .NET Core or 5+. The question seemed incomprehensible to them. They barely understood what I was asking, and I never heard back from them.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Software is their product, but my guess is there's a separation between the product and research side which will be filled with Phds, and the "build" side which I expect is outsourced or offshored. What I really mean is that I don't think they see themselves as an engineering company in the way FAANG do, or an "AI" company, but probably more like a maths/science department at a university.

martinky24 3y ago

- They pay like shit (compared to "sexy employers") - Headquartered in Champaign, Illinois (not a bad town, but not sexy) - As "cool" as their software is, not a lot of people use it. Python is eating their lunch, ESPECIALLY outside of academia. Although, they're losing ground in academia as well - Stephen Wolfram isn't a charismatic leader who is fun to work for. There's no shortage of stories of him short circuiting in meetings and treating employees disrespectfully. - They're not doing quite as much cutting edge stuff (that matters, at least) these days. Their AI/ML suite isn't that interesting, numpy/scipy does a lot of numerical stuff better, Matlab does a lot of stuff (like digital signal processing, for example) better. And Python, being free and open source, is a better prototyping language for most stuff. Symbolic computing is probably the one place it is actually a leader in... but for so many applications in the real world (engineering, r&d, real-time algorithms, etc) symbolic computing simply isn't needed. As you hint at, they can attract some talent because there are opportunities to work on some niche stuff that's hard to work on elsewhere. But that's a minority of roles at the company. Source: Used to work there.

dachworker 3y ago
Thanks for the insight. I used to be a mathematician and looked a bit into working as a numerical mathematician on numerical or optimization software. What I noticed is that salaries do tend to be significantly lower than FAANG. Maybe that's because it is a niche and there aren't lots of employers around doing that sort of work.
- looofooo0 3y ago
  I know some mathematician working for big chemical company which has a huge internal Fortran Software stack for numerical optimization.
- namirez 3y ago
  I believe the main reason is that the skillset in this domain has a small overlap with what is needed at FAANG. This is done mostly in academia and as such the salaries are in line with the salaries at universities.
- 3y ago

namirez 3y ago

I had a friend who worked there. A very smart Ivy League-educated math PhD. He was very critical of the work culture at Wolfram Research. Apparently in his experience Stephen Wolfram treated people badly.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> Apparently in his experience Stephen Wolfram treated people badly. Are you able/allowed to provide more details?
- namirez 3y ago
  I’m a bit apprehensive since I don’t know SW personally, but what my friend described sounded like a borderline abusive behavior. Basically he treated people like they were stupid and shouted at them when they made mistakes.
  - nomilk 3y ago
    I think it’s a shared trait among the ultra successful (think: bezos, jobs, musk, wolfram), that they unrelentingly pursue good ideas. In that relentless pursuit, people will inevitably have their (bad) ideas shot down. Wolfram becomes audibly irritated at bad ideas, but mostly only when they should have been better, more complete, better explained (in their interest of time, for example) etc. I think most of those who work with him know that he pursues truth, not what will make people feel good in that moment/meeting. I’ve worked around people who are the opposite and try to morph reality so that whatever flimsy idea is suggested is somehow considered ‘correct’, and it results in long term frustration and inefficacy.
    - martinky24 3y ago
      > bezos, jobs, musk, wolfram One of those things is not like the other lol
      - nomilk 3y ago

NelsonMinar 3y ago

Here's one example why, an ugly incident involving Matthew Cook's work proving a theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cook#Work_with_Stephen_Wolfram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cook#Work_with_Stephen...

bmitc 3y ago

I looked into it a while back and the synopsis was that you needed to move there and that they paid poorly.