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?
Our take
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?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- What has been people's experience with "full-stack" data roles?I started my career being a jack of all trades - hired as a data analyst but I had to extract, clean, and then analyze data and even sometimes train models for simple predictions and categorization. That actually led me to become a data engineer but I've spent most of my career working closely with data scientists and trying my best to make their jobs easier by taking away all the preprocessing tasks away from them so they can focus on training, inference MLops, etc. While I claim to have helped them, to be honest DE teams often become a bottleneck and an obstacle. Everything from not being able to provide the data needed to train on time, or how we processed the data was wrong and led to bad performance, or they went live with a model blindly because we couldn't get them the observation data on time for them to analyze accuracy. I'm wondering how much of the data engineering tasks can be automated/vibed away by data scientists. My guess is that in larger companies this won't be the case but I think startups and SMBs want to move fast so they'd rather have data scientists own the whole pipeline. What has been other's experience with this and where is it heading? submitted by /u/uncertainschrodinger [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]
- 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]
- Been failing interviews, is it possible my current job is as good as it gets?I’ve been interviewing for the past few months across big tech, hedge funds and startups. Out of 8 companies, I’ve only made it to one onsite and almost got the offer. The rest were rejections at the hiring manager or technical rounds, and one role got filled before I could even finish the technical interviews. I’ve definitely been taking notes and improving each time, but data science interviews feel so different from company to company that it’s hard to prepare in a consistent way and build momentum. It’s really getting to me now and I have started wondering if maybe I’m just not good enough to land a higher paying role, and if my current job might be my ceiling. For context, I’m targeting senior data scientist (ML) roles in a very high cost of living area. Would appreciate hearing from others who’ve been through something similar. submitted by /u/quite--average [link] [comments]