As a quant, you should aim for management, not software development. If you still want to code, then pick a small (but funded) company where you can be CTO and still write software.

I'm only slightly older than you. You do not want a Jira job. It will burn you out. It's not the same as indie development... you will probably work on tickets, adding features no one really cares about or fixing bugs that you didn't create. It's awful. If you were a real quant, you can probably use your CV to get something a lot better.

I wouldn't recommend anyone interested in technical work go the path of management.

A CTO at even a small software company that is writing code is doing their job wrong if they aren't quickly evolving into a role where they don't even touch code.

I've been in multiple management roles at multiple places and, with one exception, the role is much more about managing expectations of leadership and playing political games to make sure your team survives. ICs have some dream that management is about being a technical leader and guiding IC work, but, in practice, this is a very tiny part of the role. The only exception to this I've seen is managers that are grown internally. But if you're coming from outside to lead a team, it's going to be upper management that hires you and upper management that you end up doing most of your work for.

I've known a surprisingly large number of ex-finance people that got "Jira jobs" and they quite enjoy it. Most people leaving finance have very large savings stored so they have a fair bit of extra comfort in knowing that if the job ever starts to really suck, they can just walk out the door. On top of that mindlessly solving problems and getting to check out with only 3-5 hours of work is exactly what many of them want.

> A CTO at even a small software company that is writing code is doing their job wrong if they aren't quickly evolving into a role where they don't even touch code.

hard disagree here. When I worked at Fastmail (less than 50 people), our entire leadership was technical. Even our least technical leadership person (CFO?) was more proficient than most junior developers.

It's a beautiful thing, because business goals get aligned with programming goals, on a long lasting technical project that is very important. No more jostling over what some person with product vision wants versus what needs to happen, refactoring, etc.

I actually think the biggest challenge for the leadership team at fastmail is the leadership part, not the programming part. A bunch of really really smart tenured developers suddenly navigating how to be managers, CEO, CTO, etc, is much more challenging than writing some fixes for a new Apple Calendar quirks. It was cool to see growth from the leadership who took the part of 'ok I am a real C level at a company with a growing headcount how do I do this right the first time?'

I think, having a leadership that still keeps their hands in the dirt is a good thing. Plus they happened to all be the best programmers we had. Leapyears better than anyone else I think.

> I actually think the biggest challenge for the leadership team at fastmail is the leadership part

…and you just identified why writing code in a leadership position is a problem, so actually it wasn’t working. There’s no doubt that leadership with previous experience in the trenches is a benefit, but they should not be actively doing it in that role. Leadership is a full time (or more) position, and coding is a distraction from that.

We have the phrase “can’t see the forest from the trees” for a reason; Leadership needs to be looking at the forest almost all the time, and they can’t be effective if they’re stuck in day to day coding issues (the trees).

Writing code is a different job from management. Of course you will be very successful if you have good management skills and you combine them with strong technical acumen. But writing code while being a manager is a recipe for failure.

What you saw at Fastmail is pretty much standard in the industry: above average intelligence in the worker ranks but way below average ability and intelligence in the management ranks.

> What you saw at Fastmail is pretty much standard in the industry: above average intelligence in the worker ranks but way below average ability and intelligence in the management ranks.

No, the opposite. Most of the C level is extremely smart. Smarter than when I worked at a research lab with all PhD's and Professors. All are or have been leads on successful open source projects, contribute to IETF, one guy ran the Perl project for years, and so forth. Very smart crew. One of the best things about working there was being around people smarter than me

I'll agree that being a manager sucks. Being managed is worse. Corporate is hell and it's an embarrassment to us as a species that we haven't managed to overthrow it. Our current system has all the bad things of Soviet-style socialism (bureaucracy, inept management, corruption) and all the bad things about capitalism (structural divergence, duplicated efforts, the widespread use of violence to maintain class divisions) but it has none of the good of either system. It should've been thrown in history's garbage pile decades ago.

If one has to survive in the shitpile we call corporate capitalism, though, then it's better to hold a higher rank, where the jobs are more lucrative, less demanding, and easier to keep.

I've been in multiple management roles at multiple places and, with one exception, the role is much more about managing expectations of leadership and playing political games to make sure your team survives.

Indeed, it sucks. But ICs suffer a high risk of random non-survival. The stress of being a manager comes from knowing what fecal garbage most of the people who run your company are. The stress of being a grunt comes from not knowing. It's hard to say which is worse.

On top of that mindlessly solving problems and getting to check out with only 3-5 hours of work is exactly what many of them want.

