This summer I had the opportunity to choose between a couple of YC-backed companies at different stages, a Founders Fund/500 Startups-backed company and Google. I chose the latter - not because of the pay, but because it was the only offer that would be a truly novel experience. As one of the rising freshmen the post mentions, experiences include:

- A startup that didn't gain traction and went under

- A startup that had its Series A and a liquidity event within 18 months

- A startup that had turned into a scalable, profitable business

While I love the camaraderie with the team and the impact on the product it's possible to have as an intern at a company where the only difference between you and a fulltime engineer is age, it's possible, albeit unlikely, I may enjoy working at a large company and would still be unaware of it had I passed on the opportunity. More importantly, being able to put Google on your resume is a strong signaling mechanism , and the concentration of wicked intelligent, inquisitive people of your age is hard to beat.

I started with a larger company and later found that I'm more interested in smaller companies; now I'm looking for different technologies (functional programming!), different industries (no more web stuff) and, in the far future, different locations (I'm bored of the Bay Area now).

Coincidentally, I haven't seen anybody mention the last one, but I think spending the summer abroad or in New York would be really awesome. (That said, I'm not willing to sacrifice technically interesting work just to live elsewhere.) Of course, I say this as somebody who went through middle school, high school and now two years of college all in the Bay Area, so it's no doubt different for students from other universities.

I think, and I speak as someone who hires the technical interns for my employer, that an internship where the only difference between you and the fulltime engineer is age isn't a good internship.

A good internship program is something that goes beyond just 'doing the day job'. There are far too many companies that treat internships as 'cheap labor' - this is particularly true in the UK (my office is in London, although my interns come from the US due to alma matter connections) where internships are not as established.

It's more nuanced than 'don't take the highest offer' - really, the advice should be 'take the internship that will offer you the most valuable experience'. Acting as a cheap source of labor can certainly form part of an internship...but I really don't think it should be the overarching goal. Perhaps this is why Google's internship programs are so successful and sought after.

I will start by saying that as I understand it, we agree. Yield, by my definition with regard to choosing an internship is perhaps 20% pay (more significant if in a location with high CoL), 80% what you'll learn.

> an internship where the only difference between you and the fulltime engineer is age isn't a good internship.

Perhaps I should have clarified - an internship in which you are treated as an equal to FTEs is immensely rewarding. Not once have I felt as though I was merely a 'cheap source of labour', and I would certainly qualify every internship I have had as excellent. Every position I've taken has produced a measurable impact on my ability as an engineer and entrepreneur. The exposure to a significant number of different languages, frameworks, system architectures, and development practices has given me a modicum of wisdom beyond my years and made me aware of previously unknown unknowns.

The knowledge garnered of marketing, sales, product development, and analytics has been invaluable, and the talented designers I have had the pleasure to work alongside have certainly inspired me to appreciate and strive for an incredible user experience. Had I been given wholly insignificant projects, excluded from meetings, and treated as half-as-productive (even when I was) I don't feel the effect would have been half as great.

The fact that you chose Google in favor of a number of legitimate startups signals that you are more interested in stuffing your resume than doing something actually interesting, challenging, and impactful.

I think the days of Google being the employer of choice for "wicked intelligent" people are long gone. Personally I'd rather hang out in a room of random startup employees (some of whom are probably ex-Googlers) than one full of present day Googlers.

That seems...a tad judgmental? I don't know claim to what GP's reason was, but I'm interning with Google this summer because I have an opportunity to work with a team that's doing work which is relevant to the research I'm doing in grad school, and I don't think such opportunities are as easy to find in startups.

It sounds like Google is a great place for you this summer, based on your research interests. However, if one's basis for being there is because it "is a strong signaling mechanism" then I stand by my original statement.

Not everyone is interested in starting their own company; some people like working in larger groups on bigger projects and not having to worry about all the non-engineering that goes into a startup.

Moreover, just because you're convinced you don't want to work at a big company doesn't mean nobody should work at one. OP is perfectly reasonable for choosing a new experience to see whether they'd like it or not, even if it's one that's unpopular among some crowds.

And having Google on your resume is a nice bonus. Even if OP decides to stick with startups after, this will help with getting hired and/or funded.

Back in 2004 or so, Google had a virtual monopoly on all the top engineering and CS talent coming out of school. At that time, Apple wasn't as sexy as it is now, Facebook didn't exist, and everything else (Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) just seemed sort of lame and corporate. Every top computer scientist wanted to work at Google.

My point was that those days are long gone. Google lost a lot of good talent to Facebook and startups. It no longer has the luxury of cherry picking the best of the best. Getting a job offer from Google is no longer nearly as prestigious as it once was.

I've always found it somewhat silly to identify people by their employer. I was a random startup employee at two companies. I was a founder at one. I am currently a Googler. I wrote some open-source software in the interim (which reminds me, I need to go stick a license file in one of those projects because another present-day Googler wants to use it for an internal project). Which category would I fall under in your false dichotomy?

Anyone remotely interesting will have a variety of experiences in their career; some will be at startups, and some will be at large established companies.

Yes, there are interesting (and uninteresting) people everywhere. The people I personally find more interesting are found in higher density in startups than BigCo's. ymmv.

