Slashdot Mirror
13% of CompSci Grads Have Starting Salaries Over $100K
itwbennett writes: That was one of the findings of a survey of 50,000 U.S. college students and recent graduates by Looksharp, a marketplace for internships and entry-level jobs. For general findings across all majors, check out the State of College Hiring Report 2015. But the company shared some more computer science-specific findings with Phil Johnson. Among them: "Of all majors, students studying in CS had the highest average starting salary, $66,161." And, what's more, they know the value of their degree: "On average, they expected a starting salary of $68,120, slightly above the actual average starting salary of $66,161."
Indeed. Employees have a vested interest in inflating these numbers. I have filled out these surveys multiple times, and I always put in about double my current salary. That way my employer thinks I am underpaid, and I am also more likely to get the free magazine subscription that the survey is supposed to qualify me for.
$150k in Silicon Valley = $90k in a more modest location... (adjusted for the cost of living in the area)
My $0.02 CDN.
This is pretty common in insane cost-of-living places like the CA Bay Area. I finished my BSCS in December and am making 108k now. I had just under 3.5 GPA at a state school and a couple of good internships, so it's not too hard. Though that salary isn't even enough to buy a house here.
What do you mean doesn't get them much in terms of housing? Yeah, rent in the bay are is high, but 2500 get's you a 3-4 bed house in the east bay, you can live quite comfortably, that's 40-50% of your net salary, which is high, but you don't have many other expenses, silicon valley companies feed you, offer transportation, etc etc.
And this doesn't include stock, and may or may not include the bonus, so it's not that bad. And it can only go up from there, 3-4 years in and you can easily be earning a base salary of 150k. Doesn't look that bad to me.
Our survey found that only 45.4% of the class of 2014 is currently enrolled in a full-time job meaning 54.6% of grads from last year are unemployed or underemployed (this is excluding students enrolled in graduate education).
This seems to be more noteworthy.
I make $50,000 per year and rent a 475sqf studio apartment for $1,400 in Silicon Valley. For my needs, it's perfectly fine. Then again, I'm not trying to live the American dream of having it all. A modest lifestyle can go a long way in an expensive area like Silicon Valley.
Totally not bullshit out here in California, ESPECIALLY in the bay area.
I just graduated and I'm making $100k at Citrix Systems in Goleta, CA as a Software Engineer 1
That's about as high as you can get here in the Santa Barbara area out of school.
Everyone I know from classes that went to the bay area are making over $100k out of school.
Yes yes, we all feel very guilty. And I hope people making $30k a year realize how well _they_ have it compared to 90% of the world's population. And I hope 90% of the world's population realize how well _they_ have it compared to 90% of the people who lived more than 100 years ago.
It's sensible guilt all the way down!
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Lets see a breakdown that calculates geographical cost of living and hourly wages (rather than salary). $100k isn't much when you're working 100 hours a week and live in silicon valley.
No engineering intern makes 0. The law is that an intern can only be unpaid if they do no work relating to the company. For example, an unpaid intern at an advertising company can sit in on meetings and bring coffee, but they can't draw an ad or write copy. If they do, they have to be paid. An unpaid intern at a software company wouldn't be able to write source code. SO basically worthless. So engineering interns get paid, just a lot less. Generally a good chunk more than minimum wage though, as there is competition for interns.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
All of the numbers in this article are very believable.
I have a BS degree from the University of Nebraska. And not the prestigious Raikes school, but the normal old pre-Raikes degree program.
After a summer internship, I got an offer from McDonnel Douglas for 48k.
My offer from Microsoft was more like the 60k figure. I took that one, because it didn't involve living in St. Louis.
The year: 2000
So, 60k to start right out of college was a going rate for top-tier companies... fifteen years ago.
Some companies paid much more, and sometimes that was a company decision, and sometimes it was a reality of where the position was located. For instance, before I had even finished my degree, I was recruited for a position with a 99k starting salary. That firm, however, was in NYC. When you adjust for NYC cost of living, it's not such an eye-popping number.
