True, but they probably are worth more to their own companies—especially mid-sized companies—than those companies realize. Whether or not the market would pay more for them, more money could certainly be being made off their backs (as with the “administrative assistant” roles at medium-sized companies that often end up substituting for much of the role of HR, PR copywriting, office management and often even team coordination. All for the cost of a secretary!+)
Not harnessing these untapped assets you already possess is a failure for a company, in much the same way that not shaving cost centers or negotiating purchases would be.
+ Yes, I’m trying to hint here that one would be crazy to allow oneself to be exploited in this manner. If you truly have the ability to do these additional jobs, then you should be applying for roles that explicitly, rather than implicitly, use those skills, and offer compensation for them. Sadly—for the same reason many people find it hard to negotiate salary—many people won’t try for jobs that no one has told them they’re “allowed” to apply for.
That’s correct, but the pragmatic reality of most companies and data science with respect to internal politics and other bullshit is that they’re not going to find that mobility even if they network internally
Funny -- I actually see that as the single most important factor distinguishing folks making $1MM and $100k. There are plenty of overpaid geniuses, but really even more underpaid geniuses.
I am not in agreement- while I’m sure there are a few, there’s quite likely more people who believe themselves to be underpaid geniuses.
The overpaid genius, at the very least, has a preponderance of evidence that he understood all the math he’s using and has evidence he can innovate with it rather than regurgitating code (maybe that’s slightly too lenient)
> The overpaid genius, at the very least, has a preponderance of evidence that he understood all the math he’s using and has evidence he can innovate with it rather than regurgitating code (maybe that’s slightly too lenient)
This assumes a separating equilibrium. There is one, of course, but it's biased against genius. Businesses don't want to overpay. Not should they. People don't negotiate their salaries. They should.
Not sure what you mean by separating equilibrium... bimodal? I think we’re talking about different things. I’m comparing (in response to the parent) the devops guy with a few dl/ml side projects who is possibly skilled enough to join a data scientist team and contribute vs. a high ranking stem phd with a few years of experience who the devops guy may be supporting. Both can certainly undernegotiate, but they’re in different situations/roles usually.
The difference between the two you mention could be qualitative, as you imply, or it could be that some of the DS folks send the wrong signal. Not choosing a top-tier AI university would be a poor signal, and fail to differentiate quality candidates of equal ability.
It comes down to whether the mental model of meritocracy is actually practiced by the business world, which also includes whether screening performed by employers is accurate. It's not, ergo it stands to reason there are poor AI geniuses too.
Not harnessing these untapped assets you already possess is a failure for a company, in much the same way that not shaving cost centers or negotiating purchases would be.
+ Yes, I’m trying to hint here that one would be crazy to allow oneself to be exploited in this manner. If you truly have the ability to do these additional jobs, then you should be applying for roles that explicitly, rather than implicitly, use those skills, and offer compensation for them. Sadly—for the same reason many people find it hard to negotiate salary—many people won’t try for jobs that no one has told them they’re “allowed” to apply for.