There is a multi-dimensional spectrum and trade-off between technical-debt, scale, speed, and development ease.

Very roughly speaking,

School/UniHackathonsEarly StartupsScale upsIndustry
team sizeOften 1, 1-41-42-10 (the small team size is becoming more viable atm)30-100100>
longevity of teamweekscouple days - couple monyearshalf a decade>half a decade
users (consumer app)00-100100-10k’s100’s of thousandsmillions
engineering practicesnone (💩), no one knows what this isenough to collaborate (hackers often aren’t bothered/different ways of doing things)basics are there (depends on engineering experience)basics V2 establishedadvanced to the point new joiners suffer. can be outdated.
documentation0, or enough for assessment requirementsenough to submit the projectnon-standardised starting outstandardisedoverwhelming and often varying maintanability
CI/CD😂basic core pipelines if hackers skilledbasic core pipelinesbasic core + nice-to-have pipelinesmultiple pipelines with varying patterns
testing😂no time for that. manual.basic test suitetest suite standardisedmultiple testing practices - often rigorous
tech-debt0lowhighmed-highv.high
tech-debt rate of changemassivehigh (it just needs to work)medlow-medhigh (from organisation scale and any restructuring)
release speedfastv. fastfastfastslow
ability to respond to changevariesv.highhighhighlow

(note: industry here is a broad term, I’m thinking less of FAANG quality engineering here)

The key differences between each context arise from the expected longevity of each context and the amount of foresight sustained throughout its lifetime.

It’s extremely challenging to create the ‘best’ for all characteristics in a context due to the trade-offs. The ‘best’ is also subjective.

One of way to get a sense of the difference is to read the ToC of “Software Engineering at Google” https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/toc.html It gives a sense of the level of engineering reached at an established leading tech giant.