Study.com Reviews

Cons

Only get to work from home 2 days a week.

Cons

The work I have to do here required a lot of effort, yet the pay I get doesn't even come close to covering the cost of living in the area. I'm even forced to take on other roles outside of my usual responsibilities, but I'm not even compensated for the extra work. No matter how hard I try, I'm never given a raise, promotion, or just rewarded in general for my hard work, yet, management constantly reward their favorite employees.

Cons

1. pay for this role is between 50,000-62,500 in 2023 in Silicon Valley. Requires employees to come into office 3 days/week. 2. content generalists are paid in the 10th percentile nationally 3. managers insist on talking to every week but have zero power to advocate for you or promote you. every single decision is made based on "visibility" from the CEO. None of it is performance based. In fact, we do not have true performance reviews. 4. job description is inaccurate. asked to do wayyyyyy more for zero recognition, role change, or compensation adjustment 5. attrition rate is insane. we lost 1/2 of the department in the past 6 months.... this includes a director, managers, project leads and multiple generalists 6. Study.com used to be called "Remilon". Look that up on glassdoor, you will see that people had the exact same complaints in 2012. Leadership is unwilling to receive feedback of any kind, unlikely to change

Cons

Some of the expectations and outlines are unclear. Communication is lacking because of the size of the projects.

Cons

The salary is incredibly low and not enough to cover cost of living in the Bay Area. Leadership firmly believes that these low content salaries are more than fair. They don’t understand or value the highly complex and technical work that the content team does everyday. We’re consistently asked to go above and beyond our role responsibilities, with no additional pay. The raises are also very low, about 1-2% per year at most. There is no salary advancement here and little opportunity for promotion. Even if you manage to get a promotion (very rare) your salary does not increase by any meaningful amount. The company culture was once great, but has gone significantly down hill since it was discovered that most people in the content department were being underpaid per California labor laws for exempt employees. The way that HR and leadership handled the situation was disrespectful and destroyed morale. The CEO of the company has yet to acknowledge the issue. Lastly, there little to no diversity in the company and no plans to address this.

Cons

HR department is deeply flawed starting from the top down. They are not only incompetent, but also seriously unprofessional. This is a large contributor to a high attrition rate. In general, they are largely unwilling to communicate. Communication as a whole is bad at this company as well. Growth opportunities are few and far between - and are almost entirely based on favoritism. Content Department is paid well below a living wage, and leadership does not have a clear understanding of the work required in the department or what competitors are paying for the same work.

Cons

For some positions, the company can be on the lower end of the pay scale. The company is experiencing some of the normal growing pains of a fast-growing company - e.g. a little behind on good HR processes, communicating changes in policy, etc

Cons

Upper management and HR are very difficult to deal with. Raises, bonuses, and promotions are hard if not near impossible to come by unless you are lucky enough to be their favorite. When I was brought on, I was told that growth at the company is like a rock climbing wall instead of a ladder. During my time, I felt like I consistently made lateral moves and there were few opportunities to get a promotion or a sizable raise. Raises from what I've seen were 2-5% a year which did not account for inflation at all. Very few people are rewarded for their hard work and when they are, it is because they've learned skills that are so far removed from the work that is meant for the role. HR is difficult to communicate with and it didn't feel safe talking to them. While this is pretty common at most companies, it somehow felt worse here. It's a shame because the entire Content Dept itself is full of great people, but there was little support from HR. The Content Generalist title means very little. The work is very administrative and repetitive in managing contractors. The rest of the company does not understand the importance of the role. This job is commonly for teachers who have never worked in tech prior and while there are some times to actually apply education knowledge, it's not very likely that they get to really showcase their skills from their time as an educator. There is a clear divide in the treatment of more technical jobs at the company and Content. This is clearly seen in the difference in salary especially with their current job posts. The operational skills necessary for the work are not reflected in the salary at all. With people making as low as ~$50k for working the same number of hours and doing managerial work, attrition has seemed inevitable for the company. The interview process isn't accurate to reflect the work done in the day-to-day. Tech provided is spotty. Some people had computers that were several years old and didn't work properly which would impact performance.

Cons

Hardly any work available. Too many emplyoees with same job description.

Cons

no profit sharing, relatively low salary