Google drops engineering residency after protests over ‘inequities’(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Google drops engineering residency after protests over ‘inequities’
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/google-drops-engineering-residency-after-protests-over-inequities-sources-tell-reuters.html
116 comments
To clarify, I can say from experience (having personally helped convert 6 engineering residents at Google), I'm pretty confident the "less pay and a smaller stock refresh" in the article is referring to conversion offers to FTE and stock refreshes after the first year of FTE employment, not to their pay during their residency. Those FTE conversion offers were terrible, from what I saw, with no room for negotiation. The residency program had given these candidates 1 year to build a proven track record of performance and they were fully ramped up by the end, so there was no risk to Google at the time of those offers; if a resident was given an offer, it was because they were a pretty sure thing (far more than any normal interviewed hire). As such, I think their offers should have been higher than a regular hire, not lower. (As someone who was hired direct out of college with little experience, I can confidently say the offers my residents got were _significantly_ lower than my starting offer at the same level.) The article states this a bit unclearly, but I'm pretty sure this is what it means, because it doesn't make sense to refer to year-end bonuses or stock refreshes during residency because they aren't long enough to get these regardless (and I never heard anyone complain about this).
That said, as a side note, I do think articles like this tend to sensationalize Google as a whole as the "bad guy". Try to remember, Google is a huge company with lots of people managing its many parts. I personally feel there was a failing here, but if so, it was the fault of a relatively small number of people, not "Google". Even most of the people running this program were good, and the program itself was great (as you said) other than what I said above. There's hundreds of thousands of decisions happening every day at Google. If just a couple bad ones get to define the company as a whole, then no large company can ever be good, no matter how good all the rest of those decisions are.
That said, as a side note, I do think articles like this tend to sensationalize Google as a whole as the "bad guy". Try to remember, Google is a huge company with lots of people managing its many parts. I personally feel there was a failing here, but if so, it was the fault of a relatively small number of people, not "Google". Even most of the people running this program were good, and the program itself was great (as you said) other than what I said above. There's hundreds of thousands of decisions happening every day at Google. If just a couple bad ones get to define the company as a whole, then no large company can ever be good, no matter how good all the rest of those decisions are.
> with no room for negotiation.
The only room for negotiation is being willing to walk (usually because you have an offer somewhere else).
Otherwise, it's not negotiating, it's just begging.
The only room for negotiation is being willing to walk (usually because you have an offer somewhere else).
Otherwise, it's not negotiating, it's just begging.
[deleted]
SWE can pay upwards of $500-600k after 5-10 years of experience.
I don't think that's really true.
I'm not arguing that there aren't SWEs whose total comp is $600k. There definitely are. However, those people aren't really SWEs. They're managers, architects, and strategists. They have a lot of people reporting to them, they make decisions about very high level things that are only tangentially related to code, and they work on guiding other engineers to find solutions to hard problems. No doubt being a developer before getting to that role is incredibly helpful and makes you better at it, but if you're earning $600k I very much doubt you're spending more than 25% of your time sat at a keyboard with an IDE open.
If you want to earn that much after a decade in work you'd be much better off polishing your management and strategy skills than learning how to write better code.
And yes, I realise I'm totally falling in to the 'no true Scotsman' trap here. But sometimes a Scotsman is just an MBA in a kilt. :)
I don't think that's really true.
I'm not arguing that there aren't SWEs whose total comp is $600k. There definitely are. However, those people aren't really SWEs. They're managers, architects, and strategists. They have a lot of people reporting to them, they make decisions about very high level things that are only tangentially related to code, and they work on guiding other engineers to find solutions to hard problems. No doubt being a developer before getting to that role is incredibly helpful and makes you better at it, but if you're earning $600k I very much doubt you're spending more than 25% of your time sat at a keyboard with an IDE open.
If you want to earn that much after a decade in work you'd be much better off polishing your management and strategy skills than learning how to write better code.
And yes, I realise I'm totally falling in to the 'no true Scotsman' trap here. But sometimes a Scotsman is just an MBA in a kilt. :)
500-600K is L5-L6 at google CA, which is still a lot of coding and maybe some reports, but not necessary.
