That perspective is understandable from someone who lives in one of the largest cities in America. Opportunities everywhere. However, in the midwest, changing jobs often means moving to entirely different zip codes. It’s not the same. If you have family and a network in one area, it’s that much more difficult to move around. You’re completely ignoring this. You’re also ignoring ageism. At my company, I don’t know of ANY director/VPs our age. Like ZERO. Everyone who is a director or VP is in their late 40s or early 50s. Majority of executives here are 50sish.
As someone who is also very successful, I have to join in. It is indeed great fun to talk down to the ungrateful poor who, I imagine, mostly piss and moan and do a bad job at things. Senior Designer? Can you imagine?!? It’s a wonder they pay those people at all.
While the truth in the statements might be accurate here, the delivery as snappy retorts is clearly condescension. Many the of the remarks in this discussion could be considered callous. It’s hard to read some peoples motives for engaging in this discussion.
Like I mentioned before all lot of people proclaim truthful statements without compassion in a way to put others down. Effectively degrading them instead of encouraging them. Scolding people who feel they are struggling does not reach them and only furthers conflict. Doing so has no value.
I’m not saying that anyone is deliberately doing anyone disservice, this seems to be the current culture. I don’t think anyone should apologize for their success, rather to be more thoughtful in the way they conduct themselves once they attain it.
If you’re emotionally or logistically landlocked then you simply have to say “Yes I couldn’t move around because I insisted on staying in this area”. You’re right - I have friends and family who moved up because they were willing to move to SFO, or Seattle, or Austin or Taipei - but at that point you either need to accept “Yes my income is capped because I live in a city with limited jobs and a low cost of living, but I like it here and my kids are in school and I’m making these concessions for them” not “The college ecosystem has it out for me”. The two are not related and the personal decisions you make just become something you have to own. I didn’t stay in NY because I love the job market, I stay here because my wife has a state pension, both of our mothers are pushing 80 and need help, and my son requires state aid services. I would love to relocate someplace warm with cheap property taxes and I don’t have to spend 3 hours a day on the train, but I accept those facts as the tradeoffs life handed me.
And if the retorts come off as callous? I regularly mentor people here and on Linkedin with zero regard for my own time. This “OK boomer” nonsense seems to cloud the judgement of people who are providing otherwise completely rational and valid feedback, yet it isn’t “being delivered in the correct tone”.
Sorry I don’t have a warm avocado toast to offer.
RE Cash,
I think 40s is pretty normal or even young for executive age. Think about agesisim on both sides of the spectrum. If you are in your 30’s now and become an executive, what do you do next? Be an executive for 30 years? And then what about the 35 year olds in 10 years when you are 45 complaining about the “old guy” “not doing any work”? … Many places I’ve worked or consulted for had executives in their 60’s. When I was at Sound United the first CEO was in his 60’s, a few of the execs were in their late 30’s then up into their 60’s. I took the job at 35 having been a director since I was 30 and I think I could have used a couple of more years of experience to be honest (not that I would have listened to anyone if they told me that then, and the opportunity came so I jumped for it and moved my family a 5th time). I’ve made the cross country move 3 times and have moved up and down the West Coast, kind of is what it is. The last 3 exec jobs that I was recruited for were in Michigan, LA, Austin, and Seattle.
Speaking from personal experience, I never worked harder than when I was an executive. I can’t say the same for all of my peers in those situations, but for me personally, trying to establish the vision, down field blocking for the team, keeping my design hand in personal projects, making sure the team was happy while hitting all their calendar metrics, having to hit budgets, proving to the board that our budget was justified… it was a lot of work. On top of that, the day the CEO took me out to the warehouse and said “see all those boxes? Those are all that really cool product you designed that won all the awards that didn’t sell… people won’t be getting a bonus.” , or the time we did lay offs and I had to tell someone with a family it would be his last day even though he did nothing wrong. I know this from a lot of my exec peers that recurring nightmares pop up. If you care, and you are trying to do a good job that is… If you just want to make more and work less, maybe it wouldn’t happen, but that is not the kind of person I would want to be an executive at a company I worked at or consulted for. All the good execs I’ve worked care too much to phone it in.
Cash, you make some good points. Others are also making good points. I know it is hard to hear (or read), and I fail at this as well, but try to step back and look at what some of these experienced designers are relaying… maybe they aren’t doing the best job of phrasing it (it is hard to write this stuff out), but give them the benefit of the doubt you want them to extend to you. Without knowing your portfolio or work experience we are just taking your word for your experience, impact and ability level. Given that, it seems like you might have stayed too long in a situation were you were not getting your value. I did the same thing at one job. It’s ok, jut have to make sure you get it in the next go around.
Someone I once worked with had a classification of problems he called “gravity issues”. What he meant by that is that gravity is an issue every day. Every day you get out of bed and gravity pull on you, and you can’t do anything about the specific issue in your specific case, so how do you work with that? I hear a lot of frustration coming through here. Most have os us have been there at some point or another. Feeling like you aren’t getting what you deserve is soul eating. I worked with a senior designer once who did half the work I did and asked me for all kinds of favors, to finish technical drawings for him, to do renders for him. Every day for 3 years I went to work knowing that I was getting paid 30% less than this dude… but then with some careful planning a bit of help I made the jump to director. And that senior designer is STILL in the same job like 15 years later. I’ll reach out in a PM and see if you want to chat on the phone.
