4 ms·
"People who have a master’s degree in CS but seemingly can’t code their way out of a paper bag probably actually aren’t bad; more likely they had an education w
by gfodor 11y ago
"People who have a master’s degree in CS but seemingly can’t code their way out of a paper bag probably actually aren’t bad; more likely they had an education which de-emphasized practical hands-on programming in favor of heavy theory. People who post “please give me the code” questions on mailing lists and forums probably actually aren’t bad; more likely they had an education which was based around memorizing and regurgitating stock answers to stock questions."
What does this even mean? When someone lacks a certain skill, they aren't "bad" in some objective sense, they are misqualified for the job. If someone can't code their way out of a paper bag, should we be hiring them anyway for a programming position because they're not "bad"? What's the point of the interview in the first place? I don't understand the argument.
To the other points, I completely agree there are many ways to screw up interviews and few ways to get them right. I'm still a believer that an interviewer who administers a coding question, one that is reasonably realistic, in both form and the environment the candidate has (ie they have their own laptop) can be a good way to assess someone's skills if you are doing it right. You let them work, let it be a humane environment, and don't get too hung up on the details. Usually if someone can hack it bleeds through pretty clearly, even if they don't get to the exact solution you wanted. (And of course, this is just one data point, that should be distilled into a larger picture of the person's history, accomplishments, etc.)
- supercanuck 11y agoI'm just kind of flabbergasted that someone with 6 years of matriculation from Computer Science Program has resulted in the equivalent of a truck driver spending four weeks on Code Academy. It just doesn't jive... >I have a philosophy degree, by the way. Not to be smug about it, but several very good people I know and respect in the software field came to it from that background. Ahh... now it makes sense...
- mrep 11y agoI believe he is referring to people who got there bachelors in a different major, and then got their masters in CS.
- ubernostrum 11y agoFor much the same reason that someone who has no CS background can productively do a short coding bootcamp and be employable, someone who has a theory-heavy and practice-light CS background can almost certainly pick up practical skills quickly. It's more of an educated vs. educable thing, and anyone who's demonstrated that they're educable is probably worth at least looking into a bit more even if they don't come with the full practical skillset already. (and I say this, ironically, as a lifelong opponent of theory-heavy CS programs which churn out people who can derive an answer to your question straight from the Church-Turing thesis but couldn't code it up to save their lives)
- morgante 11y ago> For much the same reason that someone who has no CS background can productively do a short coding bootcamp and be employable, someone who has a theory-heavy and practice-light CS background can almost certainly pick up practical skills quickly. I don't think they're equivalent at all. The truck driver simply never had the opportunity or exposure to programming. He didn't know what it was like and hence couldn't do it. The theory student did have exposure but was either incapable or uninterested in pursuing it. Even in the most theory-heavy of programs, you program a little. The kids who actually understand and like the programming aspect latch onto it and continue to learn and grow, ending up employable. The kids who, having been exposed to programming and realized that it's not for them, never learn any more and continue to flail around in masters programs teaching mathematics in the guise of CS.
- berntb 11y agoSome people just can't learn the programming part. I studied (and helped with labs a few times) two of these. Mathematics and theory was fine, but the rest not. Weird, I wouldn't have believed it was possible after years of university, if I hadn't seen it. One became a teacher, I don't know about the other. He might have become a quite good entrepreneur. Seriously. The point is, it is possible one of these are the next person with a theory heavy background you interview... (But ok, we all know that too well even with little experience of hiring. :-( )