> SWE can pay upwards of $500-600k after 5-10 years of experience.
Just like stores have "up to" 70% discounts. One item is marked off that much, and the rest are given modest discounts.
We shouldn't normalize this number as some plain old average, it'd be aspirational for many.
Just like stores have "up to" 70% discounts. One item is marked off that much, and the rest are given modest discounts.
We shouldn't normalize this number as some plain old average, it'd be aspirational for many.
(Opinions are my own. I know nothing about this program.)
Using StackOverflow's [0] aggregated statistics of pay based on experience + location we can get some rough estimates
Over a 5 to 10 year span as a developer at Google you'd probably touch: Java, Golang, C++, Python, and some part of GCP (or very similar tech). Pay is also different from market location so if we look only at the USA we can look at SF and Manhattan.
5 years:
Some more data can be gleamed from here: https://www.levels.fyi/
500k+ is L6+, while very difficult to obtain, seems doable if you are determined, know your stuff, know how to find the "right" projects, and are also an inspiring leader.
[0] - https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/salary
Using StackOverflow's [0] aggregated statistics of pay based on experience + location we can get some rough estimates
Over a 5 to 10 year span as a developer at Google you'd probably touch: Java, Golang, C++, Python, and some part of GCP (or very similar tech). Pay is also different from market location so if we look only at the USA we can look at SF and Manhattan.
5 years:
- NYC 25% 96k, 50% 126k, 75% 166k
- SF 25% 113k, 50% 149k, 75% 197k
- NYC 25% 107k, 50% 141k, 75% 186k
- SF 25% 126k, 50% 166k, 75% 219k
Some more data can be gleamed from here: https://www.levels.fyi/
500k+ is L6+, while very difficult to obtain, seems doable if you are determined, know your stuff, know how to find the "right" projects, and are also an inspiring leader.
[0] - https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/salary
I have hit L6 after 7 years of steep upward trajectory. I have been hired with a PhD and four years of part-time industry experience. I got it now because two years ago our org got a new leader with a mindset very similar to mine, while at the same time a solution I've been developing for a couple years was just found by a tens-of-billions-usd problem.
Sure, over the 7 years I've met a couple engineers with a similar trajectory and one with a steeper one. But the vast majority will either take more time to get to L6, or plain decide to stay forever at 4 or 5.
Sure, over the 7 years I've met a couple engineers with a similar trajectory and one with a steeper one. But the vast majority will either take more time to get to L6, or plain decide to stay forever at 4 or 5.
L3 to L6 in 7 years is very impressive. Even L4 to L6 in 7 years is impressive. I would expect a talented engineer would be able to go from L3 to L6 in 10 years.
“ way for people from unique backgrounds to enter into the software engineering field with less stringent interview requirements” - sounds like discrimination and should be illegal. meanwhile, people in their 40s are dealing with leetcode BS to get a reasonable position with that sort of compensation even though they have an extensive track record.
>sounds like discrimination and should be illegal
IME the "unique backgrounds" are "doesn't have a CS degree or a couple years of experience at a big software shop".
IME the "unique backgrounds" are "doesn't have a CS degree or a couple years of experience at a big software shop".
"Unique Backgrounds" meant women or lgtb or non-asian non-white. They often came from top schools, so that didn't really matter. It is way easier to get into Google via this program so some lied about being gay to get in.
the fact that this programs exist in the first place is a problem. how is it fair to have different interview processes for certain groups of people? it also results in underpaying these people and making it difficult for them to leave.
That's generally not what I've seen. It's generally just the same sorts of folks from top schools.
yep, discrimination
You could at least explain how it’s unfair to pay less qualified applicants less money?
It's bold to assume that the Google interview process accepts all qualified applicants.
bold? as long as there is no discrimination going on they can do what they want. the problem is, there is plenty of discrimination going on. maybe you don’t care because you work there. good for you. sooner or later, it will matter to you.
> the problem is, there is plenty of discrimination going on.
Try "the interview process is bad and has low recall."
> sooner or later, it will matter to you.
It already matters to me.
Try "the interview process is bad and has low recall."
> sooner or later, it will matter to you.
It already matters to me.
