Learning, wearing 10 hats, broad range of knowledge from tech, design, hiring, firing, hyper productiveness, fun all the way up to optimized way of buying coffee.
A startup experience will definetly accelerator your career. You are likely to be more valuable than you were x months/years before the startup.
for me it sounds like it's what you do when you start your own company, not when you get hired by one.
does it take applying the name 'startup' to any company to embrace all that awesomeness in contrast to being hired by a company that doesn't meet this definition? I'm asking seriously. taking into account that 90% of startups fail in one way or the other, how is exactly working in an unknown unsuccessful young company such a strong career booster?
Because you are usually given the chance to learn vast amounts of various skills. At most jobs, your opportunities for learning new things or playing new roles is limited.
how is exactly working in an unknown unsuccessful young company such a strong career booster?
It's not. There are plenty of people out there with no-name companies on their resumes.
You learn a lot, but then go into a subordinate position where everyone thinks you're an idiot. Either you push back and end up in lots of conflict (possibly fired) or you accept it and gradually become what they think of you.
kind of my point. I guess it's prestige when you have 'I wrote the youtube player' on your resume when youtube was a startup. if you have 'I wrote the nextvidflixr.io player but we closed down after 3months because the founder was a moron' it's cool story bro, now go home and get your fking shinebox, isn't it? there are startups and startups.
//edit: and in my hypothetical example I don't mean the skillset required to write a player, but the position where you worked with successful people that did everything right, rather than the same experience at a wannabe company doomed to fail.
The "career booster" argument is something that the bad startups use to sway clueless young talent. It's not true in general, and a good startup will show you the kind of work you'll be doing and let you decide for yourself.
Yes, good startups are good for peoples' careers, but there are only a few of those in existence (that are still startups; I wouldn't count Facebook) at a given time. Oh, and most of the good startups are slow-growth companies you've never heard of, but that are doing genuinely interesting work (machine learning, robotics, etc.) rather than social media. They're very selective and hard to find, but those are much better options than these VC darlings.
Social Media is the Reality TV of startups. It's not common because it's good, but because it's cheap. Here, "cheap" pertains to talent (hard to find, especially for non-technical people) more than anything else.
It's easier to get a title at a startup, and if you can convince the next employer to take that title seriously, you can swing it to a permanent improvement.
I think, though, that unless a startup has distinguished itself as a real engineering shop (and very few have, because very few deserve that accolade) that being a startup engineer is a career negative. Most of these startups have MBA-type management and the Design Paradox implies, so the engineers aren't very good. With a few startups excepted, most startups see engineers as cost centers and give them laughably low equity and if you work at a company like that, you're a chump.
This is a comment that says there are only a few good startups in existence. There is no possible way the author fo the comment can back that argument up. It's a sentiment that stretches past commendable skepticism, past cynicism, and lands with a flatulent thud right in the soft belly of parody. It's like a mirror image of the "sharing economy will render property ownership obsolete".
That's too bad, because when it isn't making ludicrous generalizations about the CS/engineering demographics of the whole tech startup sector, it makes a good point about not accepting below-market wages from tech companies.
>This is a comment that says there are only a few good startups in existence. There is no possible way the author fo the comment can back that argument up.
Why does he have to back it up? Null hypothesis, "There are no good startups", right?
Wow, what a dishonest response. Your attempt to repurpose the premise of my comment as if had been yours to begin with ignores your actual assertion, which is "but there are only a few of those [good startups] in existence".
I apologize in advance if you are like that guy in that movie who lost his long-term memory and therefore could only remember the last hour of his life and therefore only had my comment to go on in composing that response.
I'm in New York, and the Bay Area might be very different, but my startup experiences were devastating for my career.
In one case, after I resigned because I refused to commit perjury, the CEO (from a well-known, rich family) embarked on a months-long campaign to ruin my reputation.
You don't get a worse position than you were eligible for before you did the startup, but if you don't have the credibility that comes with a successful exit, you don't get anything better either, which means you're overqualified for the subordinate roles into which you'll be placed, and thus less likely to be successful.
I wish it were a better world, but the truth is that there is such a thing in programming as being too good at your job, and startups are a way to end up with that problem. Sure, you learn a lot, but being learned without credibility is worse than being the idiot everyone thinks you are, because you don't get in as much conflict if you don't know anything.
A startup experience will definetly accelerator your career. You are likely to be more valuable than you were x months/years before the startup.