5 ms·

Interesting… Why do you expect that a Ph.D. would necessarily be an above average coder?

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Initially, before interviewing anyone, I kinda assumed a PhD candidate would be on par with other developers as far as coding goes (so not above average but also not below). But in my, only anecdotal experience, I actually haven't interviewed one yet who can do basic coding. That isn't saying PhD holders can't code or that even the majority can't code; only that those few experiences started to shape my own bias going into an interview viewing them as already negative. Like any person I have biases but I feel like I did well not to let them affect the course of the interview and ultimate outcome it was just a feeling shaped by my limited experiences.
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  I think your conception of a Ph.D. is off by quite a bit. Outside of their dissertation topic I'd expect a Ph.D. to be on par with an undergraduate, from the time period they graduated. You also said that you're hiring for an engineering position, but you seem to only care about coding. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by engineering, but I'm under the impression that there's a lot more to engineering than any single skill, even by the loose SV definition. How do your Ph.D. applicants do outside of coding?
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    > I think your conception of a Ph.D. is off by quite a bit. Outside of their dissertation topic I'd expect a Ph.D. to be on par with an undergraduate, from the time period they graduated. Maybe? Maybe not? I've had very mixed experienced in interviewing folks where some had zero college and could code amazingly, great at solving problems, etc and I've had the exact opposite. I'm not convinced school education is any type of [significant] indicator for coding and problem solving at this point. At least this is what's happened in my own experience hiring. Not sure if there are any good studies done in coding proficiency and problem solving versus education (though I could see those being hard to measure well). > You also said that you're hiring for an engineering position, but you seem to only care about coding. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by engineering, but I'm under the impression that there's a lot more to engineering than any single skill, even by the loose SV definition. How do your Ph.D. applicants do outside of coding? Well, software engineering involves reading and writing code so that's a huge part of it with the other part being problem solving. Really the problem solving is the most important part, the rest can be taught with time. But essentially we had some very, very basic coding questions (not even trick questions) just to get an idea where the person was as far as their ability to write code. We didn't care what language(s) they knew (they could pick) as long as they could demonstrate some basic knowledge of coding and then problem solving. Since we were hiring for software engineers, if a candidate couldn't write code in any language they were simply not moved to the other interviews. Not much we can really do there.
    - OopsCriticality 11y ago
      Speaking as a Ph.D. (not software or computer anything but traditional engineering), I think you're conception of what a Ph.D. signifies is very wrong, and it's leading you to improperly value what advanced academic training is worth. Software engineering encompasses the SDLC, which includes a lot more than coding. What about documentation, quality control, or formal methods? There's many roles that I would expect a Ph.D. to be likely to perform well in, more so than someone self-taught. Seems like you're ignoring the bigger picture.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        I think we programmers tend to see coding as akin to reading, if you can't code you don't even get the chance to get into other stuff because you're missing the most basic skill of software engineering, the ability to make a computer do what you want it to do. No one interviews for "software engineer" and wants someone who can barely code, writing code is virtually always the number one requirement of the job. If fact when I hire, I require a small programming project be completed (simple, save some objects to a file and read them back out passing this unit test), that is the resume, if you can't code I won't even look at any other credentials. Rookie programmers with only a few years experience often do far better at this task than people claiming a decade of experience. The most experienced people often completely fail the test.
      - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        > I think you're conception of what a Ph.D. signifies is very wrong, and it's leading you to improperly value what advanced academic training is worth. The job requires being able to develop software. Candidate, who holds PhD, cannot develop software despite being a CS grad. This isn't charity; what would you prefer I do when I get such a candidate? I saw two PhD holders like this which, yeah, could be a HUGE minority but I'm being honest about how anecdotes can create bias and I also mentioned that I felt I did a great job not using my bias against them (we all have bias, remember). Not knowing the language we use in house? Not a big deal. But if you can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of code structure in any language I'm sorry but I do not have the budget to educate you. I wish I did sometimes; someone who has awesome problem solving skills could be an amazing developer. > What about documentation, quality control, or formal methods? No offense but when shit hits the fan, none of those matter. At all. Unfortunately. Plus I think it's good when you make developers think about and do as much of the documentation of their own code as possible. Sometimes seeing it on paper can make you realize "hey, this is too complex to call; I think I can simplify!". At least in my experience anyway. QA / QC, yeah separate group is idea but rarely doable depending on your industry. > Seems like you're ignoring the bigger picture. Again, business is not a charity. Big businesses or academic arenas can afford more things but start-ups / small companies? Anything that isn't moving the product out the door gets slowly trimmed away as margins get leaner. It's far worst in the government contracting space where you're legally allowed to only have a certain amount of margin.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I think your conception of a Ph.D. is off by quite a bit. Outside of their dissertation topic I'd expect a Ph.D. to be on par with an undergraduate, from the time period they graduated. Aside from dissertation research, my understanding was that Ph.D programs usually include substantial graduate level coursework in the degree area (at least equivalent to or expressly including, Master's degree level work), so they should both have greater currency and greater education, even outside the specific narrow focus of their dissertation, than an undergraduate. The degree to which this is job-relevant, of course, may vary.