I find that, when the work is pointless, there's a hedonic adaptation to not having to do much of it, just as there is with everything else: whatever you have becomes, within 3 months, what you consider yourself entitled to. People who are used to 8 hours per day of pointless work might be happy at first to only have to do 5, but soon they'll grow to hate even that. I, on the other hand, don't mind working if there's a point to it. I want zero pointless work. Unfortunately, the current system, which celebrates the proliferation of malevolent bureaucracies, has nothing for people like me.

Jira jobs desirability are variable.

Some places allow you to have a say and decision in what comes into the queue and what gets worked on, I think those are a lot better.

Your job becomes a Jira job when you're not good enough at making/choosing your own work. If you have enough autonomy you can just pick up something you want to improve (.. or just play with) and do that for a while. When it comes time to divide topics or choose what to focus on, make conscious decisions and you can often secure the most interesting work for yourself. Keep in mind that the work you do at the beginning might very well define the role and kind of work people will give you. This can be a blessing or a curse.

If you want greater autonomy, work on hard topics. Not only can you fail more (it's hard after all, right?), but once you deliver a couple times on a hard topic others had trouble with you are given a lot more leeway to improvise. Your only enemy becomes the support requests then..

What I'm trying to say is if one is stuck with a Jira job, they're not motivated enough to convince others they're worth more.

Disclaimer: some jobs give you no say in this and it's near impossible to move out of your little painted corner. Just don't work there.

> you will probably work on tickets, adding features no one really cares about or fixing bugs that you didn't create. It's awful. If you were a real quant, you can probably use your CV to get something a lot better.

Now I'm depressed :( I get what you're writing, but depending on the project, the people you work with etc., even a "Jira job" can still be fulfilling. Also, as a manager, if you have this "I don't understand how you can do this awful job" attitude towards the developers you work with, I'm not sure if that's really healthy for you either...

Counterpoint: I'm quite happy with a "Jira job" because it pays well, has definable "wins" in the closing of tickets, and work-life balance is actually a thing.

I'm always learning new things about various industries. Commercial insurance was particularly fun. All kinds of interesting edge-cases. Didn't feel sleazy. Paid-travel to conventions. I managed to maneuver myself into a secondary role as technical expert and got to work with customers a few times.

All this is engaging to me and outside of work, I'm free to do what I find fulfilling.

Love your attitude. That’s a great way to create your job.

Why is this being down voted?

It's a valid perspective.

You don't want to end up in a corporate machine working on Jiras after Jiras, which might make you hate your job.

I downvoted it because 1) it's too broad of a generalization (i.e. not my experience at Oracle, for example) and 2) OP didn't ask if they'd like a different job they asked if they could get a different job.

I'm currently stuck in a "Jira Job" just fixing bugs all day and it's extremely depressing but I've been around this industry long enough to know that not all jobs are like this. There are plenty of companies doing greenfield work, most of them do want someone with experience though unless you are willing to take a pay cut and start as junior or mid.

> You do not want a Jira job. It will burn you out.

Do you know the OP? Do you know what they want and like? I doubt it! While this might be true for you, I do enjoy working my "Jira job" at 38.

> If you were a real quant, you can probably use your CV to get something a lot better.

Who makes you the judge of what is better for this person?!

This post asked for advice, which is what this commenter is providing.

>Jira job

This is my first time hearing that term and I think it's great. Poor Jira though, they get thrown into what is essentially the hell that was created by scrum.

There's plenty of software jobs that aren't jira jobs. Avoid all web development, look for something in infrastructure or new technology. That's where the interesting work lies

> company where you can be CTO and still write software.

why would any company give CTO coding role to someone who has no experience in software.

>why would any company give CTO coding role to someone who has no experience in software.

Good question, but in my experience, it's more the norm than the exception at larger non-tech centric companies. CTO has basically an administrative role there.

That's very sad I'd true, I can't imagine a CTO who can't code.

I did the same thing! I was a Quant at asset managers / hedge funds and then I started a data analytics company. Eventually I got into alternative data and then my company was acquired by another data analytics company. I worked at the acquiring company for 2 years and it was actually very informative. I recently left to start a new company working on a mobile app.

When I was working at the acquiring company, they didn’t really have a good place for me. I had more domain knowledge than anyone else at the company but I had less experience with even the basic etiquette of how software reviews work (I.e. GitHub pull requests).

Coding as a quant and software engineering are really quite different. As a quant, you have to optimize for getting stuff done quickly at all costs. In software engineering, there’s more focus on testing, maintainability, and readability.

Eventually I created my own role as a technical product manager and that worked out quite well.

