I studies CS back in the 80s and back then every student I knew was genuinely interested in the subject and motivated to learn. In my last job at a bank I regularly interviewed recent CS graduates and candidates able to demonstrate a genuine passion for the subject were few and far between.
>> I studies CS back in the 80s and back then every student I knew was genuinely interested in the subject and motivated to learn. In my last job at a bank I regularly interviewed recent CS graduates and candidates able to demonstrate a genuine passion for the subject were few and far between.
You are comparing college students from the 1980s to those from 20xx. I'll tell you what is on the mind of the new students: how the heck do I pay my student loans and save up for a $2M starter home
It is easy to have passion when you barely have student loans and can buy a home with a year or two of earnings.
In case you point out that salaries were also lower back then, i'll give you that, but the ratio of salary/debt and salary/homeprice was far more reasonable back then than now.
EDIT: This is a US-centric view, not necessarily a global view. Further, it is a SF/SV/NYC centric view since that is where a majority of tech+banking jobs are.
$2M is not a starter home. The national median home price is $230K. It's only that high because 4-5 states are dragging it up. Keep in mind that is the median. There are homes that can be had for less. Nice homes. Buying a house in one of the most expensive markets in the entire nation (SF, NYC) as your first home is a choice, and perhaps not a particularly wise one.
Where I live in, in Charlotte, NC a $1-2 million home budget would buy you a literal castle. Here is one on zillow not far from me for $1.2M it's a 6 bed, 7 bath, 7500+ Sq ft castle on an acre and surrounded by forest while still being only a 20 minute drive to the heart of the city.
For a much more reasonable $250K you can easily get a nice 2-3K sq ft 3-4 bedroom home with a quarter acre lot, nice fixtures and a 2 bay garage. This is in the 15th largest city in the US mind you. Better deals can be had elsewhere.
His point still stands though, we are doing things to maximize money because we are hugely indebted from students loans, rent, and medical bills. Scott Galloway mentioned in a podcast how he went to business school and paid $1000 in tuition and got a job after graduation that paid $100k. That's a 100:1 ratio that you can't find today. Today that same business school charges $70k and you get a job that pays $140k, that's a 2:1 ratio.
He also talked about how he was able to buy into amazon stocks when it was $60. If you are just starting your career you're jumping into a world where everything is at an all time high, that includes housing as well, every decent asset is currently at an all time high and we know that there's no room for us.
So we're left out of the big party, and we're scrunching to try to survive as we cope with our depression and anxiety about what an insecure future we have with climate change looming in the distance. Yes, take a job for the money. It's the only chance you have.
I think some of the context is lost here. The GP was talking about banking jobs with CS applicants not really passionate about CS. The majority of banking jobs are in NYC, so there really isn't really a huge choice. If you're applying for a CS job (not IT) in banking, almost the entire job market is in NYC.
My argument was that of course students are not passionate, they are worried about student loans, homes, rents. (Fun exercise go to the same Zillow link and try to find homes in NYC max $250k. Then, on what you find, look at the transportation options are into NYC.)
I'm glad you brought up NC because it has a decent sized banking sector but also offers great QoL.
I actually left NYC and took a super-interesting job a bit north of you in Virginia. Homes are affordable, QoL is great.
There is a catch though: there arent all that many other interesting jobs in tech (as there were in NY/SF). The startup scene is tiny. There are few FAANG jobs here though Amazon is supposed to come soon. There are some awesome CS research-type jobs, in govnt labs.
There are lots of interesting consulting jobs to be fair, as well as FAANG SE jobs. There are lots of interesting data-type jobs in Intelligence. There are also tens of thousands of totally dead-end tech jobs where you do nothing all day at government offices. A friend told me he's been waiting two months to get approval to install a pip library on a government machine. Another friend works on ancient systems.
Good QoL - absolutely.
Good home prices - absolutely.
Jobs i'd be passionate about - some, hopefully more coming with remote.
Am I obsessively passionate about the work here? No, i'm mostly enjoying the outdoors.
> how the heck do I pay my student loans and save up for a $2M starter home
Not valid for Scandinavia. In Denmark we get paid approx $1000 per month (like a wage) for studying and we pay $0 for attending university. You only have to pay for your own computer.
Some students have a part time job, some get extra money from parents.
It's a different culture than the US. Not at all the same pressure to immediately go to university, many people get jobs and travel while feeling out what field they really want to enter. This is of course dependent on the current jobs market. Personally I had three years.
Then university has nothing of the general courses and only specialized following your program.
You have some statistics in page 7 here, for Sweden though. It is influenced by people taking single courses and masters programs instead of the first enrollment so keep that in mind.
How many software engineers do you know who are legitimately terrified of their student loan debts for a Bachelor's in CS?
I've met people with grad degrees in less remunerative fields who absolutely have exactly the worries you imagine. But a fresh grad with a CS degree and a promising career? A 250k salary isn't even a stretch for them to imagine. Add a partner with a similar income and both the student loans and that $2M starter home seem plenty achievable.
Especially if they look at home prices in Oakland or Hayward where home prices are still under $1M, rather than the more exclusive parts of San Francisco (read: all of it).
