151–160 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think anonymous contribution is likely to yield more truthful information.
It (by design) includes only people who self-select to share their compensation details. I would expect that to skew high, even if 100% truthful.
Bootcamp marketing methinks? I have never met a recent bootcamp grad who seemed even remotely qualified to work at Google as a SWE. Just don't buy it (keep in mind none of them had CS degrees or worked in industry before). I'd love to be proven wrong, in a verifiable way.
Look at the company names, I'm not buying this for graduates of a 12 week bootcamp. Either this bootcamp is very selective in who they admit, or they are very selective in which salaries they show. The only way you're passing multiple rounds of interviews at google/facebook/big name sv company after 12 weeks of study is if you already had a significant knowledge base before hand, you're some kind of algorithms savant…
Look at the company names, I'm not buying this for graduates of a 12 week bootcamp. Either this bootcamp is very selective in who they admit, or they are very selective in which salaries they show. The only way you're passing multiple rounds of interviews at google/facebook/big name sv company after 12 weeks of study is if you already had a significant knowledge base before hand, you're some kind of algorithms savant…
App Academy is indeed extremely selective, with an acceptance rate less than 3%.
The salaries shown are all self-reported (App Academy isn't releasing this), so there is likely some sample bias for sure.
And you doubt that a/A grads work at Google or similar companies? See for yourself: https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrent...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It (by design) includes only people who self-select to share their compensation details. I would expect that to skew high, even if 100% truthful.
what self gratification does one get by boosting his/her salary when it's anonymized?
Honestly was expecting a lot more, considering the salaries people throw around on Hacker News. Using http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-l... the adjusted value for $136,000 in SF to where I live in New York is a decent chunk less. Especially being in a DevOps/Systems role, and not a Software Dev one.
You shouldn't. Everyone lies about salary or includes their options at some fictions value as part of their compensation. The reality is that the number of people making over $200k is just not that many. Very senior people and directors of certain departments, sure. And you've got some $250k+ VIPs out there. Some. For everyone else, even those in the Bay Area, it caps around $180k, or $10k/mo after tax. Stay for long…
I'm less than 2 years out of college, and I'm set to make ~$210k at google in 2017. Up from ~$170 when I started. I know a few who are making a more than me because they negotiated their stock units well. To be fair, GOOG doing well the past two years has helped me a lot. It would be $186k at grant price.
I haven't even gotten promoted yet.
These figures are before taxes, of course.
Will we see one for female employees? Or would that be too expensive to compile?
Well. As a former Google female employee, I've learned that with 4 years Google experience and 10 years industry experience, I was making as much total comp as a person with about 1.5 years industry experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on talking to peers at my company who work in the UK, and corroborating stories from friends at similar companies, UK salaries are dramatically lower across the board.
A one bedroom is not $3000+ either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$110K as a CTO does seem low to me. Do you mind if I ask where you live?
I earn far less than that, as CTO of a Southern California e-commerce company. The salaries in this spreadsheet seem incredibly high for one year of experience.