Tech misconceptions

For me it was a matter of entrepreneurship later down the line. I always knew I wanted to start a business later down the line(what I'm planning once I leave current job) and I figured engineering would give me the best path to do so. I also didn't love the 100 hour banker hours, but I still deal with the same bureaucratic issues finance people do

Probably should've explained this more in depth in the original post. Basically, at these top tech firms the fight to maintain and get talent is real, and it's hard. Many people will join these tech firms and rise up the ranks, gaining valuable knowledge. It's even more critical if these people were in early when these massive companies were still startups and struggling, making many mistakes along the way. During their times at these firms, these engineers gained a ton of knowledge which, if they were to join another firm or startup, could prove disastrous for the firm they currently work at. So, these top firms will give the early engineers a bunch of equity grants that expire a few years down the line to keep them from jumping ship, and these equity packages regularly go into the 8 figure range, and considering many of these equity grants came from top tech firms that grew so much, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some got into the 9 figure range(Met one such person working over that Adobe) 

Yes and no. Yes, the threat from Ai is real and should be a point of concern, but no, it's unlikely to take your job any time soon. The thing with Ai, from a technical perspective, is that it works great until it doesn't. Ai is great at compiling massive amounts of data and learning from it, performing repetitive tasks, and spitting out facts easily. The problem with Ai is that it is terrible as soon as its parameters are broken. I studied machine learning and currently work in a role that works heavily with Ai, and one of the cases we constantly see is that a user did something the Ai's model couldn't handle. This can most prevalently be seen in self driving cars, where something like a pedestrian giving right of way to the AV can cause its systems to break due to it being unable to comprehend the data being presented to it. The Ai, at its current state, cannot think like a human, but rather it thinks (and acts) like a machine. This means for any work with an edge case Ai will need a few more years to truly see its ability fleshed out. However, on the topic of IB I think that the biggest obstacle for Ai isn't the technology, but rather the slow moving pace of the industry. I worked alongside people who had been in tech at banks, and we moved lightyears faster than any bank was moving at the time. Banks won't shift to Ai simply because there's too many people within the industry that want to keep it the way it is. Based on what I can tell, banks and MDs want to keep the current system around because it's what they're comfortable with, and many MDs fear losing their jobs(or more relevantly their bonuses) to Ai, so why take the risk on this new software when you've already got something that works. 

Also, I can't understate just how different the talent levels between bank and tech swe. Most top talent wouldn't even touch a bank, as the pay is generally much lower, and generally we get treated like 2nd rate citizens at banks, so why would top swe go to a bank to make 150k a year and get treated like an accountant when you can just as easily go to a top tech firm and make double that while working in an environment that's just more inviting. Now, of course this last piece is more anecdotal, as I can't directly say every bank is less talented and swe all feel like 2nd rate at banks, but in my experience bank recruiters were often last on the list of my(and many others I know) list of people to contact. If these banks can't get the best talent, they stand no chance of creating an Ai model that can replace bankers.

Realistically, the most likely way bankers would become redundant is if a new tech startup could find a way to automate the entire process and somehow build up a reputation strong enough to lure top candidates away. This would, of course, make the banks scramble to keep market share and they'd immediately begin building out systems to compete. If this is at all possible, it's still years, if not more than a decade away as fintech is still very much in its infancy, and I personally haven't heard of anything despite working at a fintech myself. Hope this eases any worries.

I probably should've included something on this in the original post. So, the thing with transitioning that most people get wrong is thinking that all SWE is the same, which it very much isn't. You have front end, back end, devops, machine learning, cyber security, data science, and so many other smaller subsections of engineering. It'd be like grouping the entire finance industry together and saying that asset management and corporate development are the same thing, which they aren't. Yes, they inherently build off a finance knowledge, but the nitty gritty is very different. With that being said, definitely find your specific field or area you want to specialize in. Roadmap.sh has all the specific details on how to sequence specifically. I would say to be cautious about what classes/bootcamps you take, as many are solely focused on getting you a job as soon possible, meaning they usually teach frontend languages such as HTML and CSS. Now, there's nothing wrong with these languages, I personally use them all the time with website building, but typically they're the most competitive jobs to get due to the higher supply of frontend knowledge. 