Firstly, i graduated in 2001, so i've been through two down-cycles. Of course there are no worries now but you just need to look back and realize that $250k salaries can disappear, sometimes permanently. I remember how awesome it was in 2000, 2001, and then in 2002 and 2003 my friends were suddenly leaving CS to become mortgage brokers. I was blase about my liabilities in 2000, 2001. Not the case in 2002 or 2003. Blase again in 2006 and 2007. Terrified in 2009 (not about student loans but just liabilities in general - COBRA, property taxes, supporting family, etc.)
A large number of $250k+ salaries, on Wall St, for example permanently disappeared with the move to open source, shared servicing, etc. Former bosses are "retired" or "consultants" or insurance brokers.
Finally, sure, having a spouse who also earns $250k is great, but does everyone have that? Should CS grads only marry other CS grads? What if you wall in love with someone who does HR (which is my case)?
Also note, that stretching for a $2M home with two $250k tech salaries is pretty risky
0. What happens when you turn 35 or 40 and now face age discrimination?
1. Both your salaries are highly industry correlated
2. Both your salaries are regionally correlated
3. If either of you lose a job, you're screwed with a mega-loan.
4. What happens when kids come and you cant work (as easily, or at all?)
I remember 2002 and 2003. And 2008. You're right. These are real worries for real people in the real world.
Let's ground this in more realistic numbers: you can reasonably buy a $500k residential property in the SF Bay on a single $140k salary. That's a salary that's very achievable for a senior engineer - which is to say five years of experience, which many will hit by 30. It's one that you can keep getting when you hit 35 or 40 if you don't move into management or technical leadership so long as you don't insist on working solely for startups founded recently by 20-somethings. It's a pay packet that will enable you to rid yourself of student loans in relatively short order, should you choose to do so.
The nice thing about the "the tech industry" is that one name covers a shockingly diverse swath. I've seen personal finance, business finance, high finance, business services, medicine, consumer electronics, and more all under the name of "tech". They are not nearly are industry-correlated as calling it all "tech industry" might lead someone to think. Often they have little in common with one another except using a bit of Python or Ruby.
With that in mind, and that any property appreciates in value over enough time (or at least is exceptionally unlikely to lose significant value in the SF Bay), we've got a scenario where of 0-4 concerns, only #2 is really a big one in this new world of remote work. 0 and 1 aren't big issues, as mentioned previously. 3 isn't a huge deal - you're sitting on an asset in which you have a non-trivial chunk of ownership that you can use. 4 is a universal issue that will arise in literally any scenario where you don't have 1%-grade resources, and no change of location (or income) will fix that.
Your concerns are wise, and clear-headed. I applaud your foresight and caution! I think it just might be possible that grounding numbers in reality might change the calculations slightly.
Thanks for your very logic take on this. I'll admit that many in my "generation" 2000/2001 grads (and also 2009 grads in NY) gut burnt and have a different risk-reward outlook in life. I think that explains some of the differences.
What you say is highly logical and models well with the current state of the world. However, it doesnt model unknown unknowns. The problem with modeling unknown unknowns is that you remain in a constant state of fear of what might happen, even though in the base case you would be OK -- so again your viewpoint makes sense.
However, I myself, cant stop thinking of unknown unknowns. Two that worry me (not worry me crazy, just worry me enough not to buy an expensive home in SF) are:
- What if tech jobs go remote and SF property prices stay constant? Now you dont get the appreciation you are expecting. Also, now, wages are stagnant or reduced with the large pool of workers across the US willing to work for less.
- What if the "burn down tech industry" segment of politicians win power (or cabinet influence) and create all sorts of punitive laws?
- What if we allow a lot more highly-skilled immigrants into the country (generally, i'm in favor of this coming from an immigrant family, but it cannot be denied that there would be a 3-5yr blip downwards in wages as the industry re-calibrates to more efficiently use all resources, including eventually creating net new jobs)
I'll give you three examples of unknown unknowns:
1. A friend in NYC purchased a simple 2family home and rents out the below unit to help pay the mega-mortgage. This year, there was a law that in many cases renters can defer rent (unlikely to pay it later, since it will obviously be a huge number.) Also, there is a moratorium on evictions. Also, the homeowner has to continue paying property taxes, utilities, heating, gas, etc. The model just went out the window.
2. A friend in 2009 -- outstanding performer -- was fighting to keep his job (along with a dozen other folks.) Suddenly there was a sexual harrassment claim (no witnesses, he said vs she said.) One person desperately trying to keep their job was the accuser, one was the accused. The accused lost his job. Took him 9 months to find a new job. Burnt thru his 6mo savings buffer. Increasingly desperate for a job, lowered his salary expectations and no longer earning $250k
3. Company is doing well. You are doing awesome. Making great buck. Suddenly, a corporate acquisition. New overloads bringing in loyalists. Bonuses cut for a year or so. Market is bad, stock grants are below what you got (Happens all the time). Dont want to switch jobs and be LIFO. You just went from $250 TC to $170TC.
