How brave to step out on a limb and write an article defending something that is actually really trendy right now.
My next thought leadership piece: "In Defense of Working at Google."
Though the comments section is an ironic place to snark about bravery, my response to the meat of your comment is: I haven't observed in-house roles as a "trend" in the industry. I imagine you're talking about "Product Design", which is a distinction I made in the article, though the line between the two is admittedly fuzzy.
How brave to step out on a limb with an acerbic comment that contributes nothing to the conversation.
Much like the professor in the second paragraph, many design professionals do consider an in-house job limiting one's aspirations. This article is not defending trendy positions that exist at companies like Google. Fact is, those jobs few and far between, and very few designers will ever actually have one of those hip jobs.
It seems the author was merely trying to convey her experience working in-house and maybe dispel the notion that taking an in-house position (again, not Google) is failure or the death knell of your career and creativity.
Seems like an article from 5-6 years ago. 'In-House' is pretty in right now, more so than agency for sure. When you consider that people working for Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber, Air BnB, Spotify, Palantir, Invision, Adobe (the list goes on and on) are technically 'in-house', it kinda makes this whole post a bit pointless.
That said, it's always nice to read other people’s experiences - but it's harking back to the days of 'client side' vs 'agency side', it doesn’t really have a place in a world where large companies are making big investments in building world class design teams.