Discrimination against all but protected classes (eg race, religion, et c) is not only legal but standard practice; when hiring SWEs you want to discriminate against the inexperienced, those bad at code, et c.
the point here is that not everyone goes through the same recruiting process because of these programs. also, coding interviews do not test if you are a good software engineer or computer scientist. they test how well you memorized optimal solutions to problems and how quickly you can reproduce them. they also discriminate against those with anxiety or other mental issues or those who have not recently graduated. and they do not test many important skills besides writing code.
it is unfair to require leetcode bullshit interviews from candidates who apply for a job via the normal route but at the same time have programs in place where people can enter some kind of internship or training program via which they can be hired into similar positions without going through the exact same interview process. in fact, it is illegal.
>sounds like discrimination
discrimination can either be legal or illegal. google legally discriminates by giving offers to those who get the hiring committee's approval. i think getting the hiring committee's approval is a form of legal discrimination.
discrimination can either be legal or illegal. google legally discriminates by giving offers to those who get the hiring committee's approval. i think getting the hiring committee's approval is a form of legal discrimination.
> discrimination can either be legal or illegal
Right, every nonrandom decision is discrimination, but in the US private discrimination is generally legal unless it effects a protected category; because of the rational basis test, in the US, public dsicrimination is generally invalid unless it meets some bar of justification, but unless a particularly protected basis of discrimination is involved or a particularly important right impinged, the bar for validity is very low (a rational relation to a legitimate government function.)
Right, every nonrandom decision is discrimination, but in the US private discrimination is generally legal unless it effects a protected category; because of the rational basis test, in the US, public dsicrimination is generally invalid unless it meets some bar of justification, but unless a particularly protected basis of discrimination is involved or a particularly important right impinged, the bar for validity is very low (a rational relation to a legitimate government function.)
if you know about it, why don’t you do something about it?
>with the assumption that they'd fail and eventually have to be let go.
This seems at odds with the article:
>Nearly all residents converted to regular employees, according to the presentation
This seems at odds with the article:
>Nearly all residents converted to regular employees, according to the presentation
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
True equity of outcomes means that people spend different amounts of effort but get to the same results.
So people from underrepresented backgrounds should be paid the same as top engineers regardless of output.
So people from underrepresented backgrounds should be paid the same as top engineers regardless of output.
> SWE can pay upwards of $500-600k after 5-10 years of experience.
Where? lol
Where? lol
Here in Europe you're unlikely to break $100k in that time.
That's still really good for Europe. That's €84k, not a lot of careers pay like that after 10 years, even in STEM.
500k is about L6. You ahou get that within 10 years if you want
I've been a software engineer professionally for 11 years. I've never had a peer make near that. I even worked at Uber in downtown SF.
Let's take a look at my salary history. I am a PhD, I didn't enter the Real World Job Market until 2001, when I was 28 (others in my cohort went straight from college to SWE, while I spent 10 years just doing research).
2001: SWE at UCSF, making about $75K/yr. This is roughly triple my graduate student salary and higher than my postdoc salary. 2007: Architect at Genentech. Make about $100K/year 2008: Join Google as L5 with a starting bonus of $25K, $125K salary, and about $100K in stock options. Stock options are refreshed every year. One year, Eric Schmidt gives everybody a 10% raise. I get promoted once. 2019: leave to work at a startup for a year, same base pay as Google, and stock grants that are now worth $1M but aren't fungible. 2021: Leave Google as L6 with base pay of $225K, 15% bonus target (which I get), a $45K annual bonus, and $700K stock vesting over four years. I count this as "around $450K/year total comp" before taxes etc.
If I had managed 2012-2016 better, I'd be an L7 or more, making about $550K/year total comp. However, these are all exceptional situations made possible by the insanity that is Google.
2001: SWE at UCSF, making about $75K/yr. This is roughly triple my graduate student salary and higher than my postdoc salary. 2007: Architect at Genentech. Make about $100K/year 2008: Join Google as L5 with a starting bonus of $25K, $125K salary, and about $100K in stock options. Stock options are refreshed every year. One year, Eric Schmidt gives everybody a 10% raise. I get promoted once. 2019: leave to work at a startup for a year, same base pay as Google, and stock grants that are now worth $1M but aren't fungible. 2021: Leave Google as L6 with base pay of $225K, 15% bonus target (which I get), a $45K annual bonus, and $700K stock vesting over four years. I count this as "around $450K/year total comp" before taxes etc.