Hey crew, there is a lot of good discussion here, but I feel like it is getting a bit snippy and more into personal choices vs the OP’s question about is getting into heavy debt for a design education worth. I’m going to ask that we try to stay on that topic here from now on. If you want to discuss specific career issues, please start another topic.
As a fellow highly successful and unbelievably selfless person who has sacrificed very much, I simply must agree. Maybe the poor should try harder and move to San Francisco. With the other poors.
Triple the tuition and bring back unpaid internships.
If this thread has taught me anything, it’s that college isn’t expensive enough to keep out the riff-raff. And if you work really hard, you can complain about how poor people spend their money on frivolous things like smartphones. There are no such thing as systemic problems, just personal choices. And most people simply make terrible choices that have nothing to do with external factors. Also, if you complain about things… maybe don’t do that.
Shields, man, the sarcasm meter is through the roof there. Where would you like to see the conversation go?
Back on topic-
I’d make 4 points-
-
Most designers and those hiring feel it’s your work, not your school or degree that your are hired for.
-
Not all programs are equal. Some are just lower quality, and intake worse potential designers and/or prepare designers worse than others. I’ve interviewed “top grads” from some schools that I wouldn’t pass as second year students. Not all programs cost as much.
-
Not all jobs/markets/industries pay the same. Cost of living also varies significantly. An average house might cost $200K in the middle of the country but $2M on the coast. It’s for sure designers in those markets aren’t doing 10x the work or getting paid 10x as much.
-
Everyone has a different level of comfort with debt. High debt was the topic, but the inferred topic was more likely debt to income ratios. Someone might easily have a $1M+ mortgage but is sleeping pretty soundly at night based on the equity in the house and earning potential of the household. Is this better or worse than a $100K student loan?
R
Lets just pause for a second and reflect on how great a human being that Yo has become. The real gem of the Core77 forums. He is the genuine article. Bravo my dude! 
I like that “gravity problem” bit. Gonna steal that. Thanks.
Best bang for the buck these days is to shell out $15K for the full-suite General Assembly interaction design course, another $3000 for a new laptop, office chair, and nerdy glasses, and go find a IxD job. Not saying it will be fulfilling or lead up the corporate ladder, but the jobs are everywhere (or remote).
Truthfully, my experience with GA and similar “boot camp” courses for UX designers has made me look harder for real design school grads after screening thousands of portfolios and resumes. From a hiring managers viewpoint, the short duration of those courses winds up giving a very superficial “me too” looking portfolio that makes it hard for people to stand out, hard to assess what skills they actually have vs what basic knowledge the absorbed from people around them, and how much of the problem solving and brief creation that comes with traditional design school. A portfolio developed over 3-4 years just has a lot more depth and breadth and while it costs substantially more, it’s certainly still something that stands out for candidates (even if they’re in $200k of debt).
I think bang for buck for bootcamps is probably front end development. The median placement for a lot of those jobs is $80k and while the ramp and ceiling are lower compared to comp sci grads, it’s a great way to get into the tech field without a huge amount of initial knowledge. We hired a Jr. developer from bootcamp who previously had been cleaning houses with his parents at $65K and within 2 years he had left to take an offer for 2X that. Can’t argue the ROI there.
Much finer point put on my blunt off-the-cuff declaration. I appreciate it. I’ve seen a couple of people in my MS program who are actively working in pretty interesting UX jobs after doing the GA program, and now are coming back for a more “complete” education by getting a master’s degree from a traditional university. This category of people could be in the minority however.
Nope I do see those as well. If you do a GA course then decide to pursue a HCI masters at Georgia Tech or CMU you instantly float to the top of my pile knowing the strength of those programs and the scrutiny in the entry criteria, vs GA where the admissions criteria is basically nonexistent as far as I can tell.
Can you clarify something here? You’re saying your work, that you got paid for, generated $165,000 of salary out of $750,000 of revenue? If that’s the case, are you talking gross or net?
Again, if these numbers are $165K/$750K, that equates to 22% of revenue that went to you. If that’s unfair in your eyes, what do you view as the appropriate amount.
This should definitely be in a separate thread.
This should definitely be in a separate thread.
[/quote]
I would contend that it doesn’t. You and Cash have taken this discussion down the path of disparity in pay. While I’ve jumped into this lion’s den a bit late, I’m seeing themes of systemic oppression. If they are paid as poorly as they claim, yet they’re taking in 22% of the company’s revenue, I see it as an extremely valid question to the topic. If $750K is the revenue from the project they worked on, what is the correct percentage of salary to revenue for systemic oppression to be alleviated?
Personally, I find it most profitable to hire the people that work hardest for the least money. I reward myself handsomely for this. It is truly inspiring the number of hours these folks will work for a fixed salary. Profit sharing never has been or will be worthwhile- low-level employees barely know how to spend the money they get right now.
So my answer would have to be: the correct percentage of salary to revenue is as small as possible, and I don’t know what oppression you are talking about. If they don’t like it, they can go find one of those companies that doesn’t mind being less profitable than it could be.