Searching for a new job is objectively terrible. There are many asymmetries between yourself, a lone person, and the much larger organization into which you are applying. Definitely the worst is the sheer information asymmetry, especially when it comes to compensation. HR departments have a much better understanding of compensation rates across the field than lone humans. In software, sites like levels.fyi provide a valuable service to job seekers. Most of us are not so lucky.
When I was much younger and just beginning my journey out of academia and into industry, I learned just how much I didn’t know. I had completed an interview successfully and I thought I had done my research regarding physicist compensation. Back then, we didn’t really have fancy titles like “Quantum Hardware Engineer” or “Quantum Algorithm Scientist”. Most postings were for very generic sounding positions like “Staff Research Scientist”. So I did the best I could, and when my HR rep called me up and asked what I was thinking about salary, I answered her directly. I had prepared for that moment and had decided on what I thought was a titanic sum. In fact, I had picked an absolutely colossal number and then added 10% just to be safe.
I said to her, “Well, I think $HUGE_NUMBER would be reasonable.” She, very professionally, did not laugh at me, and just very politely told me that they couldn’t pay me that little and, that they offer new hires $HUGE_NUMBER*1.2. Yes, I had come in 20% below the minimum they’d be comfortable paying me. I accepted immediately.
Honestly, I was ecstatic, and had good reason to be. It was only later that I really understood the weakness of my position. It’s not that the outcome was bad, but I didn’t understand my value to the company I was joining. From their perspective, my skillset was much more valuable than I had guessed. I should have been asking for compensation based on the value I would provide to the team, rather than what I thought was a big number coming right out of grad school.
Market Research
In order to reduce the information asymmetry between yourself and your current/next employer, you should be discussing your compensation with your coworkers. Please understand two things:
This is not an orbital measuring contest. This is not a chance to dominate your colleagues. Have these discussions with an appropriate sense of tact and humility.
Comparison is the thief of joy. Cash is only one parameter along which you should optimize your life.
Although levels.fyi returns only a few hits for a search of “quantum”, there are other resources to help you figure out if you’re being fairly compensated. One extremely new such resource was just published by Quantum Computing Report.
I am not sure where the old timey “Research Scientist” titles might fit in here, but it’s not surprising that the field has become more specialized. At first glance these values seemed to be a little on the low side in the early-career stages, but then I saw that these numbers are base salary only and so don’t include bonuses or stock options. Since so many startups have proliferated over the last few years, it’s probably reasonable to assume that these are lower bounds1.
I also suspect that the 5+ years range clumps together individual contributors with 5+ years experience, as well as people who have become team leads. I expect the 5-10 year range to become granular as more people age into this demographic. I suspect that data hides large variance.
Another useful tool is the H1B visa database, which although *terrible* does provide salary information for H1B visa holders. I was able to gets hits for IBM, IonQ, Rigetti, QCTRL, and QuEra before I got bored of trying.
Since I started writing this post, there has been substantial discussion on quantum twitter about The Chart:
You should definitely read this thread and all of the subthreads. There were a surprising amount of people chiming in that these values are low.
CEOs in the space:
Googlers:
And folks at startups:
Most of the responses above are implicitly including equity compensation, which is different from what the chart is reporting, but still a nice data point. I’m grateful that Olivia was able to generate discussion about The Chart, and I’m glad that so many people chimed in with their perspectives.
Demonstrating Value
After reading this chart, or discussing with your peers, you may find that you are under compensated. What to do?
The only way you’ll ever get a raise is by convincing someone that it’s worth paying you more. That person could be your boss, the hiring manager at a different company, or your board of directors. Someone has to believe you’ll unlock more value than you consume through your compensation.
In the first case, it may be sufficient to build your case by simply reviewing your notes on your accomplishments to date and assembling them into some cogent narrative, perhaps with The Chart as a supporting material. You DO keep a record of your many important contributions at work, right?2
If your higher ups just don’t see eye-to-eye with you about your contributions, well then it’s time to decide: let it go, or start interviewing. Right now, it seems that the standard for PhDs in QC is to give a ~1hr long talk about some sort of technical topic. For newly minted PhDs this is often a modified form of their dissertation defense. For others it’s a little harder, but hopefully you are continuing to produce some work that you can talk about in public.
In the face of an important interview, its easy to emerge from the slides-making fugue-state with a gigantic technical presentation that is not actually optimized to convince your audience that they should hire you. This talk is similar to, but not quite the same as, a talk you might give at APS March Meeting.
Is the subject presented in a way that is comprehensible? Not all candidates are native to QC. You might be giving a talk that’s mostly about x-ray crystallography, or experiments at the LHC, or dark matter searches. Your audience is going to be mostly QC natives or QC converts, though. You need to tailor your talk to engage professional physicists outside of your field. Doing this shows me that you have cared at all about the people you’ll be talking to.
Is it clear which contributions you’ve made to the work? Science is often collaborative, but I still want to know what you did to contribute. It’s especially important to highlight contributions and skills that transfer to the job you’re applying for! After all, I need to figure out what value will your presence be providing to the team.
Do you seem easy to work with? One thing I’ve learned during my time in physics is that any asshole can be smart. It takes a special kind of person to both be smart and have the sense of empathy and humility required to productively work on a large, diverse team.
You’re still going to need the skillset and experience that your potential future employers are looking for. But if you’ve got the goods, you need to be able to show them that you’ve got what it takes.
Good luck. May you someday comment on a post like Olivia’s with the phrase “That’s too low”.
Well, you’ve made it to the end of another post. Only one thing left to do, now. Smash that subscribe button.
A friend of mine suggests emailing your boss every month with a short list of your accomplishments. My preference is just to keep a written record as I finish key projects and put it all together by the end of the year. This also helps keep the ol’ resume up to date!