5 ms·

> you can thank the cheaters and fakers, and the fact that our industry doesn't have the will to root them out. Isn't this in every industry? You don't apply

> you can thank the cheaters and fakers, and the fact that our industry doesn't have the will to root them out. Isn't this in every industry? You don't apply for the job you are most qualified for, you shoot for the next level job, the job that pays better, looks better, but stretches your expertise.

michaelt 9y ago
Isn't this in every industry? Many professions have professional institutions which act as gatekeepers and audit the quality of university courses. For example, in the UK to become an architect you must become a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which requires a degree, a certain amount of postgraduate training, and a certain amount of experience working under an already-qualified architect. Needless to say, this means you can't drop out of university to found an architecture startup! And these organisations often have the side effect of influencing wages (and industry reforms) due to their control on the supply of workers. People on programmer forums don't seem to like the idea of this sort of thing much. Better for my ego to believe I'm a unique genius due to my own efforts and inherent superiority; than to believe I'm a replaceable cog stamped out by a university production line!
- abalashov 9y ago
  And all those gatekeepers introduce significant economic inefficiencies while often failing to control adequately for quality. Part of the problem is that programming is far too diverse a field. The only common denominator that could be reasonably certified by a gatekeeper/professional guild would consist of theoretical grounding in software engineering and computing concepts that typically comes with a CS degree. Yet, as all programmers are aware, people who have managed to jump through that hoop do not necessarily programming skills possess and do not necessarily good programmers make, while there are plenty of self-educated types who have managed in lieu of the formalities. That's not to say that the field might not benefit from some professionalisation, just that there is an argument to be made that it is qualitatively different from civil engineering, medicine, aviation, architecture, accountancy and the like, if for no other reason than that the technology and skill requirements shift at a bewildering clip in rolling releases across 3-5 year time frames. That sort of thing is anathema to the slow, bureaucratic pace of guilding or regulation.
  - geebee 9y ago
    I don't see this as such a problem. For instance, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, numerical analysis, and so forth, are only a small part of what makes a good actuary. But they have a formal exam that you need to pass in these areas in order to be an actuary. They don't quiz new candidates with 10+ years experience on integration by parts during a job interview. Because we lack even a basic exam in software development, we have to do data structures and algorithms over and over in interviews. I'd be more than OK with setting up a basic exam for what we can cover. I'd much rather take these exams with some assurances that it will be graded consistently and fairly, cover the proper material, and will lead to a lasting credential respected in industry. I wouldn't mind this even if it involved substantial effort and studying on my part, because I'd know what I was studying for and why. Hey, maybe it means my next software job interview won't have to involve weeks of studying followed by 5+ hours solving tree traversal problems at a whiteboard.
    - abalashov 9y ago
      That's a very fair argument. I still think there'd be far too much contention over just what is to be included in the corpus of essential knowledge. Everyone seems to agree that data structures, algorithms and systems fundamentals seem appealing, but just which ones depends greatly on whether you're doing embedded PLCs for fuel injectors or whether you're doing React. I've been programming since I was 9, for most of that time in C. Yet I'd be very hard-pressed to tell you how exactly CPU instructions work, and have never touched anything "closer to the metal" than C. Should this disqualify me from the profession?
      - geebee 9y ago
        Almost nobody I know would say it should disqualify you from the profession, but I can see why you're nervous about this. After all, law now generally requires a $150k+ degree and three years of your life. Plenty of people, including Obama, believe that it should be at least shortened. But once entrenched, it's very tempting for gatekeepers to install expensive and lengthy credentialing procedures. So overall, I think there's a good way to do this, and I do think that software development could be a better profession with some credentialing, provided it was done sparingly and properly (a huge "if", I must admit). I'd like to see this happen along the lines of the actuarial field, with exams rather than required degrees, largely because I think people should be free to acquire the knowledge at a pace that suits them. If you want to major in math, or physics, or something else, and "read for" the exams (to quote an old law practice), you should be allowed to. If we had something like this, it might benefit our field immensely. It would be a huge improvement over the capricious, opaque, and arbitrary informal exam taking we do over and over every time we interview. But... I can't possibly pretend I don't understand your concerns. I personally was a math major and I got a MS in Industrial Engineering. I never did major in CS, I certainly didn't study "Software Engineering." I am also willing to openly question the value of test-driven development. There are plenty of people who think one or the other or both should disqualify me from the profession, and the idea of empowering them with the force of law (ie., the power to fine or imprison me for developing without the background and methodology they've decided is acceptable) is pretty chilling. That would be much worse than what we have right now.
- orthoganol 9y ago
  > Better for my ego to believe I'm a unique genius due to my own efforts and inherent superiority; than to believe I'm a replaceable cog Other than your own projection going on in the first part, I'm not sure what you're actually saying. The fact there are not gatekeepers makes us more replaceable - some guy can take a bootcamp, work on some projects, and bam, he's competition. Programmers are acutely aware of this, and are constantly leveling up as a consequence. (And on that note, if there were gatekeepers, we'd probably be a lot more stagnant as an industry). Also, I mean, common sense, it's constantly changing what tech and abilities companies require, so how is a gatekeeper system even going to work. I've gone from Rails to JS to TensorFlow, professionally, all in the last 3 years.