Subsequent to these numbers from 15 years ago, I have been involved in lots of hiring at Microsoft in the years I've been here.
Starting salaries have adjusted upward significantly since I was hired.
If you can score an engineering position with a top software/services company like Microsoft, you will be paid exceptionally well. For someone fresh out of college, there is just an obscene amount of money on the table.
Different companies target different spots in the industry pay curve. Microsoft by no means targets the top of the salary scale, but neither do we target the bottom. At times, Microsoft has been seen as, to put it mildly, "pretty uncool". At times, there has been lots of startup money and equity available for top quality grads to go after.
In those time periods, Microsoft has to offer more money to continue to attract new talent.
If you want to work at a company where lots of people want to work (e.g. a games company, or SpaceX), those organizations don't have to compete as much with offer packages, since their brands have a high intrinsic draw.
While I don't know what a Netflix offer package is like, Netflix states that their policy is to pay very high wages - the wage they'd be willing to pay to keep someone excellent who wanted to leave.
Finally, it's important to consider the type of organization you're looking at joining. Do they do software/IT, or is that a cost of doing business for them? If a company is in the business of selling shoes, but has an unavoidable need for software engineers, they're going to treat software engineers as a cost of doing business.
If a company is in the business of building software, they're going to think differently about compensation and retention.
Finally, companies that aren't well established players in the software space can have difficulty making big offer packages. At times in my career, I've been frustrated and have looked elsewhere, and the smaller, less profitable companies I've spoken with are offering tens of thousands lower than what I was already making.... making the friction of leaving financially tremendous.
(my personal financial plan is to expect a 50% paycut when something happens to my MSFT employment)
In summary, I have no problem believing the numbers. Top quality CS people at top quality organizations are paid outrageously well.
However, I get that lots of people are expressing disbelief. Let's talk about why that may be. The survey data could be skewed by multiple factors:
- the locale of the person responding
- the self-selection bias of the person responding (e.g. are people happy with their comp more likely to fill out a survey?)
- the kind of organization the survey respondants work for...
If you surveyed internal apps developers at regional insurance offices, in the Midwest, you would get a different picture from a survey of facebook engineers...
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Equity doesn't matter nearly as much as you think, especially illiquid equity. Here's the real math.
If you rent, you pay X per month. You may have renters insurance of Y. So your monthly cost is X+Y. This entire amount is lost.
If you own, you pay A per month in principal, B per month in interest, C per month in real estate taxes, D per month in utilities (things like garbage and sometimes water are usually rolled into rent), and E per month in maintenance. B+C+D+E is lost.
If B+C+D+E >= X+Y you should 100% rent. Your equity will be in the form of monthly savings, which you can put into any investment you wish.
If B+C+D+E is anywhere close, you should rent. Why? Because its fucking stupid to put all of your money into a single investment. Diversification of assets is key to any investment strategy. So why put it all into one?
Worse, its illiquid. Selling real estate is hard. It takes months, and you may not get what you expect for it. Then you'll take an 8-10% cut in taxes, realtor fees, title insurance, lawyers, etc. You need an 8-10% increase in value just to break even and pay off the mortgage.
You also can't sell just part of a house. Its all or nothing. You can get a loan against principle (maybe), but that's another expense at a higher interest rate. Whereas selling stock/bonds you can cash out at any time at no penalty.
And it completely ties you to one place. YOu cannot move without taking a huge financial hit. If your local area goes into a recession, you're unable to take offers outside. If life changes and you have a long distance relationship, or you need to move back to care for a parent, or you get a job offer on the other coast you're fucked.
The only time it really makes sense to invest in real estate is when
*its for cash, no mortgage
*you have plenty of other money and won't become underliquid
*your career is over, or its a rental property.
For the vast majority of people, buying is a bad idea.