Seattle area's best IT/technology employers ? (leasing, tech job, salary)
Seattle areaSeattle and King County Suburbs
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether a degree helps or not depends on the personality of the interviewers. Certainly, having friends at the company and an excellent ship record are more important than a Masters degree. But, especially if you're new to the field, a degree might be all you have.
(I just asked my husband: "Whats the worst place to work as a programmer in Seattle" and his response was "Amazon, probably")
Agreed. Degrees don't guarantee a job, but if you actually viewed your education as more than a piece of paper and you know how to properly use it as a marketing tool, it certainly can help.
I would also say its importance is dependent upon your level. To illustrate, if you're a "pure developer" your focus is going to be primarily on your skillset/knowledge around development. If you have a degree from within the last few years and you're in SD, then that also proves you're "current." If you have a degree from 15 or 20 years ago, that doesn't show that you are current. In that scenario, having current certifications will go a long way to "validate" not just your experience, but also that your knowledge base is up to speed.
As you progress up the ranks, you become more of a generalist (in many cases, at least). Mid and especially upper SD management will also need strong skills in management, finance, operations, human resources, etc. etc. This is where skill sets from an MBA or something similar can come in extremely valuable. You need to understand the technology enough to be an effective leader, but you also have many other tasks you add to your plate.
Essentially, there is no cookie-cutter answer. Look at your career today and where you want to eventually take it. Then tailor your formal education and certifications around that.
Thanks Seacove. I will look into those sites. And thanks for the reality check as well .. I forgot that since the Seattle area is heavy into technology, 9% unemployment would include lots of techie people competing for the same jobs.
However, it does not look that jobs are unavailable - There are plenty of openings listed (at least for the skillset I am looking at). So far, I have used Indeed.com which kind of aggregates all the jobs together.
Additionally, since I am not local to the area (yet!), some companies might pass to avoid paying relocation etc. There was an interesting thread about this topic that I remember reading .. all the way down to "should I get a local address/phone #" etc.
Yeah, I kinda have the same question, should I get a local address/phone for our resume? In my case I know for sure that I am moving to Seattle within the next 6 weeks and would be willing to fly in to interview. Should I just keep my real MD address on the resume and indicate in my Cover Letter that Im relocating (like I have been), or get a P.O. Box/Address?
I only ask this question because I have submitted about 2 resumes/day this month and have gotten less than a handful of responses. I wouldn't think it was strange, but I am confident that my skills and resume are pretty solid...
Should I just keep my real MD address on the resume and indicate in my Cover Letter that Im relocating (like I have been), or get a P.O. Box/Address?
I only ask this question because I have submitted about 2 resumes/day this month and have gotten less than a handful of responses. I wouldn't think it was strange, but I am confident that my skills and resume are pretty solid...
Actually, I thought a lot about that and finally decided to take off all location related information off my resume. Of course, if you search for the company names I have worked for, you will know which area they are in - so that is dead giveaway. But that also means that someone is actively looking at your resume in great detail.
For a local phone #, I will probably get a prepaid SIM card with a Seattle area code.
It's funny that I never thought about this because the last few times I have switched jobs, they were in the same local area. Now that we are contemplating a cross-country move, things do need a little bit of "tweaking" !
I think that related experience in real world counts more than just a degree - unless you are just starting out. But I think now-a-days, having a degree is a very basic requirement if you are looking for jobs with higher pay. What separates two individuals is how you present yourself at the interview. The resume just gets you "in-the-door".
Agree with Capo - As you move up the ranks, you tend to become more of a generalist - a little bit of everything. And that is when you no longer fit into the typical job requirements that are listed out there. They want core competencies in just one area. From my side, as long as I can remember, I had my hands in everything going on in the project :-) Just the nature of the position I was in .. we never had a pure UI developer, a pure DB developer etc !
I get the vibe that a lot of the replies aren't from techies.
For one, in the IT industry, you typically start out as a generalist and become a specialist. Why? Because college only teaches you some broad strokes, basically just enough to be dangerous in a number of things. I mean hell, in my career path I went from general network/systems (and a million different hats in each side), to just network w/ VoIP, Security, Wireless, R/S, monitoring, etc. to just network w/ Security, R/S, monitoring to just network security (with a fancy label that identifies me as 'the boss' tacked on). It's been my experience that generalists are people coming from small-to-midsized backgrounds, not enterprise level organizations. These days, companies need specific skillsets in IT; workers that may not have a wide breadth of skillsets, but can drill down 300 feet in the areas they do have skills in. The era of the generalist has been pretty much over ever since the advent of managed services firms.
For another, if you go to any job board and pull up IT careers (and I mean *real* IT careers, not those fringes of IT work), you will nary find a one that requires a degree. On the contrary, most of them require X years of experience and make almost no mention of college education. Why? Because IT has traditionally been a path that doesn't place a lot of value on degrees. Not only that, but so much of the top talent was poached out of schools before graduating during the dot-com boom that most of them lack CS degrees. And of course there's the issue that what you learn in college is only useful for a few years in IT. But the biggest issue of all is that, again, colleges only make someone dangerous in this field, not competent.
Lastly, it's been my experience that an MBA is only important to other MBA's. If you're going to be working for some old white guy who's been in the workforce since the 60's and hasn't adapted to the 21st century, yeah it's going to go far for you. But these days, technology related positions (and that includes technology management) don't place much value in them. Anyone in this industry who relies on their degree (be it their Bachelor's or their MBA) is going to have a rough go. It's a crutch, and that's the reality of the situation. Having an MBA means you know how to write a really great memo; it doesn't mean you have a clue how to operate an infrastructure in the real world. The days of an MBA guaranteeing you a job or a certain salary are long-gone, and they're never coming back. I'll take someone with a PMP certification and some hands-on tech skills over an MBA every day of the week and five times on Sundays.
