Feed

20 items from 8 sources collected 44m ago

r/jobsearchhacks
4h ago

I stopped answering "tell me about yourself" like a resume summary and started framing it around 2 problems I solve

For the longest time, I answered "tell me about yourself" the way career sites tell you to. Quick background, current role, a few responsibilities, maybe a sentence about what I was looking for next. It was clean, polite, and apparently forgettable as hell. I wasn't bombing interviews or anything, but I kept getting that flat, neutral reaction where the interviewer nods, writes something down, and moves on like you just read the first three bullets of your LinkedIn out loud. After enough of those, I realized I was making it way too easy for them to slot me into "generic ops guy" and not remember a single thing 20 minutes later. So I changed it. Now when they ask, I give a short setup, then frame myself around two work problems I solve really well. For me it's usually something like: I fix messy cross-team workflows that nobody owns properly, and I build calmer systems when a team is drowning in reactive work. Then I back each one with a very short example. Not a huge story, not some polished TED Talk answer, just enough to make the person across from me picture where I'd actually be useful. Weirdly, it made the whole conversation better almost immmediately. Interviewers started asking sharper follow-ups. The call felt less like a biography quiz and more like they were trying to place me into real work. Even when I didn't move forward, I got more specific feedback than before, which honestly helped more than another vague "we went with someone whose background aligns more closely." I'm not pretending this is some magic cheat code and obviously it depends on the role, but it made me sound more like a person who solves expensive problems and less like a guy reciting his own timeline from memory. If your current answer is basically your resume in paragraph form, I'd seriously test changing the frame a bit . It made a bigger difference for me than tweaking half my applications did.

by t2_29xd32sgmr
r/cscareerquestions
8h ago

Google vs Two Sigma vs Optiver for SWE in NYC: is the extra comp worth the WLB tradeoff?

I’m currently a SWE at Google in NYC with about 3 YOE, making around 320k TC. My current team is strong, the work is interesting, and WLB is very good — usually around 30 hours/week on an ML team. Downside is promo is likely at least a year away. I’m now in process with Two Sigma and Optiver. Recruiters have loosely indicated something like 400–500k recurring comp plus 100–200k sign-on / first-year bonus, and the prospective teams seem solid. The main thing I’m trying to understand is whether switching would actually be worth it in practice, especially from people who’ve worked in trading / hedge fund SWE roles. Things I’m most interested in: •realistic weekly hours at Two Sigma and Optiver for SWE •how sustainable the pace feels after the first 6–12 months •how volatile comp actually is year to year •whether the work is materially more interesting / career-accelerating than good big tech roles •whether leaving a genuinely good Google team for this kind of pay bump is usually a mistake or a smart move I’ve heard Optiver is often closer to a consistent 9–6, while Two Sigma may be a bit better on average, but I’ve also heard mixed things, so I’d really value datapoints from current or former employees. Also open to the view that the right move is just staying put and waiting for a stronger upside opportunity later, like HRT / Jane Street / top AI labs. Would especially appreciate replies from people who have actually made the jump from big tech to prop / hedge fund SWE, or chose not to.

by t2_38lzc32y