•1 min read•from Data Science
Would you leave ML Engineering for a Lead Data Scientist role that's mostly analytics?
Our take
Navigating career decisions in the data field can be challenging, especially when considering a shift from a machine learning engineering role to a Lead Data Scientist position primarily focused on analytics. While the title sounds appealing, the day-to-day responsibilities—such as managing dashboards, analytics, and stakeholder relationships—may not align with your technical aspirations. For those who have made similar transitions, how significant would the financial incentive need to be to outweigh your current compensation?
I'm an ML Engineer at a mid-size company, I got an offer for a Lead Data Scientist role.
Sounds great on paper, but the actual day-to-day is: dashboards, analytics, stakeholder management. I'd be the sole data person.
For those who've faced similar choices: how much would the money need to beat your current comp to make the switch? Does a Lead title matter at this stage? Or is technical depth more valuable long-term?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- 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]
- Radar engineer upskillHello all, I’m a radar signal processing engineer (point clouds, spectrum analysis, lots of legacy debugging) and want to move into applied ML for robotics. I have a masters in robotics and AI. I’ve got solid math + sensor data experience, and access to real data plus an internal repo with ML projects. My main question: is it worth spending time re-implementing those ML algorithms myself plus doing side projects, or is not worth it. I can dedicate 2 hours a day for the projects. I am very serious about leaving, but i lack direction. Would you: Stay and build projects on the side? Try to pivot internally? Or consider something like try to do research with a professor? If you’ve made a similar move, what actually helped you break in? submitted by /u/Huge-Leek844 [link] [comments]
- Does this sound like a real Data Scientist role, or more like analytics/enterprise software support?I recently got hired into a Data Scientist role at my current company (aerospace/supply chain), and I’m trying to get a better sense of how people would classify the work. In my previous role as a Data Analyst, I was more on the business development/analytics side. I worked on things like Tableau dashboards, SQL/Python analysis, market and proposal support, parts forecasting, and some NLP/ML-style projects for predicting parts or work classification (being taken over by a separate team). So this new role is aligned with forecasting, asset management, and supply chain decision support. Does seem like DS but I’m not 100% sure. The new role is focused on service parts planning, forecasting, repair recommendations, proposal support, and working with an enterprise planning/optimization system. The thing I’m unsure about is that the core modeling is mostly handled inside specialized software called Servigistics. I wouldn’t be building the main forecasting or optimization models from scratch in Python. A lot of the work would be updating model inputs, running/supporting the system, analyzing outputs, explaining changes in the forecasts or recommendations, answering stakeholder questions, and building dashboards or analysis using SQL, Python, Tableau, and Excel. I’m thinking about doing some lightweight analysis around the system, like leveraging Monte Carlo simulation for risk/uncertainty, forecast validation, bias analysis, and maybe using internal training material with a RAG/LLM setup to help with process support and onboarding. I want to do this to make sure I’m able to showcase I still possess strong technical skills for future opportunities. Would you consider this a legitimate applied Data Scientist role even if I’m not hand-building models from scratch? Or does this sound more like an operations analyst/business analyst role with a Data Scientist title? I’m not trying to be overly picky. I just want to make sure this is a good role to grow in for the next year or two and that I’m not moving into something that will box me out of more traditional data science work later. One other thing is the job change did come with a 25% bump in pay which is a big reason why I took it, along with the title change. Thank you. submitted by /u/miquiztli8 [link] [comments]