•1 min read•from Data Science
did i accidentally pigeonhole myself as a recent grad?
Our take
As a recent graduate marking one year in a data science role at a hedge fund, you’ve engaged in fascinating work involving alternative data research. While your current position emphasizes data analysis and creative sourcing, you’re concerned about potentially pigeonholing yourself. The skills you're honing may not align with traditional data science roles, leading to fears of being perceived as overly specialized or technically inadequate in the future.
hit my one year mark out of university as a DS at a hedge fund doing alternative data research. work has been really interesting and comp is solid so i'm not complaining.
with that being said, i've started to wonder if i'm quietly boxing myself in. most of the work boils down to data analysis and light statistical modeling, real edge being creative data sourcing, thinking about biases, and building economic intuition around research questions. high impact work for sure and the thinking it requires probably has a moat against AI. but i can feel my ML and "production" skills atrophying since i don't use them which is spooking me a little
my worry is that if i ever want to jump to a more traditional DS role down the line i'll look way too specialized and technically inadequate. the work here doesn't map cleanly onto most DS job postings and i'm not sure how that reads to a hiring manager a few years from now
is this actually a problem or am i overthinking it?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- Current role only does data science 1/4 of the yearTitle. The rest of the year I’m more doing data engineering/software engineering/business analyst type stuff. (I know that’s a lot of different fields but trust me). Will this hinder my long term career? I plan to stay here for 5 years so they pay for my grad program and vest my 401k. As of now I’m basically creating one xgboost model a year and just doing analysis for the rest of the year based off that model. (Hard to explain without explaining my entire job, basically we are the stakeholders of our own models in a way, with oversight of course). I’m just worried in 5 years when I apply to new jobs I won’t be able to talk about much data science. Our team wants to do more sexy stuff like computer vision but we are too busy with regulatory fillings that it’s never a priority. The good news is I have great job security because of this. The bad news is I don’t do any experimentation or “fun” data science. submitted by /u/Tenet_Bull [link] [comments]
- Is working as a data scientist (ML focus) but not getting to interact with the business a common tradeoff, or is my company just weird?Prefacing this with the fact that I've been in this field for 3 years, across 2 different DS roles at my company. My company is huge and I know that often results in specialized roles, however getting a balance of business and technical exposure is much more difficult than I think it should be. My first role was heavily consulting-focused for DS work and very little building for production. I moved to a team with a more technical focus to make sure I didn't lose that skill set and it's very difficult to get work with an actual business stakeholder, and I'm now worried I'm going to get worse at that. I've tried to find ways to work that into the role and to go talk to people to help find projects but the manager does not seem to support that for the team, only for themselves and one of the leads. I really don't feel like this should have to be an either-or dichotomy, especially since so many areas can benefit from data science work but they don't always know where or what they can ask for. Technical skills are important but they mean nothing if you can't work with the business. Is this more common for the stats/ML side of DS work or do I just need to start job searching? submitted by /u/TaterTot0809 [link] [comments]
- Is the ds/ml slowly being morphed into an AI engineer? [D]Agents are amazing. Harnesses are cool. But the fundamental role of a data scientist is not to use a generalist model in an existing workflow; it's a completely different field. AI engineering is the body of the vehicle, whereas the actual brain/engine behind it is the data scientist's playground. I feel like I am not alone in this realisation that my role somehow got silently morphed into that of an AI engineer, with the engine's development becoming a complete afterthought. Based on industry requirements and ongoing research, most of the work has quietly shifted from building the engine to refining the body around it. Economically, this makes sense, as working with LLMs or other Deep Learning models is a capital-intensive task that not everyone can afford, but the fact that very little of a role's identity is preserved is concerning. Most of the time, when I speak to data scientists, the core reply I get is that they are fine-tuning models to preserve their "muscles". But fine-tuning is a very small part of a data scientist's role; heck, after a point, it's not even the most important part. Fine-tuning is a tool. Understanding, I believe, should be the fundamental block of the role. Realising that there are things other than "transformers" and finding where they fit into the picture. And don't even get me started on the lack of understanding of how important the data is for their systems. A data scientist's primary role is not the model itself. It's about developing the model, the data quality at hand, the appropriate problem framing, efficiency concerns, architectural literacy, evaluation design, and error analysis. Amid the AI hype, many have overlooked that much of their role is static and not considered important. AI engineering is an amazing field. The folks who love doing amazing things with the models always inspire me. But somehow, the same attention and respect are no longer paid to the foundational, scientific side of data and modeling in the current industry. I realise it's not always black and white, but it's kind of interesting how the grey is slowly becoming darker by the day. Do you feel the same way? Or is it just my own internal crisis bells ringing unnecessarily? For those of you who have recognized this shift, how are you handling your careers? Are you leaning into the engineering/systems side and abandoning traditional model development? Or have you found niche roles/companies that still value the fundamental data scientist role (data quality, architectural literacy, statistical rigor)? I'd love to hear how you are adapting submitted by /u/The-Silvervein [link] [comments]
- Does automating the boring stuff in DS actually make you worse at your job long-termBeen thinking about this a lot lately after reading a few posts here about people noticing their skills slipping after leaning too hard on AI tools. There's a real tension between using automation to move faster and actually staying sharp enough to catch when something goes wrong. Like, automated data cleaning and dashboarding is genuinely useful, but if you're never doing, that work yourself anymore, you lose the instinct for spotting weird distributions or dodgy groupbys. There was a piece from MIT SMR recently that made a decent point that augmentation tends to win over straight replacement in the, long run, partly because the humans who stay engaged are the ones who can actually intervene when the model quietly does something dumb. And with agentic AI workflows becoming more of a baseline expectation in 2026, that intervention skill matters even, more since these pipelines are longer, more autonomous, and way harder to audit when something quietly goes sideways. The part that gets me is the deskilling risk nobody really talks about honestly. It's easy to frame everything as augmentation when really the junior work just disappears and, the oversight expectation quietly shifts to people who are also spending less time in the weeds. The ethical question isn't just about job numbers, it's about whether the people left are, actually equipped to catch failures in automated pipelines or whether we're just hoping they are. Curious if others have noticed their own instincts getting duller after relying on AI tools for, a while, or whether you've found ways to keep that hands-on feel even in mostly automated workflows. submitted by /u/taisferour [link] [comments]
Tagged with
#generative AI for data analysis#Excel alternatives for data analysis#conversational data analysis#real-time data collaboration#data analysis tools#big data management in spreadsheets#intelligent data visualization#data visualization tools#enterprise data management#big data performance#data cleaning solutions#financial modeling with spreadsheets#rows.com#natural language processing for spreadsheets#financial modeling#real-time collaboration#data science#alternative data#data analysis#creative data sourcing