3 ms·

The discussion I'm reading is absurd. Why has no one suggested a credential yet? Every other profession has it. It's insanely inefficient for our industry to be

by rafiki6 10y ago

The discussion I'm reading is absurd. Why has no one suggested a credential yet? Every other profession has it. It's insanely inefficient for our industry to behave like this. Software development and engineering is mature. We need candidates to build stuff not spend time reviewing cs101 or hours doing coding assignments

thr0waway1239 10y ago
Credentialing in software probably has a really short half life. I agree with the comment about how insanely inefficient it is though! I have this near conspiracy theory about why the interviewing process includes such ridiculous things as balancing red black trees. Like every other regulation/tax, the propagation of crazy ideas about interviewing practices is really self serving for the tech giants. In a large orgy of stupidity, companies which can neither afford the impedance of nor are particularly good at these CS type questions mimic the practices because they are probably trying to show that they have a high bar. Unfortunately, the multi-billion dollar companies can churn through the candidate selection process and waste more money in the process than many other companies' annual revenue. But I am sure they realize the halo effect of making a great deal of noise about this practice, because this is one of those strategies with very little downside and all kinds of unintended upside. If I were a recruiter at one of the top 10 companies, I would spend half my time creating fictitious accounts on various social platforms to ask about the CS question du jour at these interviews. It would be the equivalent of click fraud in tech job search. On a more serious note, I wonder if companies trying to hire these employees ever really do a cost analysis of the interview process itself? At what point does it stop making sense to "just wait till we get that truly exceptional candidate"?
- rafiki6 10y ago
  Really? Yet it seems that the "standard" CS101 interview is still pretty much the same. Unless you're talking strictly about credentialing for a specific language or framework which I would agree would be stupid. Also, as with other professions we can frequently update the credential to ensure it stays relevant. The IEEE has already created a software body of knowledge. There are fundamentals every software engineer should know that aren't the latest JavaScript framework.
GlennS 10y ago
Software development and engineering is mature? I would disagree strongly. I don't see any evidence that there is a particular established right way to develop software yet. We're still muddling around. I really worry that if someone tries to establish a software engineering system, then that someone will be unreasonably confident, and probably wedded to a particular method or process. Then we'll all be stuck having to prove we know UML (or the equivalent 2017 fad) inside-out in order to get a job. Anyway, isn't this what university degrees are supposed to be doing? Maybe we just need a more effective way to shame universities that graduate computer scientists who can't program?
- rafiki6 10y ago
  As with other professions, we can always create a "professional degree" that follows the standard 4 year degree. Similar to how medicine and law behave. Or how you basically have to spend the equivalent of a year studying to receive your CFA charter. Now further to your point about software not being mature, I'd say the evidence is clear. Software design patterns and languages are actually rather consistent. Software language paradigms are pretty much set. http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms Further, that standard commonly used algos and data structures that make a good design are established and basically a standard part of every modern language. What does seem to be rapidly changing is the framework du jour where for some reason we keep reinventing the wheel thinking that we are doing things better when in actuality we just keep creating competing frameworks that don't necessarily benefit anyone. I'm all for competition but eventually a clear winner is defined in a space and it might be better to contribute to improving that winner than not. Finally I'd say software is in a better place now than medicine was when it was about the same age. We are much more evidence driven (but still lots of opinions persist). And as with any other scientific discipline (because let's face it that's what software is) it will change with new literature so of course we should have a continuing education component. The reality is, the only party that doesn't benefit from having a credentialed software practitioner is companies because now they have their pick of the litter and can control prices. But if all of a sudden the barrier to entry to becoming a software engineer is high and only licensed practitioners can allow code to be released into the world, we become an expensive resource.

by rafiki6 10y ago

thr0waway1239 10y ago

Credentialing in software probably has a really short half life. I agree with the comment about how insanely inefficient it is though! I have this near conspiracy theory about why the interviewing process includes such ridiculous things as balancing red black trees. Like every other regulation/tax, the propagation of crazy ideas about interviewing practices is really self serving for the tech giants. In a large orgy of stupidity, companies which can neither afford the impedance of nor are particularly good at these CS type questions mimic the practices because they are probably trying to show that they have a high bar. Unfortunately, the multi-billion dollar companies can churn through the candidate selection process and waste more money in the process than many other companies' annual revenue. But I am sure they realize the halo effect of making a great deal of noise about this practice, because this is one of those strategies with very little downside and all kinds of unintended upside. If I were a recruiter at one of the top 10 companies, I would spend half my time creating fictitious accounts on various social platforms to ask about the CS question du jour at these interviews. It would be the equivalent of click fraud in tech job search. On a more serious note, I wonder if companies trying to hire these employees ever really do a cost analysis of the interview process itself? At what point does it stop making sense to "just wait till we get that truly exceptional candidate"?

rafiki6 10y ago
Really? Yet it seems that the "standard" CS101 interview is still pretty much the same. Unless you're talking strictly about credentialing for a specific language or framework which I would agree would be stupid. Also, as with other professions we can frequently update the credential to ensure it stays relevant. The IEEE has already created a software body of knowledge. There are fundamentals every software engineer should know that aren't the latest JavaScript framework.

GlennS 10y ago

Software development and engineering is mature? I would disagree strongly. I don't see any evidence that there is a particular established right way to develop software yet. We're still muddling around. I really worry that if someone tries to establish a software engineering system, then that someone will be unreasonably confident, and probably wedded to a particular method or process. Then we'll all be stuck having to prove we know UML (or the equivalent 2017 fad) inside-out in order to get a job. Anyway, isn't this what university degrees are supposed to be doing? Maybe we just need a more effective way to shame universities that graduate computer scientists who can't program?

rafiki6 10y ago
As with other professions, we can always create a "professional degree" that follows the standard 4 year degree. Similar to how medicine and law behave. Or how you basically have to spend the equivalent of a year studying to receive your CFA charter. Now further to your point about software not being mature, I'd say the evidence is clear. Software design patterns and languages are actually rather consistent. Software language paradigms are pretty much set. http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms Further, that standard commonly used algos and data structures that make a good design are established and basically a standard part of every modern language. What does seem to be rapidly changing is the framework du jour where for some reason we keep reinventing the wheel thinking that we are doing things better when in actuality we just keep creating competing frameworks that don't necessarily benefit anyone. I'm all for competition but eventually a clear winner is defined in a space and it might be better to contribute to improving that winner than not. Finally I'd say software is in a better place now than medicine was when it was about the same age. We are much more evidence driven (but still lots of opinions persist). And as with any other scientific discipline (because let's face it that's what software is) it will change with new literature so of course we should have a continuing education component. The reality is, the only party that doesn't benefit from having a credentialed software practitioner is companies because now they have their pick of the litter and can control prices. But if all of a sudden the barrier to entry to becoming a software engineer is high and only licensed practitioners can allow code to be released into the world, we become an expensive resource.