If you add people who've founded successful open-source projects or done interesting projects as part of a larger organization, that number grows significantly. The founder of Gallery is the manager of a large team I work closely with, and on that team are the authors of Rhino, Parrot, Pychecker, "Linux Kernel Development" and "Linux in a Nutshell", and probably a few that I don't know of because I don't know everyone's pre-Google background.

http://gallery.menalto.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_Project

To my knowledge, the Android photo viewing app isn't open-source (and I'm kinda surprised that alternatives to some of the default Android apps haven't popped up - the Gallery and Music Player apps really kinda suck.)

Tons of random startup employees (not to mention founders) are of very lame technical and scientific skills, and the problems they work on are ho-hum, me-too at best (front-end trivialities for social media, or variations of scaling a web-stack, basically all been there done that problems...).

More broadly, is interning at a startup a good place to learn technical skills (rather than marketing, networking, funding, etc.)? Most of the information on running common web stacks, for example (nginx, rails, django, node.js, varnish, postgres, mysql, redis, etc.), is either freely available on the web or even can be bought as a service (heroku, app engine, aws). By contrast, the only way to find out how engineers have solved problems (web serving, analytics, etc.) at truly huge scale (e.g., 10+% of the human population) is to actually see the solutions at a big company (though sometimes companies will publish details of 3+ year old infrastructure). Big companies also tend to have stricter code review cultures, while small companies tend to just need code written now. All of this seems to point to learning significantly more at a (technically excellent) big company, even though the "output" of the intern might appear to be less.

In fact, doing a startup seems like it might be more like resume stuffing than working at Google or Facebook these days. Working at a small startup, you get to talk about your impact, how you built a mission critical piece of infrastructure, whereas at a big company you're probably only trusted to write some small features that are not in the critical path of full time engineers. What's more, you get to say that you worked at a startup, which everyone pretty much respects around California, even if the startup dies or wasn't very technically interesting. But the potential for learning quality engineering through code review and understanding the existing infrastructure seems a lot higher at the big company.

I've looked around at a bunch of internship and the most technically interesting ones have all been at startups. Now, I have to admit that the majority of startup internships I've seen have been in the bland web-based software category. And, perhaps, larger companies have more technically challenging internships on average.

However, average is not what you should be interested in. And the exceptional startups I've seen are more exceptional than what you would do at a bigger company. This makes sense--there are more startups, they are more varied and less conservative than bigger companies and they cover more niches, so the variance in technical difficulty is going to be greater. Bigger companies also have more friction: existing processes, gigantic code bases, very specific requirements, large investments in existing tools...

Also, it's much easier to find startups in your particular field of interest. I've talked to companies doing interesting work in machine learning, bioinformatics, robotics and even type systems (I haven't seen any interesting work with type systems at big companies at all). And these are just things that happen to interest me in particular: there are probably interesting startups in whatever field happens to interest you as well.

So I think startups are actually rather good for doing something cool and novel, especially if it's something off the beaten path. You just have to find the particular awesome startup that interests you rather than joining another web/mobile-based company.

Now, there are some advantages to seeing how a bigger company operates as well. Understanding how to organize hundreds of programmers, maintain gigantic code-bases, use significant resources efficiently and survive in a larger corporate setting are all very important.

Spending at least one summer at a bigger company would be is useful if only for these, just like spending time at even a technically boring startup is great for the non-technical reasons you listed. But for learning technical skills, especially more specialized and advanced ones, I think a startup (but not just any startup) is a great choice.

What start-up is doing work in type theory?

[1]: http://blog.ashimagroup.net/category/ashimaarts/

So the networking opportunities are limited, a lot of the work is the "easier" (less-critical) stuff for projects (although on the other hand - maybe the more interesting projects).

It will definitely look good on your CV, but any better than getting a good internship elsewhere?

I think most people in the position to receive internship offers from multiple reputable companies are intelligent enough to discriminate on more than money.

Raw salary, too, isn't an indicator so much of 'how valuable the company perceives you to be' as it is a function of competition and cost of living. $10K a month working for a quant firm in New York sounds great, but your living expenses are going to be much higher than, say, Seattle or Boston -- and your per hour is likely to be much lower as well, as you're likely spending upwards of sixty hours a week in the office.

Depending on their background, these kids are often looking at more money than they have had in their lives and, for many, a larger salary rate than their parents. While there are certainly some students I see for whom the internship is just an experience exercise and the money is for fun, most of them are facing what seems to them a crippling debt load post-graduation and so terrified of it that the prospect of a few thousand more dollars is very hard to pass up.

While "the point of an internship is [...] to learn what kind of work or industry you want to be in once you graduate, to try things out and live in cool places." is partly true (especially in the current economy) it's a pretty naive way of looking at yourself.

If you're doing an internship, you're probably not a fully-fledged and employable person yet. You probably aren't ready to take on a huge amount of responsibility. The internship is there to teach you some of the other aspects of working with others in a real company (not a college project) that you simply can't get from college. Most 25 year olds don't have those skills. Don't forget that.

It's a lovely job market right now in Silicon Valley, but it won't be forever. The individuals that have a bit of humility respect the fact they need to learn throughout their career, and in the long run will do better.