I honestly do not understand why there appears to be so much desire to get into Data Science when becoming a Programmer is equally lucrative and substantially easier to bootstrap into.
Edit: Seriously, programmers make as much if not more than Data Scientists for what ends up being substantially less stressful work (all things being equal). I suspect if the people pursuing DS actually ended up doing the work and living with the responsibilities they'll regret their time investments.
there isn't a silicon ceiling on a ds pay like there is with programmers, and I disagree they are equally lucrative. I have never seen ds roles that were not substantially paid more than programmers; although with the explosion of the ds role, there are plenty of sub-par ds positions out there. (according to glass door, the average programmer makes 70k, the average ds makes 128 in san francisco). That disparity even holds for large tech like facebook.
as far as 'less stress', I believe that is subjective. some people would like to program, others more ds stuff, and often ds and programmers get to do a little of both.
CTO?
Have you worked in or near a c-suite before? Because both of those statements don't align with the reality that I've observed.
After working closely with dozens of tech companies, I have to say I've never seen a single "Chief Data Scientist." I also can't say I've even heard of a single company that has one (I'm sure some exist though). I have seen a Chief Technology Officer in virtually every tech company, which is essentially "programmer role in the c-suite" for the purposes of this discussion.
Furthermore, in the companies I've worked with that had in-house data scientists, they always treated them less well than the software engineers developing products.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that your statements don't match my experience, or the experience of anyone I personally know in this industry, and I'd be interested to see where your experience is coming from.
You're right, a CTO doesn't usually write software, a CTO manages programmers who write software (or VPs managing teams of programmers, etc). But a CTO generally comes from a coding background, and how much data science do you think a "chief data scientist" is really doing, as opposed to managing other data scientists? People in the C-Suite typically don't really do anything other than manage people managing others in the same background they came from.
I think the spirit of my point still stands, pedantry aside. There clearly exists a commonly used and recognized c-suite role for programmers, whether they use their programming ability hands on or in managing others. It's not at all clear to me that there is a commonly used nor well recognized c-suite role for data scientists that would be distinct from CTO.
As a category of employee and work division, data scientists have not yet become distinct enough from cross-polinated disciplines to have that sort of representation.
I don't know of many companies that have a "Chief Data Scientist" that reports directly to the CEO. In all honesty, they're more likely to report to a CTO.
Also, there's a reason why the C-suite people have the word "Officer" in their title as they're officers of the corporation and that implies additional legal responsibilities. It's not necessary that it be in their official title, but it typically is.
John Carmack, CTO of Oculus and programmer extraordinaire, to bring our TV user interface to the Gear VR headset.
Well, honestly, John did most of the development himself(!), so I've asked him to be a guest blogger today and share his experience with implementing the new app.
I think any time you're talking with c-suite type people, the stress level is pretty high. That's been my experience anyways.
The avg entry level software engineer makes 110k in San fran, and 95k in the US as a whole.
It's 128k in San fran for a data scientist and 113k in the US as a whole.
I'd suspect the Data Science entries are skewed upwards, as most of them are employed by big companies, while software engineering has a larger small to medium sized employment prospect which probably bring down the average in comparison, but brings more job opportunity.
I think you searched for programmer on glass door. Programmers don't even need a degree, just a boot camp and you're good to go. I'm not sure data science has an equivalent, maybe business analyst? That averages 69k in San Fran.
Also, if you look for Machine Learning Engineers, a specialty of Software Engineering, they make more then Data Scientist, with a 140k avg in San Fran and 122k national.
I dunno which is easier to get into with a hard science background, but it took me about 1 yr of being an analyst to get a good ds job.
That is the only good answer to why one would want to be a DS, if you don't find the work interesting you'll never succeed.
The key is that the degree has to involve actual work with messy big real-world data with a lot of uncertainties. It's possible to build that kind of experience on your own without doing an advanced degree, but it seems to be rare based on candidates who apply to work with us.