A big thing is to understand a few really important technicals, such as Boolean algebra and other such logic modifiers essential for understanding how and why a computer and compiler works. It's actually a pretty common misconception about CS degrees that you learn to code, because in my experience there was very little on learning to code and much more emphases on the logic of computers, which is extremely important in roles such as devops and machine learning. If you have the time, I would highly suggest taking classes at a local community college, as most of the stuff they teach there is going to be much more beneficial to you than any bootcamp you can take.

As for non SWE roles, IMO treasury people at these tech firms always seem to be the happiest and best compensated. I met a ex-IB guy in treasury at my FAANG job who was making 200k base with 150k equity, and that equity is definitely worth at least 500k now. I would say just stay away from any controllership roles, as you will be considered a boring big 4 person who's just there for the 80k a year paycheck.

Hope I gave some insight, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask

I would say, much like everything else that it depends. I learned a lot of different things at each job I was at. At my FAANG job I learned a lot about the massive systems we used along with making great connections across the industry. At the startup I learned a lot about the inner workings of small business and how to be more independent. Here at my current job I'm learning a lot about how to manage people as my role is shifting more towards management and less coding. I still love programming but after a certain point if I ever wanted to climb I would have to shift my role, and to learn as much as possible I'm trying to shift away from pure programming. 

As for what is the best learning experience for entrepreneurship, I would say that being in a smaller firm is always better. Every single startup founder I've met has worked in either a small tech startup or a small finance/business firm. If you're at FAANG or BB/EB, you're a cog in a machine. Yes, you can program and build a dcf at both places, but ultimately you learn very little about the inner workings of business, and especially smaller businesses. Although it might seem counter-productive, I would say if you want to start a company eventually, being in a startup early is the best position. If you do IB/consulting for a year and move to a startup that's probably the best business path, but from my POV it becomes so much easier to build a company if you inherently understand the product and how it works, so if you want to start a tech company or move into tech VC, then become a programmer, while if you want to found another business of some sort definitely start in that realm(I.E. bankers would do great to start M&A or accounting business)

Product management/development. At certain companies it's a highly technical role, and one of my old product managers was a swe who did consulting for 2 years and moved into the role. You could also do great in vc or joining a startup early, as both require you to have a technical understanding alongside a strategy and development. When you're at a startup or smaller company, you're extremely involved in both the product and the business, so being able to leverage your past experience into a COO or CFO role is probably best. Alternatively if you're willing to take the risk it sounds like your skills make you a great candidate for starting a business from tech, perhaps solving some issue you encountered in finance that you feel could easily be solved through tech. 

So I don't know if I'm the best equipped to handle this question; you'd probably be best off directing questions to salespeople at these companies on LinkedIn. What I can say is that generally tech sales is difficult from a non-cs/swe background because to properly sell something you need to have a fundamental understanding of the product(especially when it's something that many don't understand) Sales is obviously a commission driven job, and I've met salespeople pulling in easily 7 figures by making a ton of deals, but I've met many more who get almost no commission because they couldn't even sell a missile to congress. For most post IB folks I still recommend either corp finance or M7->product management. 

