When I started college in 1982 as a CS/EE double major, the big-money major was petroleum engineering. If I remember correctly, they lost a lot of people who had done well in high-school when they hit the calculus for engineers classes.
It's just the same now with CS. We lost 75% of CS prospects in the first semester, almost all of them due to Calculus (although I think some of them came in with the malformed idea that programming was just like video games).
I kept in contact with some of the folks who dropped out or switched majors - they're working at convenience stores and the like.
Similarly, when I started in '83, we had a bunch of gonna-be computer scientists at my school. I think about half of those people were gone a year later.
What I don't know is if the proportion of people who stick with it is about the same from year to year, or if the years with massive enrollment increases have much higher attrition rates.
Alas, that graph shows a big peak of CS graduates around 86/87 or so. I didn't get out until 88, after the wave - and the 87 market crash-let. I had to work too much to do my upper division work in 2 years, so it took me 3 - but I got to learn "dBASE" in my intern-like job, which was largely obsolete by the time I finished school. Glad we learned some C in school (even if I liked Pascal better).
Could you please forward me jobs advertised that have the real possibility of "ridiculous amounts of money"? All the programming jobs I see are about 90k?
Move to NYC or SF. Engineers fresh out of college are getting $90k. Startups are paying $100k - $150k to engineers with 5+ years experience. I don't know if you can call that "ridiculous amounts of money", but its definitely better than average.
It's worth noting that engineering salaries rise a lot quicker then traditional non engineering salaries, but the also plateau much earlier. The engineers making $150k with 8 years experience aren't far or are at the ceiling of their earning potential (without going the management or architect route).
It will be interesting to see if the continued increases will be sustainable over the long haul. From my non-scientific back of the napkin math it seems like NYC tech wages are up about 30% from where they were 4 years ago.
Yes, but factor in all the activity and opportunities and life of the city, and it's worth moving there. Besides, it's not really higher cost if the wage of the industry you're working in scales nicely with the cost of living (true for programming).
I live in Manhattan. Within some 2-digit amount of minutes, I can experience the Tribeca Film Festival, I can visit some of the best museums and galleries in the world, I can get involved in the thriving nightlife, dozens of top restaurants, hundreds of huge retailers, and a massive tech scene. Whether we're talking conferences or weekly meetups or user groups or opportunities like Hacker School, there's just a higher chance it's going on in NYC than in a smaller city. Obviously when it comes specifically to the tech scene SF+SV+Bay Area is the juggernaut, but comparing NYC and SF to some small town is comparing some top college football player to some NFL players to your local middle school's quarterback. Yes, if I lived in the Midwest, I could get a McMansion and slightly larger numbers in the bank account if my industry's salary doesn't scale well between city sizes (again, programming does), but is it really worth it to give up all the other opportunities and stuff in bigger cities?
I thought the further-up comment--where the poster apparently didn't realize that many would see 90K as quite a lot of money--was a better example of this.
This number is very deceiving so be careful comparing your salary with it. Problem is that vast majority of population does not live in the SF, NYC, Seattle area so the median of entire US population is not comparable for people who live in these areas. The median metric is especially notorious in eliminating outliers like these areas.
Even within these areas, you want to compare your income with median in your closest neighbourhood of about 10,000 people. In most of these neighbourhoods with tech population, $90 would probably place you in bottom 30% bucket. In essence, you will be relatively "poor" and get pushed you out to fat outer areas of community where there are either no good schools, facilities and/or commute is ridiculous.
Always look at median of your target neighbour to compare your income, not the national median.
There now exist options in engineering which are comparable with those in finance, and importantly, there is now a credible case that engineering is one of the best median outcome career paths for a bright student who is willing to push whatever lever and turn whatever knob required to get to professional success. Stanford undergrads with their degrees still wet are getting $1X0,000 offers from AmaGooFaceSoft. That's roughly comparable to management consulting or the anticipated returns to early-career finance majors.
When I graduated, back in the mists of history in 2004, you'd be crazy to assume that a 5th year engineer salary package would be approaching $300k. There was a huge salary gap in finance's favor on day one, it got bigger every year, and it exploded once the financiers started to hit their 30s. That gap has narrowed considerably, at least for folks on that trajectory in their 20s. (I'll confess to not having a great understanding of what it looks like to be a 32 year old at Google. I mean, any 32 year old at Google who was with them in 2004 is now a multimillionaire several times over, but I don't know what the reasonable modeling is for expectations for being 32 in 2024.)
