No, you shouldn't teach, but Apple doesn't necessarily sound like the right fit either. The issue with larger companies is mainly using the interview as an efficient screening mechanism, but it's always going to miss talent, such as interviewees in your situation. Have you thought about possibly a smaller / company? If technology is your passion and you have the skills, I would do everything in your power to show that you can work well with others, but just don't necessarily interview well.
Would love to hear some of your thoughts, especially since engagement tends to be an issue we've seen with patient-facing apps after a period of a few months. We're exploring what levels of engagement tend to work best with patients, especially as the length between provider visits increases. I'll be sending you an email and would love to discuss more / share some of our insights.
I can probably echo some similar thoughts that we heard when we talked with providers. I'm not tashfeens nor do I work for his company, but I run Varsa Health, a data analytics company for behavioral health providers. We "earned" the respect of clinicians to a certain degree by spending a lot of time (months) learning about their workflow before we started even writing code. My co-founder used to work on similar work in a research setting, so user experience was particularly important to us. I noticed you were working on Healthcare.gov - that's a massive undertaking and kudos to you for having the civic duty to help clean up the mess that it was. Would love to chat further about some of our lessons learned and share our experiences.
This is great to hear. We're in a similar position, working on a startup for mental health providers. We spent a solid three months focused on user experience above all else and involving clinicians, case managers, and other end-users in the design process. It's a shame that more startups don't seek this from the get-go, especially those wanting to seek some kind of clinical validity.
Fun fact: MUMPS predates C as a programming language. Sad that a company like that continues to do as well as it does, but then again it sells to admins, not doctors.
From one healthcare entrepreneur to another, congrats. It's difficult to clear that hurdle, especially with the two-sided approach of doctors and patients. What's been your biggest challenge with patient adherence / engagement?
Chicago health tech entrepreneur here: I have so much respect for 640 labs and the others a here that are actually solving real problems, rather than trying to be a copycat. Agriculture, healthcare, and manufacturing may not be sexy, but we have those strengths here, and Chicago should be promoting the successes in these areas more frequently.
As the son of a mother who gave up her full-time (and lucrative) career to raise her kids, I applaud you for having the courage to speak out on this. Witnessing how cousins of mine turned out (one parent was CEO of a major international firm, the other an accomplished investor), I will always remain indebted to my parents for making the choices they did.
Both women and men can have it all, but not everything at the same time. Best of luck in your new roles at MongoDB and with your family.
As someone whose done work on "human subjects" during grad school, this is also a fireable offense, even in some deeply protective places like academia, except that this is a private company and can vaguely claim user consent. As for how this would have played out in any other research setting: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-hav...
I just finished grad school and undergrad right before that (I lumped them together in 4 years; not to brag, this matters for what I'm about to say). I spent most of undergrad tempted by a few nibbles to take a gap semester or year and see what happens. The way I see it (and others on here may disagree with me), you should stay in school unless the golden opportunity comes along. Here's why: you are earning your education at one of the top schools in the world for EECS. You, provided you don't screw up, will have any number of opportunities post-graduation that others won't have, especially when it comes to startups. I graduated in 5 semesters from undergrad because I wanted to 1) go deeper into a technical background (undergrad in information systems / business - yes, I'm from "the dark side") during grad school
2) work for a startup
I chose to go to grad school, and along the way wound up working for a healthcare informatics startup. Great team, I trusted them a lot, even when they had a major product pivot. Last fall, I had to make the choice, wait for a spring offer to join them full time (yes, please and thank you) and reject other fall offers, or "play it safe." I took the handshake agreement and it wound up falling through. Am I pissed? Yes. Am I glad it happened? Well, I got a great learning lesson out of it, and am now doing my own startup in data analytics, commercializing a side project I did during grad school.
What I'm trying to get at is that yes, you will always regret the "what ifs?" However, be rational about the team, the product, and the vision, and the opportunity cost of putting your education on hold. Yes, you can always go back, but I've had friends do it, and it is hard(er). I'm happy to talk more about this or follow-up, since I know from semi-first-hand experience a bit of what you're going through. You have a lot of options on the table, but just look long-term and be true to yourself, more than anything else.
One can hope, and I would sincerely like to think that new markets within manufacturing or other "old" industries are going to emerge. Off-shoring isn't the cheap solution it once was. Then again, I tend to be very critical of the belief that other industries have "shortages": http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...
I'm curious to see if this only grows worse given the continued automation of industries like manufacturing that have traditionally been the backbone of the American middle class during the 20th century. Not so much that jobs won't be there, but they will require more advanced skills and less employees, thanks to "software eating the world."
Building the case for raising the minimum wage is an interesting one to be viewed objectively (not that it ever is), but I think it's also too early to tell with Seattle what the long-term outcomes are.
First things first, get an advisor. You need someone whose been down this road before to mentor you. Not to downplay your intelligence, but as I decided to launch a company this summer, I went through to all the individuals in my network that could at least give me advice when it came to operations, growth, product development, etc. Although it happens less, there are times where startups fail because they balloon too fast.
Have you raised a family and friends round? What amount of capital are you looking for? If you just launched 3 months ago, I'd say seed level, but I don't have enough specifics on what you need / burn rate to judge.
Depending on where you're based, I would look at getting in touch with some of the angel investing syndicates. Also, be realistic about the runway you're giving yourselves. My personal philosophy is to meet with investors in my network right at launch (not for money, but to alert them that I might be coming to them at some point). These relationships take time, and even an angel investment can take a month or more for due diligence. Expect Series A to take months longer.
Given that you're not currently in touch with angels, I would start identifying 1-2 groups in wherever you're based (I hope the answer is a larger metro area). Find out if you have a mutual contact. If not, and I hesitate to say this, but make a cold call to the angel / angel group. You don't have anything to lose.
As a fellow health-tech entrepreneur, it's refreshing to see the business press reporting on something more than just "Yo." I hope this kind of publicity continues. The industry needs it.
I'd be happy to talk more about that; right now, though, I've been working on the business model / user research for 4-5 months and just scored a decent partnership with the NIH yesterday (I'm doing behavioral health, where the competition is nascent to non-existent).
I've given myself a timeline to get an MVP and hit certain milestone; given that I've been in the health-tech community for a few years, there are a couple of influential people following the traction.
My problem has been coming from a background where full-stack development was never my thing (undergrad in business, M.S. in Library / Information Science). Sure, I can run some bayesian classifiers on a set of data, but my role in enterprises has always been product management / UX with dabbling in programming on an as-needed basis. Never enough to know the things I don't know.
This. I am sick and tired of hearing how nobody can get funding in Chicago. There are two problems: 1) most of their ideas suck, even by startup standards (and I've worked with enough startups to have somewhat of a standard). 2) The VCs want to see next-to-impossible business models / traction. I don't like the frothiness going on in other areas right now, but Chicago takes such little risk it's distburing.
Chicago lacks serial entrepreneurs and a true ecosystem. If you read the "results" section of our report, it goes in-depth. I just posted the thing to the HN homepage. We had to censor it for fear of political push-back (it was a very real risk from some very powerful people). I'm happy to share more in person.
Edit: I'm the co-author on this, and am happy to answer questions, since even in the report, we had to censor things for political reasons.
As someone trying to do a startup in the health-tech space, it's disappointing to see the "Me-Too" atmosphere in the Midwest. I wish I could find some technical people who felt the same way.