Which Position?

Hi Everyone, I wanted to generally ask that if you had the choice of these two positions and money was similar, which would you choose? 1. Engineer - For an MSP taking different calls dealing with everything - Paid certifications, benefits, etc. 2. Field Technician - For a Service Provider with big name clients doing desktop work and break/fix - Benefits, no paid certifications Thank you for your input!

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

cyberguypr

I hate the field so I would choose position 1. Also, an Engineer will see/touch more advanced stuff than a desktop focused role.

cvuong1984

1 without even having to think twice...

In terms of career path one would (usually) want to go from (I say usually, because I know a few that loves being on the road)

Desktop Support/Help Desk > NOC/SysAdmin > Network/Systems Engineer > Sr/Lead/Principal

Position 2 IMO would fit Desktop Support/HelpDesk

While Position 1 would be Help Desk/SysAdmins, you will work on issues that will translate into SysAdmin/Engineer

I would say, Field Tech, if you want to be a Data Center Tech later in your Career
Position 1: If you want a desk job like a sysadmins or systems engineer etc.

Concerned Water

I would choose 1. Sounds like you can advance in career faster.

instant000

#1:
- includes training
- better experience opportunity
- better job title

#2:
- no training
- worse experience
- worse job title

#1 sets you up to go further. There is either growth potential there, or you will build up for your next position.
#2 looks like a dead end job.

I really do not understand the comparison.

Other factors come into play, such as wages, commute, etc., but because of the training and experience, #1 would still come out ahead, even if it pays less. You will make up the wages later on at your next gig, or when you get promoted. #2 provides nothing to lead you to believe that you can grow in the company.

wmdude

instant000 wrote: »

#1:
- includes training
- better experience opportunity
- better job title

#2:
- no training
- worse experience
- worse job title

#1 sets you up to go further. There is either growth potential there, or you will build up for your next position.
#2 looks like a dead end job.

I really do not understand the comparison.

Other factors come into play, such as wages, commute, etc., but because of the training and experience, #1 would still come out ahead, even if it pays less. You will make up the wages later on at your next gig, or when you get promoted. #2 provides nothing to lead you to believe that you can grow in the company.

What if number 2 paid $5000 more?

instant000

You bring out yet another factor that makes #1 look better.

Does number two win on any factors? Is there something you're holding back that makes you consider number two? If it's personal, then it is OK if you want to keep that to yourself. For instance, if #1 requires that you compromise a core belief, then I would understand if you passed on it.

NetworkVeteran

Is there something you're holding back that makes you consider number two?

+1. I also don't understand the comparison since it's obvious position one is better on all given counts. I also wonder if there are some hidden factors that make position 2 more favorable. There's a company near me that pays $5,000-$10,000 less than its competitors, but great team, stable company, good work-life balance, catered lunches, elite gym membership, they spend a gazillion on team events, etc. I was all for a friend working there. After all, there is more to life than the paycheck you bring home.

wmdude

instant000 wrote: »

You bring out yet another factor that makes #1 look better.

Does number two win on any factors? Is there something you're holding back that makes you consider number two? If it's personal, then it is OK if you want to keep that to yourself. For instance, if #1 requires that you compromise a core belief, then I would understand if you passed on it.

I am so sorry, I meant number 2 pays $5000 more. I should've read it twice. Sorry!

wmdude

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

+1. I also don't understand the comparison since it's obvious position one is better on all given counts. I also wonder if there are some hidden factors that make position 2 more favorable (e.g., it's more rewarding, better location, better team, etc.) There's a company near me that pays $5,000-$10,000 less than its competitors, but everyone loves working there, catered lunches, free gym memberships at an elite gym, they spend a gazillion on team events, etc. I was all for a friend working there.

I apologize, I meant number 2 paying more. Wow, I wish it was that good. The only positive is big client companies and pay increase. I think 1 would be better training and certifications are also a plus, but money never hurts.

NetworkVeteran

I meant number 2 pays $5000 more.

Ahh. Now that's a closer comparison!

> - no training

Free training is worth, perhaps $500-$1000/yr at the entry-level.

> - worse experience
> - worse job title

I'd take a 10-15% cut in my salary for better experience and job title. So, if job #1 pays $32,500+, I'd go for the first job. Below that, I'd probably take the job that pays better and work on my education/certifications in the background.

wmdude

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

So, if job #1 pays $32,500+, I'd go for the first job. Below that, I'd probably take the job that pays better and work on my education/certifications in the background.

1 is under, 2 is over.

NetworkVeteran

wmdude wrote: »

1 is under, 2 is over.

