[badpun]

That's not average, that's bottom of the barrel. Average developers do a decent enough job, but aren't super fast about it. They also can't conceive of large refactorings in their head, don't follow all the latest trends in their area of expertise etc. They're just average. Majority of working developers are like that, by definition.

[throwaway1183]

It seems like both of us have similar definition of an average. That's really cool that you got my idea of being average. Thank you!

So do you have any clue how I can optimize the position in the industry? I am interested in the most of the subtopics in the field of computer science. I just want to find a route with highest reward for an average developer.

Apparently average research engineers makes a lot compared to say web developer, but the route requires PhD.

What do you think is a good track?

[badpun]

Those "average" PhD researchers are in reality all very smart and hard working people. If you want big salaries, people who get them often have PhD degree from top20 universities in the world. They will be your competition when interviewing.

In general, if you want to maximize money, it does not make sense to go into any hard and niche fields (graphics, machine learning research etc.) because they're filled with very talented enthusiasts, and if you're not that, you will have a very hard time even being average in such fields. Not to mention that such fields often (but not always) pay less that your run of the mill backend development job, and have 1000x less open positions, which means it's harder to apply for jobs, you may have to move more often etc. It's basically all downsides pretty much, and the only upside is being able to work on your passion - which is what motivates people who get into those fields.

[throwaway1183]

> It's basically all downsides pretty much, and the only upside is being able to work on your passion - which is what motivates people who get into those fields.

Yes!! I can totally relate to what you are saying. I got started because I was interested and I am still passionate about it. But there is only so much that I can do. It just doesn't make sense for me to continue for PhD because even with PhD there is no guarantee that I would be able to get somewhere as I am definitely not someone coming from those top20 universities.

So by definition I rule out the chances of being an average research engineer. That's one clarity! Thank you!

Since I have most background in hard niches as you mentioned above, is there a way to transition to something else? What would the possible path be like if my ultimate goal is to become staff engineer or principal engineer?

[badpun]

This really depends on your previous experience. If, for example, you have previous experience with C++ (which is what is often used in those hard niches), it would make sense to just apply to generic C++ roles, and work your way up to high salary by getting promotions or changing companies. If you're in the US, it probably wouldn't hurt to apply to FAANG-type companies, as they rely heavily on the leet code, so your lack of concrete experience in things they do will not be a big problem (likely will just get you a low pay grade, but you can change that with promotions later).

[icedchai]

I've met several PhDs in "data scientist" positions that write complete garbage code. Simply having a PhD (or any other degree) doesn't mean you'll be a good engineer.

[icedchai]

You are correct. I was being polite, thinking about people I've worked with in the past. They literally commit untested, not even runnable code with syntax errors, merge it into main, and wonder why other people are frustrated. It goes beyond "attention to detail" issues which are also very common with average developers.