If I had managed 2012-2016 better, I'd be an L7 or more, making about $550K/year total comp. However, these are all exceptional situations made possible by the insanity that is Google.
Mostly US in SV, NYC, SEA. But even in UK, FAANG salary for 5-10 years can be around £300k+
Refreshers stacking + stock appreciation, I'd guess.
I didn't take it to mean stock appreciation, as pay directly means salary where I'm from.
They are talking about total comp which is usually base salary + bonus + stock (RSUs). As the person above mentioned, 50% or more of that $500-600K is most likely made up of stacked stock grants. Even if you sell your RSUs right away, a grant typically vests over 4 years. In the current market, that makes older grants much more valuable based on stock appreciation.
The IT residency you don’t even get stock.
Same with the AI residency. (At least I didn't.)
You don't, but ai res did have relatively higher bonuses that some what (to be clear, only somewhat) made up for it.
It seems like this engineering residency program is essentially an extended internship, which converts to a full time role if the worker does well. Google searches say residents are paid ~$95k a year. This is by no means bad pay for entry level work.
I'm really struggling to see the injustice of this program. It seems to me that axing it only leaves the people who used this role as a stepping stone to reach a full time role with no opportunity to get their foot in the door.
I'm really struggling to see the injustice of this program. It seems to me that axing it only leaves the people who used this role as a stepping stone to reach a full time role with no opportunity to get their foot in the door.
That was my impression as well. The eng residency program is intended as an entry point for those who aren't yet qualified for Google's entry level engineering positions. It's a kind of apprenticeship. I have heard (but can't confirm) that folks are sometimes invited to apply for residency after not passing an ordinary engineering interview. I also got the impression that there are strong incentives to always convert residents at the end of their residency. I have had limited experience with residents on the job so I can't really comment on their qualifications.
I'm pretty sure that I agree with you, but if I had to steelman the argument against Eng Res it would be that since pay and promotion seems to follow percentage increments year to year, if you start at a lower point than someone else, you are going to be consistently behind them. So, having this program essentially creates a second class of engineer at google, predominantly URMs, who will be given lower pay and lower prestige assignments.
Personally, I don't buy this because the alternative is not that these Eng Residents would have been given entry level roles at google with the commensurate pay and benefits but rather no role at google.
Personally, I don't buy this because the alternative is not that these Eng Residents would have been given entry level roles at google with the commensurate pay and benefits but rather no role at google.
Made an HN account to respond to this. I was in the Eng Res program, and that's not how it worked.
When you converted to being a regular SWE, they gave you a BIG pay bump -- comparable to a new-grad starting salary, but rather higher than average. My comp the year after Eng Res was higher by 20-40% than my friends who started at Google right out of school.
When you converted to being a regular SWE, they gave you a BIG pay bump -- comparable to a new-grad starting salary, but rather higher than average. My comp the year after Eng Res was higher by 20-40% than my friends who started at Google right out of school.
“Nearly all residents converted to regular employees, according to the presentation. Many alumni years later have continued to feel the “negative effect” of their starting pay on their current salary, it said.” Quoted from the article.
Are you an outlier in the pay increase?
Are you an outlier in the pay increase?
Thanks for clarifying. My thinking above was speculative and it appears even my steel man point was pretty weak.
> since pay and promotion seems to follow percentage increments year to year
So ... leave?
Put a couple years of FAANG on your resume to bootstrap and then bail out to the job that pays correctly. That's what everybody has to do to keep their salary from lagging.
If the analysis only includes those who haven't bailed at least once, it's for sure going to have lagging salaries.
A more interesting question would be what those who bailed and then came back to Google are making.
So ... leave?
Put a couple years of FAANG on your resume to bootstrap and then bail out to the job that pays correctly. That's what everybody has to do to keep their salary from lagging.
If the analysis only includes those who haven't bailed at least once, it's for sure going to have lagging salaries.
