34 ms·

In software, qualification and even experience does not correlate with ability. If you have a newly qualified accountant, doctor, architecture it is assumed th

In software, qualification and even experience does not correlate with ability. If you have a newly qualified accountant, doctor, architecture it is assumed they are at least competent to some basic standard (and it is expected there competence increases with age + experience). This is NOT the case with software, it's possible to be a software engineer with 10+ years experience and still be terrible. My own experience is that I don't test well, and this has made it terribly difficult for me to get jobs. I have two startups behind me yet it's made almost no difference.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>This is NOT the case with software, it's possible to be a software engineer with 10+ years experience and still be terrible. Unfortunately most companies don't select for good software developers and neither do most software developers (ask people what their favorite kind of interview test/question is and you'll rarely actually get a good answer but you will often get a confident one). Most companies don't reward being a good software developer either. Management mostly just don't know what it is you do and have no idea how good you are. Thus they just default to pretending that you're a disposable cog even when that behavior is self-destructive. At best they'll make use of some poor proxies (degree class, university, popularity of the OSS project you contributed a one line fix to, their personal "gotcha" question, etc.). Is it any surprise that people don't improve? With some exceptions, there really is no point.
anjc 11y ago
> If you have a newly qualified accountant, doctor, architecture it is assumed they are at least competent to some basic standard... Agreed, and this just compounds my confusion. Why are 22 year old science grads treated differently to 22 year old computer science grads from the same university :S
rjtavares 11y ago
> In software, qualification and even experience does not correlate with ability. > If you have a newly qualified accountant, doctor, architecture it is assumed they are at least competent to some basic standard (and it is expected there competence increases with age + experience). > This is NOT the case with software, it's possible to be a software engineer with 10+ years experience and still be terrible. Having known my fair share of software engineers, accountants and doctors, I can guarantee you that they are not that different. In every case some less experienced people are better than some more experienced people, and in every case some people dedicate part of their free time to their area: while some software engineers spend time in OSS and blog posts, some accountants read all the new legislation and participate in conferences, and some doctors read a lot of scientific papers and give lectures. And yes, software engineers also read stuff and give lectures. But the amount of reading required by CS is a lot less intensive than accounting or medicine.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>This is NOT the case with software, it's possible to be a software engineer with 10+ years experience and still be terrible. Unfortunately most companies don't select for good software developers and neither do most software developers (ask people what their favorite kind of interview test/question is and you'll rarely actually get a good answer but you will often get a confident one). Most companies don't reward being a good software developer either. Management mostly just don't know what it is you do and have no idea how good you are. Thus they just default to pretending that you're a disposable cog even when that behavior is self-destructive. At best they'll make use of some poor proxies (degree class, university, popularity of the OSS project you contributed a one line fix to, their personal "gotcha" question, etc.). Is it any surprise that people don't improve? With some exceptions, there really is no point.

anjc 11y ago

> If you have a newly qualified accountant, doctor, architecture it is assumed they are at least competent to some basic standard... Agreed, and this just compounds my confusion. Why are 22 year old science grads treated differently to 22 year old computer science grads from the same university :S

rjtavares 11y ago

> In software, qualification and even experience does not correlate with ability. > If you have a newly qualified accountant, doctor, architecture it is assumed they are at least competent to some basic standard (and it is expected there competence increases with age + experience). > This is NOT the case with software, it's possible to be a software engineer with 10+ years experience and still be terrible. Having known my fair share of software engineers, accountants and doctors, I can guarantee you that they are not that different. In every case some less experienced people are better than some more experienced people, and in every case some people dedicate part of their free time to their area: while some software engineers spend time in OSS and blog posts, some accountants read all the new legislation and participate in conferences, and some doctors read a lot of scientific papers and give lectures. And yes, software engineers also read stuff and give lectures. But the amount of reading required by CS is a lot less intensive than accounting or medicine.