TBH here in tech FAANG is actually super overrated and most engineers chose to stay away. I would say grind your teeth in IB for 1-2 years and join a startup. Yes. cash comp will be lower, but if the company does well you'll make millions and set yourself up for CFO roles easily. I would also so fintech is probably a better place for finance folks than FAANG, and FAANG should really just be called MNG, as amazon has horrible equity splits and apple hasn't paid above average pay since 2015

Finance def pays more than swe 

Totally agree with everything you said. My wording and how I was addressing the comments probably made this a little weird, but I'm gonna address everything here

•  In my original post I was trying to more say that a student who does 4 years of cs at an undergrad and works hard will have an easy time landing a FAANG job. People on these forums make it out to be that FAANG is only for the top .1% of programmers, when in reality it isn't. I do definitely agree with your point that IB people will have a more difficult transition because, more often than not they struggle to understand things past coding. Yes, coding is important, but understand how and why something works is just as, if not more valuable from a swe perspective, which is exactly what cs teaches. Just learning to code usually isn't enough, as you can clearly see on roadmaps.sh there's way more past just learning a language model, and most programmers don't just learn one language.
• When I originally made the post, I was more trying to direct the difficulty of ending up at l7+ towards the finance people. Yes, even l6 for many is a astronomical achievement, but from a perspective of a finance person they believe that making partner at a PE fund or making PM at a hedge fund will be easier than director level jobs at a tech company, when straight up it isn't. For the vast majority of people, you will make more money in tech than in finance, and even from an IB/PE/HF to SWE perspective generally top performers in tech will have an easier time making it to l7 simply because there's more slots. Also, to your point of director level jobs I believe that those jobs aren't what the most ambitious people are after; rather, they're going after roles in startups that can lead to C-suite roles down the line.

As a whole, I would say we fundamentally agree on way more than disagree, and generally I would say that we definitely see tech in a more clear view than most in finance do

Oh also I didn't answer your original question

6 YOE but I had a lot of previous experience from undergrad and I came in above avg in entry level

TC 500k

level L3 but my company starts at L1 so it'd be more alike an L5-L6. I definitely make above average pay for my position but I'm not about to complain about it

Find a cofounder. Yes, you can fundamentally understand programming and other such, but someone with that level of long term exposure to tech and engineering will prove to be way more valuable than you'd think. Whenever there's a major issue on the technical side, you probably won't have the knowledge to counter that kind of problem, while someone with that background will usually have some sort of fix to that issue. I've encountered plenty of issues throughout my short career that, if I tried to explain to a non tech person it would blow their minds. There's so much more to the technical side than just programming, and oftentimes you're not paying your top engineers to work 40-50 hours a week, you're paying them so that when shit hits the fan they're there to fix the issue. I would still say learning some programming(HTML/CSS and Java are your best bet) is important, but getting a guy who can run the tech and do his thing while you do the business side will make life so much easier. As Warren Buffett says, try to find what you're good at and stick to it. If you're a business guy, just do the business side, and let the tech people run the tech. Also, if you've got an idea, run with it. Don't wait for a co founder yet, just start developing something and reaching out to people, fish a little and see what comes up. It's probably a bad time rn just with how vc funding is, but I would still say if you've got a business plan then at least put yourself out there. It can take a while to actually get things off the ground, so just having a little head start can be super important. If you have any other questions or want me to clarify something, just ask. Hope this helps

