[georgeburdell]

True in my experience. The path is set long before you think it is. Yes, you can jump on the prestige track later on (in my field, this means joining Apple after 5-10 years of working), but a Stanford grad naturally walks into these jobs. My spouse and I have the same degree and background, aside from alma mater, but they joined a FAANG, in a design role, out of school because that’s where everyone in their Stanford circle was going. I joined a tier 2 company in QA because that’s where my school was feeding people. 6 years later, my spouse is a multi-millionare* and I’m around 1 with 4 more years of experience.

I’ve been trying for years to jump to a FAANG and correct my initial career mistake, but it’s extremely difficult and I’ve only seen the top 10% of my company, in the right positions (not QA), do it. I need to do two jumps: QA to design, then tier 2 to tier 1. As a result, I’ve actually decided to throw in the towel and “reroll” as a software dev.

* For the purposes of retirement we track our net worths separately

[Edit] I also would like to mention that the article says as much

[throwaway6734]

Absolutely. What's incredibly frustrating is that as I've moved up the employer prestige ladder, the level of talent definitely goes up, but so much of it is just a rise in credentials (e.g., better schools, better past jobs). Levels of motivation/effort don't seem too different: there are still the same groups of lazy people that put in the bare minimum and others that do a great job.

Each hop up takes a good mix of hard work and luck but it always results in a massive jump in pay

[PascLeRasc]

Changing career tracks like that is so hard. You almost need to hide your experience in interviews. I’ve had so many interviews get derailed because the interviewer finds out that I’m looking to switch away from a field I don’t enjoy and realizes that they have another opening there they’d rather fill.