| ▲ | AbbeFaria 5 hours ago |
| You are not alone. I was in this exact same position at MSFT and I put in my resignation. I am an L63 but the work I was doing, was something an L60-L61 could do and I frequently felt I was in one of those Bullshit jobs (courtesy of David Graeber). I was paid handsomely but once the sign on stock ran out, I saw that I was staying in the job just for security. I felt like one of those Hooli engineers who were sunbathing at the Hooli office terrace waiting for their stocks to vest. I am only 9 years into my career and I didn’t see that as the optimal thing for my career rn. I didn’t have any major financial obligations like you though, so it was a much simpler decision for me. Hang in there buddy and also thanks for the deeply human comment. |
|
| ▲ | vitally3643 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I am an L63 but the work I was doing, was something an L60-L61 could do Maybe the problem is imagining that you need sixty three levels of granularity to describe experience or to establish superiority over sixty two categories of "lesser" engineers? |
| |
| ▲ | MobiusHorizons 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not like the op invented Microsoft’s leveling system. It looks like junior engineer is 59 and 63 is something like senior engineer. I know at google there is a very meaningful difference in the work and responsibilities expected between our equivalent of 63 (L5) and 61(L4). | | |
| ▲ | patates 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Believing in that system so much to say something like that might be worse. Noting against the OP, that kind of Stockholm Syndrome can be found in my past as well. | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not sure I understand. Is your contention that the distinction between senior and non-senior engineers is fake and everyone's doing basically the same thing? Or are you just objecting to the (arbitrary) names Microsoft uses for them? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | AbbeFaria 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Have no idea why people here are picking up on MSFT’s levelling system? I didn’t invent it.And it actually starts at L59. The point I made was that as an SSE (L63), there’s a certain amount of scope and autonomy that is expected neither of which I was getting and hence I resigned. I am not trying to bully or denigrate anyone junior. The levelling system specifies the output and the characteristics of the output expected out of an engineer, that’s it. Whether I believe in it or not is beside the point, I was in the system so I did believe it otherwise progressing through my career would have been impossible. | | |
| ▲ | stackskipton 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Have no idea why people here are picking up on MSFT’s levelling system? I didn’t invent it.And it actually starts at L59. Because it's standard arrogance by developers not realizing that Microsoft Level system is actually pay bands and because it was developed in 80s, leveling system COVERS all jobs because pay systems didn't support different pay bands back then. So there are lower levels then 59, for things like janitors, secretaries and others who don't make as much as SWE. |
| |
| ▲ | bialpio 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Entry-level software engineering at Microsoft starts at L59. |
|
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I learned in my 30s that most of the software profession works on boring projects. Uninteresting, low value code, for a barely-working product, used by customers who don't really care, in a low-stakes market that doesn't reward excellence, rigor, or quality. If you can find the rare company where this isn't the case, go for it! |
|
| ▲ | imetatroll 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What a flex. |