1. Early to mid 20s if you know you want to be in tech it definitely still makes sense to make that shift. There are people who have joined my group in their mid 30s because they were dissatisfied with the work they were currently doing and wanted that shift into tech. Now, if you want to be in the tech industry but you want to also use your finance background, refer to my above posts about data science and product management. Remember, a career is over 40 years, so if you're miserable in finance and know you want to be elsewhere, just make that shift. I've already made other comments about how to best go about it, and if people want I can make a full post since it seems like a lot of people want to know about it. Also, I would have to say that generally this is untrue about being stuck at the bottom rung. Tech has a different way to advance your career. Many people don't like to hear this, but if you look at the profit engineers produce we're criminally underpaid. The best way to go about advancing in tech is to constantly hop between jobs, as advancing within a company is almost non existent. It's not like in IB where you have a clear timeframe for advancement; rather, it's those who play their cards right that make it to the top.
2. MBA/CS can be great dual degree IF and only if you have the background knowledge to succeed in a masters program. The MBA programs are meant to be for people who might have no business background to come in and be successful, but a lot of masters in CS cover very advanced topics that many people with no CS background might struggle to fully understand. I would say your best bet is to check the websites and requirements and maybe email the school to see if there's any background knowledge you should have, and don't assume that just because one program had almost no prereqs that another won't have a ton.  Also, these programs absolutely recruit well. CS is still easily one of, if not the most in demand degree out there, so you'll get a tech job pretty easily if you can do your leetcode(only for FAANG) and interview well. To ease your worries about the fear that you'll do poorly, I can most assuredly say that everyone knows when you enter coding that you'll struggle; it's an entirely new language that, realistically the human mind wasn't designed to read(I mean I have like 5 different versions of some rendition of cin just from C++). However, there is no "Oh, you didn't do the analyst stint so you'll fail in finance" here; generally learning alongside others makes the whole process easier, and if you can you should get a senior engineer to adopt you and teach you a ton of the things you'll encounter. Also, just practice. You can easily just do projects on the side to improve your abilities. 
3. Product management and senior SWE rarely has any programming. I've already answered a similar question to this above, so just refer to that and see if it sort of answers your question, and if not feel free to ask.
4. Most people are normal. You had a skewed view since you were at oracle, and not a single SWE has oracle as their ideal location, so the startup/FAANG+ rejects end up there. You have the caltech people who very much live up to the stereotype. You have the amazon/AWS people who are miserable and just want to leave. You have the bank people who are criminally underpaid and underappreciated(Made a whole post about it, check it out if you feel like wasting 10 minutes) but if you go to most tech companies you've heard of in some fashion you'll generally meet smart, ambitious people. Also, the stereotype that we don't shower is generally untrue. The stereotype that bankers are all fratty and talk like pretentious assholes in their Patagonia vest with their starbucks in hand exists, but generally I've come to understand that that's only a few people. Also, your point on Oracle is a little scary and I'll keep that in mind going forward. Generally, most in engineering are just normal, slightly ambitious people, and the whole anti social thing is fairly untrue since teamwork is probably one of, if not the biggest skill you need to succeed in tech. 
5. If WLB is a must, STAY AWAY FROM AMAZON, BANKS, AND HF. They work you to the bone then spit you out without good comp once you're done. 

Hope I've answered everything well here, and if you have any more questions please, do ask

+SB. You know what you're talking about.

Terminal L5 / L6 SWE is so real. SDM is the only way out but you have to have managed to have developed / maintained soft skills to continue upward mobility. Very rare.

I'm with you - in this economy, I would hate to be holding Series B / Series C / Series D paper money. I laughed my ass off at "...implement Dijkstra algorithm on phone screen".

It is exceedingly difficult to get even an interview at HFT / Quant. Math and reasoning needs to be very good during interview process. Everything is implemented in low-level programming languages (e.g. OCaml, C++) and in the case of HFT, the individual needs to have understanding of underlying hardware / subsystems. Neither of which are easy to pick up without rigorous experience.

I think you're going grass is greener on buyside being paradise. A lot of threads on WSO detailing the challenges / odds of actually making it to MD and then, succeeding in that role. 

Good shit though, overall.

Funny enough op is indeed counting his compensation including paper money from a overvalued private startup. Yes they had one payout event, but no one says mid it’s a regular thing and meanwhile they reduced pay bands 

I get what you're saying, but for me finance and HFT has never made much of any sense. Yes, I primarily use CPP for backend work, but I'm really just uninterested in working 60+ hours a week in a very stressful environment where I can be fired super easily. At my current job they know they can't fire me because I'm super helpful on 2 very important teams. Also, in my experience the 1% of tech doesn't stay at a trad company very long; they join early state startups or found something themselves and get a boatload of equity. Also, I don't really think that this idea of making it to the top is very real. Only a very small amount of people actually get to the top in finance, just like a very small percent make it into the top in tech. From an average perspective, it would still seem like tech is beating finance. After all, how many people will do 2-2-2 then go back into private equity and continue to work their ass off till they're 40?