A more interesting question would be what those who bailed and then came back to Google are making.
I don't know how Google does their salary, but a lot of big corps do salary bands by level, and when the 2x a year (one of which might not be advertised) company adjustments come up, they determine merit based rases and then adjust to try to tighten the bands. So if you're underpaid, you'll probably get a bigger raise than otherwise and if you're overpaid, your raise will be adjusted down.
You might not ever catch up to someone who started higher (and certainly won't for the integral of compensation), but the gap should narrow over time.
You might not ever catch up to someone who started higher (and certainly won't for the integral of compensation), but the gap should narrow over time.
I once went out with a nurse in the UK who worked in palliative (end of life) care. On a daily basis she was responsible for life-changing decisions concerning medications; she had to comfort the dying and tell bereaved people that their relatives had died (frequently ending up in tears herself); she had to give bed baths and clean up human waste daily. She had to undertake continuous training and assessment with her career at risk if she failed; she did not know more than a week in advance what shifts she would be working which on any given day could start at 6am or 9pm (and go through to 4am the next day).
For all of this she was paid £25,000 (USD 35,000) / year.
The injustice is that software engineers and the tech sector in general are being so insanely rewarded as most of the rest of society stagnates and living standards fall (I say this as an insanely rewarded software engineer).
This will not end well.
For all of this she was paid £25,000 (USD 35,000) / year.
The injustice is that software engineers and the tech sector in general are being so insanely rewarded as most of the rest of society stagnates and living standards fall (I say this as an insanely rewarded software engineer).
This will not end well.
Software engineers are rewarded what the market demands, not some prize because they're seen as better for humanity than nurses. Some would argue the field of nursing has a lower bar to entry than software development.
I'm not commenting on whether these programs are a good idea or not. But I wanted to point out one thing about these programs I find funny is while the candidates races may be diverse their educational background is usually quite similar. A program at my work is very similar, and the majority of students went to the top ten CS schools.
The education system’s admission criteria is heavily correlated with the hiring criteria, even without taking the prestige of their degrees into the account.
> Critics have long argued that Google and its tech industry peers favor white, Asian and male workers
Google was 51.7% white in 2020, down from 54.4% in 2019 *. The US is 61.5% white, meaning whites are under-represented at Google, and increasingly so. How can one then argue they are favored? Why do reporters not apply even the smallest degree of scrutiny to such claims?
* https://diversity.google/annual-report/
Google was 51.7% white in 2020, down from 54.4% in 2019 *. The US is 61.5% white, meaning whites are under-represented at Google, and increasingly so. How can one then argue they are favored? Why do reporters not apply even the smallest degree of scrutiny to such claims?
* https://diversity.google/annual-report/
I think it's worth considering the following points:
* The critics are talking about Software Engineering (~1/3rd of the company?), whereas the source you cited is about all of Google. I wouldn't be surprised if the White/Asian/Male splits are far worse when you only look at software engineers.
* Google has many international offices (e.g. there's > 1000 employees in Google Japan).
* The critics are talking about Software Engineering (~1/3rd of the company?), whereas the source you cited is about all of Google. I wouldn't be surprised if the White/Asian/Male splits are far worse when you only look at software engineers.
* Google has many international offices (e.g. there's > 1000 employees in Google Japan).
> The critics are talking about Software Engineering (~1/3rd of the company?)
It's closer to 2/3.
It's closer to 2/3.
Google hires many people who are not from the US to come work in the US, so I don't think the 61.5% is reflective of their hiring pool.
Oh, okay. So we can keep claiming Google, a US company, favors white workers until when? Until less than 10%* of their US workers are white? Is that what being favored means? That companies in your own country look elsewhere to import workers?
*Ballpark white global population.
*Ballpark white global population.
All I'm saying is that your statistic does not disprove the allegation that Google's hiring processes might favor white workers. You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison, and drawing a conclusion that isn't demonstrated by the data.
I'm also not saying that these numbers prove that Google does favor white workers. Only that they are not sufficient to disprove the idea.
I'm also not saying that these numbers prove that Google does favor white workers. Only that they are not sufficient to disprove the idea.
Should the null hypothesis be that Google discriminates in favor of white, Asian, and male applicants? Or should it be that Google is not discriminating improperly?