My point is not that people cannot make ends meet. They can. Also, we in tech have it pretty good. BUT I would agrue that there are too many unknowns and stresses to "just pursue your passion" as the GP post was saying. I mean, sure, if everything was covered i'd love to pursue my passion. But it isnt.
Finally, you cant easily sell a home.
1. 6% real estate commission (if you put 20% down, you just lost 30% of your equity)
2. Title Insurance (1.5% depending on state)
3. Lawyers, fees, transfer taxes.
4. Bid-Ask spread.
All in, selling a home, especially under duress, exacts ~7-10% cost depending on your tax jurisdiction. If you put 20% down, you just lost 33 to 50% of your equity.
I think you're right - our key difference is in risk tolerance.
You can choose to minimize your risks to maximize your resources for dealing with unexpected events. This is absolutely, completely, and in every possible way a valid life choice! Validity does not mean free of consequences, though.
I have several friends who live this way. They do their best to minimize every risk in their lives and maximize their spare resources. One thing they all have in common is that they never have enough saved to feel secure - there's always a bigger and scarier scenario that they aren't prepared for. Some of them even struggle to tap their "unknown unknown" funds in the event of genuine emergencies, because there's more that could go wrong and they need to be prepared.
Choosing to be maximally conservative is a perfectly reasonable and completely valid life choice. The catch, perhaps, is contextualizing it and accepting that you will pay a price for minimizing risk. Otherwise there's the real risk that a person winds up forever paralyzed by anxiety, sitting like the world's smallest dragon atop a horde of pennies in case you might need them.
And I think it's fair to say that that's not a portrait of your average college student or the future they envision.
At least addressing #1, I think people underestimate the fact that renting property is a business. If making your mortgage is contingent on both income from your job and your business, that’s a pretty risky position to be in. I’m not sure it’s fair to blame the law on this situation. If his tenant lost their job due to the pandemic they wouldn’t be able to make rent, either. He’d need to go through the time consuming and costly effort to evict that person over several months. The pandemic is the problem, and even the absurd real estate market is susceptible to that risk.
I've seen this as a teaching assistant. CS class size went from a few 10s to over a 100 in 1999-2001, then dropped again when the gold chasers went somewhere else.
I did not find the boom period as bad as I expected. Many of the students in it for the money were still very smart and motivated and interesting to talk to. But I preferred the non-boom periods nonetheless :)
> Many of the students in it for the money were still very smart and motivated and interesting to talk to.
It is because people are not one dimensional. Most people have talent for range of professions, they are not predisposed to like exactly one of them. Also, most good students will end up liking whatever they picked provided it is within range of things they are not completely failing at.
Learning something often makes one like it more, even if one was initially ambivalent. Plus, once you know a bit more about field, you can find sub-field you are actually good at and find fun. As in, various tech jobs require slightly different aptitudes - some require more patience, some more abstract thinking, others memory. But, you dont know until you try.
As a student starting at that time, it was actually very frustrating. Universities hadn't caught up on having enough lecturers/TAs (or they hired a lot of TAs but they were very inexperienced and your odds of getting a good one were not good). Class sizes soaring also meant reduced time with instructors in office hours, and reduced opportunities for working with researchers (that is, a decent but average student had a shot before, but suddenly had none due to the glut of candidates).
The TA thing is pretty normal. I'm a TA this term as my new funding is being being worked out because it takes 6 months to do. So I'm TAing a class on assembly which I have no experience and don't even have a CS undergraduate degree. It sucks for us too as a have one class that expects 30hrs/wk of work (+another class), my research (what I want to spend all my time on), and TAing takes 18hrs/wk.
You're only going to get a good TA when that professor is teaching a class that's their focus and has a grad student that has that fucus AND that student isn't on other research funding. The system is far from optional for either undergrads or grads. Believe me, I'm not happy either
Because the 'S' in CS is for 'science'. The degree is a study of the fundamental underpinnings of computer use. Not a tech-ed employment-training class.
Sounds like folks who love the field but hate the job, should teach!
On my CS course, the best professors were those who could also do the practical side. Two of them had created all the tools used by the students, including a minicomputer operating system.
The problem is I dont really feel like an engineer or a scientist. I'm definitely not a good engineer partly because I don't care enough, but I'm neither smart nor educated enough to be a scientist. I'd personally describe myself as more of a hacker, but thats not particularly useful for much.
To teach, you only have to be one lesson ahead of the students. And there's lots of teaching to be done, before the hard science kicks in. So plenty of room for everybody!
To teach professionally, you also need to get whatever credentials the institution requires. I don't think my community college cared too much about formal credentials other than warm body and background check, but my four-year school seemed to prefer a PhD or a masters with industry experience. My kid's school district recently put out a call for substitute teachers which requires a bachelors degree (any field), a background check, and a whole lot of patience (not specifically listed).
I suppose that's understandable too. To be clear I'm not saying there aren't any with a passion for the subject, there are probably just as many now as were. Probably more. But there are also a lot of people going into it for whom it's just another career, and that's fine as long as there are enough jobs for them and they're willing to work. The problems come when there aren't.
I know, I know, get off my lawn.