> As a quant, you have to optimize for getting stuff done quickly at all costs. In software engineering, there’s more focus on testing, maintainability, and readability.

I would have expected the opposite! I've never been a quant and have mostly done software/data science at smaller companies where there's very little focus on testing/maintainability/readability. I'm sure at bigger tech enterprises those things are stressed more. I figured a hedge fund would also care a lot about those things, at least testing, because a bug can cost a lot of money in a very direct way. How do quant shops get away with looser software practices?

Often you separate the feature exploration environment from the infrastructure that executes a strategy. You may need to rebuild the feature calculation before deploying it into prod, but if you try to provide the quants with solid enough tools so they explore the statistics of features and models without having to think much about the built in error handling, that can work well to avoid the rewrite step. You probably end up wrapping numpy and pandas with a very opinionated internal view of how the business handles the kind of edge cases your team sees in your data.

what is 'alternative data'

Is it like listening to nirvana when eveyone else is listening to michael jackson?

In the finance space, yes.

Regular financial data is stuff like trading volumes and earnings reports. Alternative data is looking at satellite pictures of car parks to see which retailers were busy this quarter.

Ok that sounds fascinating.

My employer, a venture investor, is looking for data scientists who understand finance. Our product uses Python, Django, and React like you mentioned. I don’t know much about being a Quant, so maybe we could help each other calibrate. My email is in my profile. Yours isn’t, so I’m posting this publicly, and anyone similarly curious should feel free to email me.

Do you need a job to support yourself or just to keep yourself busy. I would assume that if you have worked in finance as a quant for a number of years, you would be set for life. Sorry, if my perspective for this is all the quant salaries posted on blind.

> I am afraid that I may not be good enough

Just as with dating: there’s always someone you are good enough for. And you can build up your career from there.

> And you can build up your career from there.

I hope that this is one way it differs from dating :)

I was hoping someone will pick this joke up, thank you :)

You're definitely qualified for software jobs. Show off your sideprojects in your resume. You should not need to quit your job to get interviews based on your resume and background. I've interviewed candidates in similar situations as yourself (some with current jobs like lawyer).

Aim for small companies or early stage startups where they're more impressed by your determination than by your background in the field.

Happy to chat more with you or anyone in a similar situation, email in profile.

I’m curious about whether side projects are more or less prevalent nowadays with increasing numbers of US companies including broad intellectual property clauses in their employment contracts.

Stick a GPL license on it and the bean counters will run like the plague.

I started my career as a Software Engineer and worked in various domains (packet processing, performance optimization, hardware testing) and recently switched to an FPGA Engineer role. I know what you mean. I am "not good enough" too. I spend a lot of spare time on fundamentals. But, I am good enough to work with others. I am good enough to apply my practical engineering experience to whatever needs to be accomplished. And I am good enough to enjoy my work.

Many people do not consider the actual job requirements and skills necessary for the work. It's like, they're just trying to find the best person possible. Some people are even hardcore about this; they test you and judge you quite aggressively. That's cool, and there is some truth to that; there is a bar that needs to be met. But, it's a rather shallow perspective. And, it can have negative consequences. E.g. people burn out, get bored, don't work well with others. There's overlooked value in getting to know a person and positioning them well in a role.

You might be surprised. Your experience from side projects may translate extremely well to a "real" job doing similar things. If you can stay humble, work well with others, and spend time on fundamentals, I think you'll do well in the right environment.

As an aside, within the past year I've sparked an interest and appreciation for biology. In the back of my mind, I sometimes think it would be very fulfilling to work on software/hardware for biotech at some point in the future. Maybe a "second career" type of deal. I have massive "imposter syndrome" about that, but who knows... maybe some day my path will lead me there.

Hi there, I’d say apply to a couple of roles and calibrate as necessary. I relate to the feeling of not being “good enough” but TBH in the current market condition if you are able to either implement new features, find bugs or build new projects from the ground up, you are most certainly employable.

I’m currently working with a friend who is transitioning from retail investing to software development and the bar for an entry-level role is quite attainable.

Your quant experience could also land you in specialized software dev roles that might have to do with finance or data analysis if that calls your attention.

As for the tech that you mentioned (Python, Flask, Django), roles using those things are alive and well but feel free to explore other languages frameworks to sort out what type of role you might like more (i.e. flask is usually backend while plotly is frontend). Nowadays at least some passing familiarity with JS is useful because of how it everywhere.

Take a look at the threads like “who’s hiring” but see if you can leverage network connections to talk with people instead of sending a hundred copies of your resume everywhere.

Do feel free to reach out (email on profile) if you’d like to chat further and good luck!