Initially, before interviewing anyone, I kinda assumed a PhD candidate would be on par with other developers as far as coding goes (so not above average but also not below). But in my, only anecdotal experience, I actually haven't interviewed one yet who can do basic coding. That isn't saying PhD holders can't code or that even the majority can't code; only that those few experiences started to shape my own bias going into an interview viewing them as already negative. Like any person I have biases but I feel like I did well not to let them affect the course of the interview and ultimate outcome it was just a feeling shaped by my limited experiences.

OopsCriticality 11y ago
I think your conception of a Ph.D. is off by quite a bit. Outside of their dissertation topic I'd expect a Ph.D. to be on par with an undergraduate, from the time period they graduated. You also said that you're hiring for an engineering position, but you seem to only care about coding. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by engineering, but I'm under the impression that there's a lot more to engineering than any single skill, even by the loose SV definition. How do your Ph.D. applicants do outside of coding?
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > I think your conception of a Ph.D. is off by quite a bit. Outside of their dissertation topic I'd expect a Ph.D. to be on par with an undergraduate, from the time period they graduated. Maybe? Maybe not? I've had very mixed experienced in interviewing folks where some had zero college and could code amazingly, great at solving problems, etc and I've had the exact opposite. I'm not convinced school education is any type of [significant] indicator for coding and problem solving at this point. At least this is what's happened in my own experience hiring. Not sure if there are any good studies done in coding proficiency and problem solving versus education (though I could see those being hard to measure well). > You also said that you're hiring for an engineering position, but you seem to only care about coding. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by engineering, but I'm under the impression that there's a lot more to engineering than any single skill, even by the loose SV definition. How do your Ph.D. applicants do outside of coding? Well, software engineering involves reading and writing code so that's a huge part of it with the other part being problem solving. Really the problem solving is the most important part, the rest can be taught with time. But essentially we had some very, very basic coding questions (not even trick questions) just to get an idea where the person was as far as their ability to write code. We didn't care what language(s) they knew (they could pick) as long as they could demonstrate some basic knowledge of coding and then problem solving. Since we were hiring for software engineers, if a candidate couldn't write code in any language they were simply not moved to the other interviews. Not much we can really do there.
  - OopsCriticality 11y ago
    Speaking as a Ph.D. (not software or computer anything but traditional engineering), I think you're conception of what a Ph.D. signifies is very wrong, and it's leading you to improperly value what advanced academic training is worth. Software engineering encompasses the SDLC, which includes a lot more than coding. What about documentation, quality control, or formal methods? There's many roles that I would expect a Ph.D. to be likely to perform well in, more so than someone self-taught. Seems like you're ignoring the bigger picture.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      I think we programmers tend to see coding as akin to reading, if you can't code you don't even get the chance to get into other stuff because you're missing the most basic skill of software engineering, the ability to make a computer do what you want it to do. No one interviews for "software engineer" and wants someone who can barely code, writing code is virtually always the number one requirement of the job. If fact when I hire, I require a small programming project be completed (simple, save some objects to a file and read them back out passing this unit test), that is the resume, if you can't code I won't even look at any other credentials. Rookie programmers with only a few years experience often do far better at this task than people claiming a decade of experience. The most experienced people often completely fail the test.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      > I think you're conception of what a Ph.D. signifies is very wrong, and it's leading you to improperly value what advanced academic training is worth. The job requires being able to develop software. Candidate, who holds PhD, cannot develop software despite being a CS grad. This isn't charity; what would you prefer I do when I get such a candidate? I saw two PhD holders like this which, yeah, could be a HUGE minority but I'm being honest about how anecdotes can create bias and I also mentioned that I felt I did a great job not using my bias against them (we all have bias, remember). Not knowing the language we use in house? Not a big deal. But if you can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of code structure in any language I'm sorry but I do not have the budget to educate you. I wish I did sometimes; someone who has awesome problem solving skills could be an amazing developer. > What about documentation, quality control, or formal methods? No offense but when shit hits the fan, none of those matter. At all. Unfortunately. Plus I think it's good when you make developers think about and do as much of the documentation of their own code as possible. Sometimes seeing it on paper can make you realize "hey, this is too complex to call; I think I can simplify!". At least in my experience anyway. QA / QC, yeah separate group is idea but rarely doable depending on your industry. > Seems like you're ignoring the bigger picture. Again, business is not a charity. Big businesses or academic arenas can afford more things but start-ups / small companies? Anything that isn't moving the product out the door gets slowly trimmed away as margins get leaner. It's far worst in the government contracting space where you're legally allowed to only have a certain amount of margin.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I think your conception of a Ph.D. is off by quite a bit. Outside of their dissertation topic I'd expect a Ph.D. to be on par with an undergraduate, from the time period they graduated. Aside from dissertation research, my understanding was that Ph.D programs usually include substantial graduate level coursework in the degree area (at least equivalent to or expressly including, Master's degree level work), so they should both have greater currency and greater education, even outside the specific narrow focus of their dissertation, than an undergraduate. The degree to which this is job-relevant, of course, may vary.