4 ms·

I don't think those things need to be reconciled. Not everyone hires the top 1%, only those that can afford it. And how many people consider themselves in the

I don't think those things need to be reconciled. Not everyone hires the top 1%, only those that can afford it. And how many people consider themselves in the top 1%, anyway? Do you? I don't. The hubris of the idea of the 1%. That's what the hedge funds tell themselves when they put you through an 8 hour-long interview where you're asked to code sorting algorithms on a whiteboard. That they're seeking out that 1%. Larry Wall and Bjarne Stroupstrup? Okay, 1%. 25 year old comp-sci / top of class engineer student? I don't know, possibly? Okay, putting aside the snide remarks: 1% selection is not scientific, as we all know from hiring interview experiences. And moreover, are the people making the most money doing it writing software, or are they somewhere else in the IT company? But to answer you, why shouldn't kids learn coding, it's one more notch on the belt. Takeaway: people have different interests, inclinations, talents and thoughts. For a young kid, you teach them the basics, you see what sticks. No reason why coding can't be taught young, even if it's part of a math curriculum. To be honest with you, I sucked in math, but perhaps if I had math in the context of a computer program, it wouldn't have been so bad. Teach people coding. Also teach them to read the classics, do pullups, cook, what happened in the past, how old the rocks in the Earth are, what's in the oceans, what's outside of Earth's atmosphere, and everything else that we feel is important for a human being - not a future worker - to learn.

michaelchisari 10y ago
It's not about the companies that actually hire the 1%, it's a matter of how many companies claim to hire the 1%. And more importantly, how come those who claim to hire the 1% never pay anywhere near what might be considered 1% salaries? I've had small startups talk highly of how they only hire the best, the 1%, the 10xers, etc., then put me through five or six interviews, including the ever-so-common 8 hour white board algorithm test, only to make an offer only marginally higher than I could make as a highly skilled blue collar tradesman. It's fine if a very select few companies with lots of money decide to have insanely high standards. The problem is when the industry thinks they all deserve to emulate those companies hiring processes.
- kooshball 10y ago
  There are certainly places that will pay top dollars to hire the absolute top talent, think Putnam or acm winners. It just won't be a startup. It should be obvious why: startups don't have the capital or need to hire absolute best. It will more likely be a hedge fund. As a whole these startups with ridiculous expectations will have to face reality or suffer the consequences of slow hiring. They will lose in the long run.
  - michaelchisari 10y ago
    Most likely they will. Maybe they won't, because part of the process is a certain indoctrination that their employees are more than just talented or clever, but are actually special. And you can convince an employee of a lot of things if you start by convincing them that they're special. Mostly, though, I worry about the ripple effect that's been on the industry. I have friends who are in the medical field, dealing directly with surgeries, childbirth, life-saving (or potentially ending) drugs, and they're taken aback by the kind of interview requirements that so many tech companies have. A Nurse Practitioner can get a job in an ER in a heartbeat, but a front-end developer building React components needs a collective two full days of interviews? Something about that just doesn't make sense to me.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      A big difference is the amount of formal certification. A diploma from a med school and associated residency is sufficient to expect that the person knows their speciality and is able to treat people from day one. A CS diploma and related working experience is some indication, but (sadly) often doesn't ensure that the candidate is able to code their way out of a wet paper bag and will be able to perform reasonably well (not 10x well but 1x or even 80%) after a month or two of on-site adaptation. Our industry, unlike many others, doesn't have a good (centralized?) way to approve qualifications, so each company has to verify on their own, which takes quite a lot of time and expense.
      - michaelchisari 10y ago

michaelchisari 10y ago

It's not about the companies that actually hire the 1%, it's a matter of how many companies claim to hire the 1%. And more importantly, how come those who claim to hire the 1% never pay anywhere near what might be considered 1% salaries? I've had small startups talk highly of how they only hire the best, the 1%, the 10xers, etc., then put me through five or six interviews, including the ever-so-common 8 hour white board algorithm test, only to make an offer only marginally higher than I could make as a highly skilled blue collar tradesman. It's fine if a very select few companies with lots of money decide to have insanely high standards. The problem is when the industry thinks they all deserve to emulate those companies hiring processes.

kooshball 10y ago
There are certainly places that will pay top dollars to hire the absolute top talent, think Putnam or acm winners. It just won't be a startup. It should be obvious why: startups don't have the capital or need to hire absolute best. It will more likely be a hedge fund. As a whole these startups with ridiculous expectations will have to face reality or suffer the consequences of slow hiring. They will lose in the long run.
- michaelchisari 10y ago
  Most likely they will. Maybe they won't, because part of the process is a certain indoctrination that their employees are more than just talented or clever, but are actually special. And you can convince an employee of a lot of things if you start by convincing them that they're special. Mostly, though, I worry about the ripple effect that's been on the industry. I have friends who are in the medical field, dealing directly with surgeries, childbirth, life-saving (or potentially ending) drugs, and they're taken aback by the kind of interview requirements that so many tech companies have. A Nurse Practitioner can get a job in an ER in a heartbeat, but a front-end developer building React components needs a collective two full days of interviews? Something about that just doesn't make sense to me.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    A big difference is the amount of formal certification. A diploma from a med school and associated residency is sufficient to expect that the person knows their speciality and is able to treat people from day one. A CS diploma and related working experience is some indication, but (sadly) often doesn't ensure that the candidate is able to code their way out of a wet paper bag and will be able to perform reasonably well (not 10x well but 1x or even 80%) after a month or two of on-site adaptation. Our industry, unlike many others, doesn't have a good (centralized?) way to approve qualifications, so each company has to verify on their own, which takes quite a lot of time and expense.
    - michaelchisari 10y ago