Like I said, if job 1 pays $32,500+.. so I'd go for job 2 in your case.. but it's a close call if they're in that ballpark.

Even a tiny amount of salary negotiation would change everything. I'd probably explain to job #1, "You know, I'd really love to work for you, but you see, I have another offer that's 20% higher. If you could sweeten the pot by even $2,500, I'd be all yours. That's how much I want to work for you! Alternatively, are you open to paying for college credits if I agreed to stay for some time? You have a good team and I'm looking for ways to make this work. Help me out here."

xXErebuS

Starting salary doesn't mean crap for a MSP role, you need to keep that in mind as well.

dave330i

I'd take #1 even with the pay difference. Your choice may be different.

kgb

I don't think everyone should just put down the field tech job so quickly... Not everyone wants to sit in an office all day. I think that there is probably the key difference in my opinion. If you are a hands-on, want to get dirty kind of guy then regardless of the upward mobility of #1, you will probably be better off with #2. Not everyone chases after six-figure incomes.

wmdude

xXErebuS wrote: »

Starting salary doesn't mean crap for a MSP role, you need to keep that in mind as well.

Could you go into more detail on this? I'm not as familiar with how MSPs work.

Thank you!

cvuong1984

wmdude wrote: »

Could you go into more detail on this? I'm not as familiar with how MSPs work.

Thank you!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging only by one of my friend who works for a MSP. They get raises pretty quick... unless he lied to me, my friend said he got 2 raises in a year. started at 55k at the job ended the year at 65k with 2 (5k raises).

eten

wmdude wrote: »

What if number 2 paid $5000 more?

I took a paycut of $15,000 to gain experience; $40k vs $55k. It was shortly after I graduated and lived with my parents so money was not a top priority. Fast forward 3 years, my co-workers there are still earning 55k while I make more than double when I took the paycut.

It's all about what you can potentially gain for the amount you lose.

wmdude

eten wrote: »

I took a paycut of $15,000 to gain experience; $40k vs $55k. It was shortly after I graduated and lived with my parents so money was not a top priority. Fast forward 3 years, my co-workers there are still earning 55k while I make more than double when I took the paycut.

It's all about what you can potentially gain for the amount you lose.

Thank you eten. I agree, a paycut for potential is very important. Does anyone know what should be expected at an MSP?

wmdude

I'm hoping someone can give me more details on working for an MSP or a Service Provider.

xXErebuS

wmdude wrote: »

I'm hoping someone can give me more details on working for an MSP or a Service Provider.

It depends on the services provided and your function within the company. Can you elaborate on what you will be doing for them, from your explanation you could be simply directing calls or you could be serving a role similar to in house administrators.

wmdude

It seemed like I'd be taking calls for almost any issue the client was having and then pushing to tier 2 if needed. That's all I know.

101010

Now this makes it seem like "Job 1" is just your average Help Desk/Call Center position. Your original post stated that it was an Engineer position, which makes it understandable that it was recommended by most as the better option.

If "Job 1" is really a Help Desk/Call Center position, you will likely spend most of your time answering calls and doing very basic troubleshooting, then passing the calls up to Tier 2. I would definitely take the second job. You will get more hands on experience, likely doing the Tier 2 work you would be missing in "Job 1", and with that extra 5k you can cert up on your own.

Also, don't overlook the networking opportunities in "Job 2". You stated that you would be working with "big name clients". It is often "Not what you know, but who you know", and "Job 2" puts you in the position to know a lot of people.

wmdude

It is an Engineer position in name. They told me I'd take calls and fix issues from servers to networks to desktop. Anything that is complicated or out of skill range goes to tier 2.

Position 2 does have the networking potential and that is the really big thing that I liked about it.

101010

I would be wary of a position with such a misleading title. Usually an "xxxxx Engineer" title signifies an advance level off knowledge and expertise.

For me it not only shows a lack or understanding and/or over-hyping of the job on the hiring companies end, it may also prove a hindrance in the future if you attempt to find a job elsewhere and your resume shows such a mismatch in job titles vs experience.

wmdude

101010 wrote: »

I would be wary of a position with such a misleading title. Usually an "xxxxx Engineer" title signifies an advance level off knowledge and expertise.

For me it not only shows a lack or understanding and/or over-hyping of the job on the hiring companies end, it may also prove a hindrance in the future if you attempt to find a job elsewhere and your resume shows such a mismatch in job titles vs experience.

All I know is that they said I could be resetting passwords, fixing an issue in Exchange, working in AD, etc. Each call is an IT person with the client needing assistance.