The folks who think they're going to be in the top 10th of engineers AmaGooFaceSoft hire this year in terms of career success 10 years out now have a reasonable expectation that that will be as lucrative as a top 10th finance career.
The gap is closing for the first few years of engineering vs finance (first 3 years of comp in finance is definitely a lot lower now vs 2007, whereas first 3 years of comp at GOOG post 2009 has exploded), but the gap grows as you approach your mid 30's. When you're getting to $300k at GOOG, your buddy is over $500k at GS as a VP (VP is middle managemnt in high finance and iirc the high fliers get there in 6 years). Fast forward a few more years, and you're making $500k at GOOG and the buddy is well over $1MM. The gap will continue to grow in size exponentially thereafter.
I guess $300k vs $500k is much improved compared to $1X0k vs $500k that we would have been looking at a decade ago though :P
In addition, perhaps the parity is better when you compare median results rather than upper quintiles.
Btw, first year management consultants make nowhere close to $100k (though they can make up for it with Starwood points and frequent flier miles on United -- no joke). You'll only top $100k once you're an associate, which is after your 2+2 (2 years as an analyst, 2 years of bschool). Only 3-5% of the analyst class goes straight to associate. Students who enter as an analyst are doing it primarily for the great education and training McK/BCG/Bain give you, and definitely aren't making the choice based on monetary incentives.
I keep hearing all these high numbers getting thrown around a lot. Is $300K really the typical pay among, say, 5th year Google engineers who joined out of college? If so that's pretty amazing.
Why should it? Most software engineers don't have significant equity i.e. equity that creates a cash flow equal to 100% of their salary annually. I only make this comparison since 141k is median at Google and you are saying lots of software engineers make 300k.
Standard new grad package at Google gives you over $120k worth of equity over 4 years, and I think additional $30k a year is definitely worth mentioning. For more experienced people it's obviously even more, and if you manage to stay for 4 years, the next stock grant will probably be significantly higher to keep you and your acquired inside knowledge inside the company.
At companies like Google or Facebook, you expect to get 10-15% salary raise every year for the first few years, and around 10-15% annual bonus. Assuming that after 4 years, your equity doubles, the $300k figure seems to be pretty accurate for the fifth-sixth year of working there.
Yes, so $300k puts you in the top 3%, $380k puts you in the top 1% of earners nationwide. The median salary of presidents of private Universities is $400k. If you start at a salary of 150k and get 0.15 raises annually for 5 years, yes your will make 300k a year, but I'd be very surprised if this is the experience of general employees. Google has 50,000 employees. If you paid them all $100k, that would be 5 billion roughly equivalent to Googles costs.
Early in his career, Bill Gates was making millions of dollars.
I never saw any convincing data on HN to back up the claims - it's always an anecdotal data point here and there. My guess is that a small fraction of the engineers actually make the stated figures, and confirmation bias leads HNers to believe that's the median pay.
Gates was making millions when he licensed DOS -- he was quickly worth $300 million and because he owned a big fraction of Microsoft.
When I was making six times what a new Camaro cost, I was just a 'worker bee' on a salary working on mostly military applied math and software around DC.
I didn't think that the income was so great: A new, two story, traditional, center hall floor plan house on a 1/4 acre lot cost three or four times what I was making. So, I didn't really have money enough to buy a house and support a family.
For $300 K in Silicon Valley, there is considerable question if that is enough to buy a nice house, say, 1/4 acre lot, two car garage, full basement, good insulation, central HVAC, four bedrooms, two baths, powder room, walk in closets, LR, DR, eat in kitchen, family room, deck and support a family.
Nor is the median outcome of someone entering finance to be a VP at Goldman. But bottom 50% programmers can still take well-paying jobs with good hours.
If that's the signal, it's not a very good signal. Finance jobs can be horrible, they don't care for you (they literally let you die), they only care for the top performers who then get promoted in a few years.
True. However, as a graduating CS major, almost every non-CS major I know here and at other schools has taken some programming-focused class or done Codecademy or something. Few if any are looking for what we might think of as "tech" jobs, or are motivated primarily by any promise of money. I can anecdotally attest to the fact that all the reasons listed by the author are playing a significant role.
(As a side note, a fair number of the people I know who are doing straight up startup-style "tech" jobs after graduation aren't even CS majors.)