It seems strange to put people in a position where showing a datapoint that would otherwise tend to refute a hypothesis (which IMO should not be assumed to be true in the first place) is not enough to be considered as evidence against the hypothesis being true.
It seems strange to put people in a position where showing a datapoint that would otherwise tend to refute a hypothesis (which IMO should not be assumed to be true in the first place) is not enough to be considered as evidence against the hypothesis being true.
I'm not making any claim about what the null hypothesis should be here. I'm simply disagreeing that the datapoint says what the poster claims it says.
I'll say that you'd probably want to set your null hypothesis at "presumption of innocence" here.
The general trend I see in the community is that there's a strong belief that google, and by extension, the tech industry, is biased in favor of white workers.
The general trend I see in the community is that there's a strong belief that google, and by extension, the tech industry, is biased in favor of white workers.
The choice of hiring pool is part of the hiring process. Expanding that pool to other countries is itself an act of disfavor to US workers.
Google serves the world as their customers. It seems to me that having a preponderance of US-based employees that's wildly out of proportion to their customer (or revenue) base is still heavily in favor of US workers.
Many large companies serve the world (Xiaomi, Hikvision, Hitachi, Samsung, Mitsubishi..) while their employees in their home countries are overwhelmingly native. So if international customer bases are the norm, but only Google (or US companies) have significant international hiring, that effectively disfavors US workers.
What's "white" even mean? Descendants of north Europeans? Surface albedo of skin greater than 0.85 in the visible spectrum?
Race is self-reported. There isn't someone in Google HR researching your ancestry, they ask you what race you identify as when you join. If you self-identify as white then you are white according to Google HR.
Interesting, that introduces some very skewed incentives: from a game theory perspective it would always be better to lie about your race in HR surveys. Then according to the data, your actual race would be underrepresented and the industry would try to hire more people who look like you, making your next job search easier.
Descendants of Europeans. It's not ambiguous.
You know nothing about demographics and race. Do some research before for you continue this conversation.
Just so you know, Middle Eastern folks from Lebanon and Egypt fall under the race of "White" in the US census. Source: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-no...
The US Census categories are incorrect.
What race categories are correct? Race is arbitrarily defined so any categorization is going to have flaws.
At least Census is consistent.
At least Census is consistent.
What degree of purity is required to count as a European? Europeans can and do mix with non-europeans.
Under US law, 'one drop of blood' is sufficient to count as nonwhite. Might be an outgrowth of puritanism, I'm not sure.
That was only true in some states during Jim Crow. Others had different definitions of "white". In fact it was possible for some "black" people to become "white" just by crossing a state boundary.
Racism is stupid.
Racism is stupid.
"One drop" is not and was never federal law in the US[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
The 99% of white Americans for whom all ancestors were from Europe, are European.
Just checked that there are 7 millions Jews in the US. That's a lot more than 1%. About 3 millions are Slavic people. Many millions are european-type Arabic people. They all look like white Americans and if they grew up in the US, they won't even have an accent. The number of "true north-european descendats" must be a lot lower, maybe 60% of white Americans. And this number is going downhill rapidly because Americans don't hesitate to mix with other races and nationalities. My point is that albedo of skin is a really poor predictor of ancestry, about as good as a coin toss.
Every human being descends from the original humans in Africa so I don't think the term "true north-European descendants" makes much sense.
> The 99% of white Americans for whom all ancestors were from Europe, are European.
“White Americans” average a little under 99% Eurooean ancestry, but far fewer than 99% have exclusively European ancestry.
“White Americans” average a little under 99% Eurooean ancestry, but far fewer than 99% have exclusively European ancestry.
[deleted]
b20000(1)
ergocoder(2)
This was an incredible opportunity and it's an absolute shame that internal protests killed it. Yes, you get less pay and a smaller stock refresh, but I know a few people who's careers began with this residency and they'd still be struggling without it.
I don't even know how to describe this. You get less pay but an amazing opportunity, and then you look back and are upset that you weren't given more? Google took a large risk on these candidates with the assumption that they'd fail and eventually have to be let go. But they did it anyway just to create opportunities.