I did the same thing and I’m so glad I did :)

I started as a quant but preferred building software so I left finance to software / data science consulting for a bunch of years and now am co-founder/CTO of a software company that just finished YC (AiSupervision W22).

My advice is to put together a portfolio website with some demos of your projects and well-documented code on GitHub and then create a profile on workatastartup / apply for jobs.

Good luck!

>I’m 38 now and seriously considering to move into a software company in the hopes that I can work on probects like my sideprojects.

If you think you will enjoy it, I don't see why not.

>Should I take a chance and quit my new job as a math and physics teacher (it just does not make me happy)at a high school to persue a position at a software company?

I think it's better if you quit your job after you already have found a job as a software developer.

You’ll likely find it utterly boring. The majority of your time will be spent on details and getting them right. But that’s probably true of being a quant as well.

My suggestion is that you get into data science or bioinformatics. You will be able to pick up the specifics easily, given your quant background, and there is a decent amount of software development involved as well.

> Should I take a chance and quit my new job as a math and physics teacher

Wait so you've already quit finance to be a math/physics teacher?

I’m disappointed in most of the responses here. I tried to go the tech path at 38 as well and everyone hiring shares the same biases about experience in outside industry and age. Its really a clown show once you try to get hired. I’m amazingly unhirable as an SE, but can find good consulting work in a matter of weeks outside of this bubble.

Just by curiosity, is there any particular reason why the math and physics teacher job does not make you happy?

In my opinion, it is a great work very valuable for the society, and that allows to pass your passion for science to children (those who are receptive). It can even be a bridge to some academic career.

(Not the parent)

I think that I would be quite good as a teacher, and would enjoy the act of teaching motivated and interested student. However I have enough friends/relatives who are working "capital-T" Teachers to know that actually working in a school is a completely different prospect. Between poor management, ever-changing demands/requirements from politicians/government and terrible parents the actual job of teaching can be a lot less rewarding that people might think.

It's kind of like how some people really love coding, and like playing games so they think "I'll become a games developer and I'll love my job" only to be crushed by the actual process of games development in a sweatshop games company. Or the difference between loving to draw and being a professional designer churning out bullshit for some corporate client.

At least in the US, getting a permanent (union) position is super hard and takes years as a sub / on contract. On success (which is not guaranteed), it is seniority-based and starting at 38 you are at a pretty big disadvantage.

While you are on contract, you get crappy assignments that no one else wants: substituting for a semester, classes with difficult kids, etc. States differ, but I think this is a common picture for many.

If money is not particularly important teaching at a community college is much more pleasant. Competition is pretty low (because the pay is low), but you get respect and a lot of freedom to teach what and how you like. I know a few folks who semi-retired after a high paying career into a part-time community college teaching and really liked it.

Teachers don't make a lot of money. Especially compared to Quants and software engineers.

You are right that selling teaching services on the open market doesn't pay very well, being something considered not very valuable.

However, selling teaching services to the public sector, where price is determined by what a group thinks feels right rather than demonstrated value, can be quite lucrative and on par with the typical software engineering job.

It is true that software engineers have more moonshot opportunities. You will find more software engineers raking in millions of dollars per year than you will teachers. But only a scant few engineers end up in that position. The vast majority of software engineers will land around the same range teachers in the public sector will (with some regional variability, I'm sure).

In America? I know a handful of teachers in their early-mid 30s, all public sector (though none in a major metropolis like NYC or SF) and I don't think any of them make what a CS major from a mediocre state school can expect in a first job at a mediocre software company.

Where in America can a teacher make 100k+ with <5 YoE?

> "the vast amount of software engineers will land around the same range teachers in the public sector will"

That just can't be true. No disrespect meant, but I'm not sure if you are under rating what the vast amount of software engineers make or over rating what teachers make. Would you care to clarify with annual take home estimates for both?

Maybe some college professors make what engineers make. That could be true. That is very likely.

The average teacher salary according to the Ministry of Education is $99,000 (total comp). They are contracted for 196 work days; 6.5 hours per day, equalling a rate of $78 per hour.

Developer salaries are harder to come by, not being officially published in a cohesive form, but levels.fyi suggests a median income of $147,000 (total comp). In my opinion, levels.fyi skews towards big tech, ignoring the little mom and pops that pay peanuts. Other sources suggest the average is closer to $80-90k, depending on who you ask. In the interest of fairness, I'm going to pick the largest number I can find.

Again, not having officially published data, contractual terms are hard to establish, but I think it is reasonable to assume that most developer jobs will expect somewhere around 2000 hours per year – your typical 40 hour work week. In my experience, this is the norm. While I see a growing number of places that allow fewer hours, they come with a commensurate cut in pay. This puts the median developer at $73 per hour.