I've been in IT for going on 15 years now. I don't even LOOK at the education portion of someone's resume when I'm reviewing an applicant. It's toilet paper as far as I'm concerned (and yes, I have a Bachelor's from one of the best schools anywhere and I still say it). I view resumes in reverse. I look at the bottom job - if the date is later than 2006, I toss them. I look for big gaps or weird changes in titles ("I was a software engineer then a network engineer and now I'm a DBA"). If I see weird swings, I toss them. THEN I look at certs and keywords.
First, does anyone have recommendations on companies hiring Enterprise Architects (EA that works IT and Biz architecture)
Second I have asked before but what the heck, any thoughts on recruiters for director/vp level jobs (specifically in the EA space) job boards don't work well for that level of job.
I get the vibe that a lot of the replies aren't from techies.
For one, in the IT industry, you typically start out as a generalist and become a specialist. Why? Because college only teaches you some broad strokes, basically just enough to be dangerous in a number of things. I mean hell, in my career path I went from general network/systems (and a million different hats in each side), to just network w/ VoIP, Security, Wireless, R/S, monitoring, etc. to just network w/ Security, R/S, monitoring to just network security (with a fancy label that identifies me as 'the boss' tacked on). It's been my experience that generalists are people coming from small-to-midsized backgrounds, not enterprise level organizations. These days, companies need specific skillsets in IT; workers that may not have a wide breadth of skillsets, but can drill down 300 feet in the areas they do have skills in. The era of the generalist has been pretty much over ever since the advent of managed services firms.
For another, if you go to any job board and pull up IT careers (and I mean *real* IT careers, not those fringes of IT work), you will nary find a one that requires a degree. On the contrary, most of them require X years of experience and make almost no mention of college education. Why? Because IT has traditionally been a path that doesn't place a lot of value on degrees. Not only that, but so much of the top talent was poached out of schools before graduating during the dot-com boom that most of them lack CS degrees. And of course there's the issue that what you learn in college is only useful for a few years in IT. But the biggest issue of all is that, again, colleges only make someone dangerous in this field, not competent.
Lastly, it's been my experience that an MBA is only important to other MBA's. If you're going to be working for some old white guy who's been in the workforce since the 60's and hasn't adapted to the 21st century, yeah it's going to go far for you. But these days, technology related positions (and that includes technology management) don't place much value in them. Anyone in this industry who relies on their degree (be it their Bachelor's or their MBA) is going to have a rough go. It's a crutch, and that's the reality of the situation. Having an MBA means you know how to write a really great memo; it doesn't mean you have a clue how to operate an infrastructure in the real world. The days of an MBA guaranteeing you a job or a certain salary are long-gone, and they're never coming back. I'll take someone with a PMP certification and some hands-on tech skills over an MBA every day of the week and five times on Sundays.
I've been in IT for going on 15 years now. I don't even LOOK at the education portion of someone's resume when I'm reviewing an applicant. It's toilet paper as far as I'm concerned (and yes, I have a Bachelor's from one of the best schools anywhere and I still say it). I view resumes in reverse. I look at the bottom job - if the date is later than 2006, I toss them. I look for big gaps or weird changes in titles ("I was a software engineer then a network engineer and now I'm a DBA"). If I see weird swings, I toss them. THEN I look at certs and keywords.
I think this is a pretty accurate description of the business. You are correct that most generalists come from small to medium sized backgrounds. I would only add that there are a lot of small to medium sized IT firms out there, and there are a lot of opportunities in those firms. I was only able to found the startup I'm involved with now because I joined this tiny IT firm of 29 people 8 years ago. It grew to a few hundred people, got acquired by a big enterprise, and those who received stock options (common with such firms) had big smiles on their faces. Generalists are the only employees I'd hire in a startup or small firm. As you get bigger, the more specialists you need. When you're small, having employees who can wear multiple hats is a necessity.
I'm exactly like you regarding degrees. I usually don't even look at the education unless the applicant is fresh out of college. If the applicant is from an especially prestigious university it does matter to me. It matters not because of the job skills, but because it tells me something about the person; namely their work ethic and intelligence.
Moral to my story... the best IT employer in Seattle or anywhere might just be a small 20-60 person company nobody knows about. If I ever return to employee status, those are the only firms I will work for. I just love the vibe and financial opportunities (if you get stock) of a small firm led by a smart entrepreneur. It's not for everyone though. I've known people who can't stand the environment of a small firm. Some people want one job, one primary responsibility...
Can anyone comment on Expedia ? How is the work culture there ? I would like to hear from someone who currently works there or has worked there before - Thanks!
Can anyone comment on Expedia ? How is the work culture there ? I would like to hear from someone who currently works there or has worked there before - Thanks!
I work in IT at Expedia currently and have been here for several years.
I'd say that the work culture is pretty good for the size of the company. The environment is relatively casual, although probably not as casual as what I've seen from Microsoft. While some managers are exceptions, it isn't a terribly hierarchical organization. If I have an question, I can talk to someone 2-3 levels above me without it causing a problem.
Work-life balance is pretty good for individual contributors, but not as good for managers. Managers spend hours per day in meetings, but still have a lot of deliverables.
Relative to when I joined, it definitely has more of a large company feel. There are more processes and responsibilities are more siloed. There's also far less of the 'Beer Friday' atmosphere, although some still exists.
Let me know your specific questions and I'll try to answer them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
