These lists are useless. There is no metric on how they pick these companies, plus I think that most of us working in worst companies than those listed on Lowest-Rated tech companies.
The results are in line with other studies though. National Instruments, Google, and Apple all rank in the Fortune 100 best places to work every year. It's not surprising that they top this list as well.
Wow, NVIDIA is on the same list as Infosys, Nortel, and Perot Systems?
I find it hard to imagine that a company with such a great developer relations department (and a pretty strong stock price) would be so horrible to work at. I never heard any major complaints from my friends at post-merger ATI, and they were in a much tougher situation.
I covered another Glassdoor's list a few weeks back. Their methodology is based on averaging anonymous user-submitted reviews and scores. It's as scientific as zoning a district through Yelp.
For any company larger than 20 people, it matters more what group you are in than what company you enter. I've met miserable and extremely happy people from/at Google. If you end up as Peter Norvig's protege, I imagine it's pretty awesome. If you end up in the wrong group and you're not able to move, it probably sucks.
If you're under 35, stock performance and pay are not nearly as relevant as what you'll learn and the quality of people you'll work with, unless you hit an economic home run (e.g. enter the next Google on the ground floor).
[+] [-] dejv|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ARobotics|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gamble|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akamaka|16 years ago|reply
I find it hard to imagine that a company with such a great developer relations department (and a pretty strong stock price) would be so horrible to work at. I never heard any major complaints from my friends at post-merger ATI, and they were in a much tougher situation.
[+] [-] rmason|16 years ago|reply
Seeing as how Dell was acquiring Perot a wag suggested that it was a good culture fit between the company's ;<)
[+] [-] schemer|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alaskamiller|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwnstigator|16 years ago|reply
If you're under 35, stock performance and pay are not nearly as relevant as what you'll learn and the quality of people you'll work with, unless you hit an economic home run (e.g. enter the next Google on the ground floor).