It is recognized that median and average are not the same, but given the distribution of teacher salaries, median and average should be close to equivalent. For all intents and purposes I think we can consider them to be equivalent in this case. It is not like there is a teacher on the payroll making millions to skew the numbers or something. The pay bands are known.

So, we're in the same ballpark. Within a few dollars of each other. But, as before, I won't be surprised if there is variance across locations. Pay scales can differ significantly from one place to another.

The teachers at $99,000 must include a lot of loan repayment or something. That seems high from my view point. I pulled the whole career based on what the US government discloses.

Note this is a based on salary. I would assume delelopers have better total compensation, but there are loan repayment and other things that might affect a teacher.

Here is the US salary guideline :

Teacher salary: $61,820 per year based on an estimated 998,800 jobs reported on taxes.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/high-...

Software Developers : Salary $110,000 based on an estimated 1,847,900 jobs reported on taxes

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

> The average teacher salary according to the Ministry of Education is $99,000 (total comp).

What country are we talking about?

Assuming the US, its a shit show right now for teachers. Burnout is hitting hard and only getting worse, as the replacement rate is no-where near keeping up. Several people in my circle are now either former teachers in new careers, or retired teachers (who were not really planning on retiring when they did).

Why quit before finding a new job? I never get posts like this.

My wife&I are your age and have worked at 6 & 5 companies respectively in our careers. Never have we quit a job before having found a new one, gotten the offer, accepted, and gone through background checks.

Why create an exploding timeline for yourself?

I think that's definitely a mindset of someone who has enough financial cushion to be able to do that in the first place. No one living paycheck to paycheck is going to do that unless they are immature or reckless to begin with.

It sounds like you have enough to get started on this path. I would want to see a "full" project built and deployed if I were interviewing. It can be anything really, it just needs to be "real world" / complex enough that you had:

1) Make decisions about things, and did the required research to make those decisions (and can talk about what you did and why).

2) Went through the entire deployment lifecycle. Its really easy to just do the interesting stuff then call it a day, but if you have actually gotten to production with something then you are forced to address a bunch of tiny paper cuts along the way which will round your skillset out significantly when trying to get your foot in the door.

Normally I would advise against this: becoming a very good developer takes about five to ten years of experience and you would likely be taking a step back in your career without a major payoff (financially, for sure). However, in this case, a Quant who is already doing technical work, it seems more likely to be successful. The long term comp will likely end up being lower than just staying a Quant and aiming to move up, but if programming speaks to you, you are in a better position than most to switch.

One potential avenue would be to build a SAAS product for Quants with your existing domain knowledge. This would allow you to leverage your existing body of work and do the programming work you want to.

Good luck!

That is such a good answer. It often feels like a lot of startups are chasing ideas that have never been tried and hoping to find market fit, compared to solving actual pain points that people would gladly pay for.

Given your experience, I'd target at first something in the big data / data mining / machine learning field rather than pure software engineer:

    - Much of what you have acquired as a Quant is potentially going to be re-usable

    - Becoming an actual SWE will potentially require you to learn a lots of new stuff (code review process, unit testing, large scale software architecture, code refactoring, OO, algorithms, code productionization, source control, debugging, etc... the list is very long) , and more importantly, you may have un-learn a lot of reflexes you might have acquired as a quant (of the "code, run once and throw away" persuasion)

Spend a year going through the CS curriculum for a good university. Buy the books, read them, and do all the exercises. If you find yourself looking forward to doing your nightly homework, great -- you have what it takes to be a great dev. Absent strong technical foundations, the upside as a dev is limited, and, more importantly, you won't get the super-interesting projects that you probably want. You can still get paid well, but you may find the work unfulfilling.

bro you've been a quant for 8 years at least, aren't you retired? :P

I'd keep on money rolling as a quant, or enter academia, or doing consulting as a quant. Don't waste that knowledge, it's super difficult stuff

I made a similar transition at 35. Have you looked at quant developer roles? They may value your experience and background more and be more willing to compromise on your software engineering experience.

I did it when I was 36, but I wasn't a quant. It took a coding bootcamp to get to where you say you are, maybe a little bit further. But given what you say, you can skip that.

While you probably don't need a full year of self-teaching fundamental computer science to be able to do the job, or to interview, you may need to drill and kill algorithms problems on leetcode or similar.

One of the best data scientists I know started her career as a quant.

Don’t quit your day job until you have another one though, there’s no point in increasing risk