[scarface74]

On a tech site I’m talking specifically about tech jobs. If you are making only a median of $70K after spending tens of thousands of dollars at an Ivy League school. That’s not actually a good investment.

You can make $70K graduating from your run of the mill state school as a an enterprise CRUD developer in any major city in the US that’s not on the west coast.

Other studies have shown that there are no difference in salary between people who were accepted in an Ivy League school and didn’t attend as those who did go.

Also, in tech, you can make $200K within two or three years easily - regardless of college you attended.

I’ve been a senior architect and engineering manager for a while. I have never noticed any correlation between people who whiz through algorithm interviews and people who are effective at achieving business outcomes and project success once in the role.

I agree, and actually submitted tweet on HN a while back.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19687593

Whether it is correlated with outcomes or not, is irrelevant to the fact that you can get into big tech by being able to do algorithms and make $200K relatively early on in your career.

I personally didn’t “get into a FAANG” by doing a whiteboard interview. I got in as a “cloud consultant” where I had to have a history of achieving business outcomes.

[mlthoughts2018]

You simply aren’t engaging with the conversation in good faith. The same strata apply to tech jobs. If the median is say $120k, you’ll see the same doubling of median for Harvard grads, or close to it.

It seems like you’re deliberately trying not to engage with the point of the article, and instead trying to claim some bizarre specific standard of tech salaries you are making is supposed to be comparable to the data from eg the Boston Globe article (which explicitly refutes the point you’re trying to make).

Anyway, I can’t help you if you have your mind made up and you’re reading confirmation bias articles as tea leaves.

[scarface74]

No. I’m saying in tech, whether you or I agree with algorithm type interviews. They are the great equalizer.

If you are applying for your standard CRUD jobs where you go to school isn’t going to matter. They are in my experience going to ask you techno trivia and may have you doing coding problems slightly above FizzBuzz level of complexity and are going to pay you the same regardless. The interview is the equalizer.

If you are applying for a company that wants “smart people” (tm) like the Big Tech companies and the big tech wannabes, algorithms are going to be the great equalizer.

We are on a tech site with plenty of people who work or have worked for BigTech. Almost all of the people here know how interviews and hiring works at Big Tech. Many know how hiring works at your standard CRUD jobs.

I have experience with both.