The storm is not AI. It's the uncountable number of fresh graduates standing behind you to do the same job. But...
A big name in tech Vs 0-1 high growth place
Came across this post on X recently, the point sounds valid in my opinion but wanted to know from the community cuz I recently took a decision between a unicorn b2c start-u which is super popular vs a b2b SaaS startup which is known among the tech community.
Post link: https://twitter.com/amuldotexe/status/1738243872231428484?t=V2-6pMSYCvl7L-w_f8IggQ&s=19
Disagree.
Have rejected numerous resumes of candidates working in big brands/fortune 200 places. Infact I personally look mostly at the kind of projects done by the candidate.
Then comes company name but in that also I would prefer candidates coming from a high growth place (unicorn, soonicorns) ... rather than big tech.
What's your take on early-stage vs these unicorns or soonicorns
@Kafkaa I agree with you but. I have had good conversations with recruiters at various companies, and most of them look for brand names, only them quality of the work comes into the picture.
These big brand names, by default, makes most of the people think that the candidate has already achieved something, so they should be good.
It's true that startups offers good experience in breadth and depth. But the moment you step into a big name company, the person unlocks a ton of new opportunities, and makes their next job switch relatively easier.
By the default, the scale/quality of work is good irrespective of what they're doing, at a big name company
I've first hand experienced the perils of not having Branded company on resume, I've also improved DSA skills, and worked on unique problems.
It's genuinely so much easier with a recognisable brand name company on resume, have data to back this as thought experiment sent same resumes edited with 'semi famous' companies and a made-up LinkedIn profile to recruiters got more revert backs, more shortlists, more interviews.