michaelt 9y ago

Isn't this in every industry? Many professions have professional institutions which act as gatekeepers and audit the quality of university courses. For example, in the UK to become an architect you must become a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which requires a degree, a certain amount of postgraduate training, and a certain amount of experience working under an already-qualified architect. Needless to say, this means you can't drop out of university to found an architecture startup! And these organisations often have the side effect of influencing wages (and industry reforms) due to their control on the supply of workers. People on programmer forums don't seem to like the idea of this sort of thing much. Better for my ego to believe I'm a unique genius due to my own efforts and inherent superiority; than to believe I'm a replaceable cog stamped out by a university production line!

abalashov 9y ago
And all those gatekeepers introduce significant economic inefficiencies while often failing to control adequately for quality. Part of the problem is that programming is far too diverse a field. The only common denominator that could be reasonably certified by a gatekeeper/professional guild would consist of theoretical grounding in software engineering and computing concepts that typically comes with a CS degree. Yet, as all programmers are aware, people who have managed to jump through that hoop do not necessarily programming skills possess and do not necessarily good programmers make, while there are plenty of self-educated types who have managed in lieu of the formalities. That's not to say that the field might not benefit from some professionalisation, just that there is an argument to be made that it is qualitatively different from civil engineering, medicine, aviation, architecture, accountancy and the like, if for no other reason than that the technology and skill requirements shift at a bewildering clip in rolling releases across 3-5 year time frames. That sort of thing is anathema to the slow, bureaucratic pace of guilding or regulation.
- geebee 9y ago
  I don't see this as such a problem. For instance, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, numerical analysis, and so forth, are only a small part of what makes a good actuary. But they have a formal exam that you need to pass in these areas in order to be an actuary. They don't quiz new candidates with 10+ years experience on integration by parts during a job interview. Because we lack even a basic exam in software development, we have to do data structures and algorithms over and over in interviews. I'd be more than OK with setting up a basic exam for what we can cover. I'd much rather take these exams with some assurances that it will be graded consistently and fairly, cover the proper material, and will lead to a lasting credential respected in industry. I wouldn't mind this even if it involved substantial effort and studying on my part, because I'd know what I was studying for and why. Hey, maybe it means my next software job interview won't have to involve weeks of studying followed by 5+ hours solving tree traversal problems at a whiteboard.
  - abalashov 9y ago
    That's a very fair argument. I still think there'd be far too much contention over just what is to be included in the corpus of essential knowledge. Everyone seems to agree that data structures, algorithms and systems fundamentals seem appealing, but just which ones depends greatly on whether you're doing embedded PLCs for fuel injectors or whether you're doing React. I've been programming since I was 9, for most of that time in C. Yet I'd be very hard-pressed to tell you how exactly CPU instructions work, and have never touched anything "closer to the metal" than C. Should this disqualify me from the profession?
    - geebee 9y ago
      Almost nobody I know would say it should disqualify you from the profession, but I can see why you're nervous about this. After all, law now generally requires a $150k+ degree and three years of your life. Plenty of people, including Obama, believe that it should be at least shortened. But once entrenched, it's very tempting for gatekeepers to install expensive and lengthy credentialing procedures. So overall, I think there's a good way to do this, and I do think that software development could be a better profession with some credentialing, provided it was done sparingly and properly (a huge "if", I must admit). I'd like to see this happen along the lines of the actuarial field, with exams rather than required degrees, largely because I think people should be free to acquire the knowledge at a pace that suits them. If you want to major in math, or physics, or something else, and "read for" the exams (to quote an old law practice), you should be allowed to. If we had something like this, it might benefit our field immensely. It would be a huge improvement over the capricious, opaque, and arbitrary informal exam taking we do over and over every time we interview. But... I can't possibly pretend I don't understand your concerns. I personally was a math major and I got a MS in Industrial Engineering. I never did major in CS, I certainly didn't study "Software Engineering." I am also willing to openly question the value of test-driven development. There are plenty of people who think one or the other or both should disqualify me from the profession, and the idea of empowering them with the force of law (ie., the power to fine or imprison me for developing without the background and methodology they've decided is acceptable) is pretty chilling. That would be much worse than what we have right now.
orthoganol 9y ago
> Better for my ego to believe I'm a unique genius due to my own efforts and inherent superiority; than to believe I'm a replaceable cog Other than your own projection going on in the first part, I'm not sure what you're actually saying. The fact there are not gatekeepers makes us more replaceable - some guy can take a bootcamp, work on some projects, and bam, he's competition. Programmers are acutely aware of this, and are constantly leveling up as a consequence. (And on that note, if there were gatekeepers, we'd probably be a lot more stagnant as an industry). Also, I mean, common sense, it's constantly changing what tech and abilities companies require, so how is a gatekeeper system even going to work. I've gone from Rails to JS to TensorFlow, professionally, all in the last 3 years.