6 ms·

"JumpForward interviews three to five engineers a week as it tries to fill four to six technology jobs, but most candidates don't have current skills or they la

"JumpForward interviews three to five engineers a week as it tries to fill four to six technology jobs, but most candidates don't have current skills or they lack the passion to stay on the cutting edge" In other words, there's no shortage of software engineers, there's a shortage of perfect candidates. If these companies were actually willing to train people, they'd have a lot fewer problems. The trend seems to be that software development, like a lot of other industries, is becoming increasingly winner-take-all, with huge demand for the very best of the best, and a lot less for anyone else.

elliottkember 16y ago
Unfortunately, it's also very easy for an engineer to jump ship after their training - meaning a very expensive loss of time and effort. Personally, I think the "shortage" has something to do with increases in job-hopping. If there were some guarantee that an engineer were going to stick around for a few years after training, perhaps training new recruits wouldn't seem so unreasonable.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- sgift 16y ago
  This works both ways - the concept of one job for a whole life (or at maximum two jobs) was really common for the parents (or grand-parents, depending on their age) of many. Then the companies started with hire-and-fire. And now they wonder why their employees have no loyalty in face of a good offer from another company.
- lelele 16y ago
  > Unfortunately, it's also very easy for an engineer to jump ship after their training - meaning a very expensive loss of time and effort. Keeping your employees is your job, not theirs. No relationship lasts when one partner starts neglecting the other and another interested partner comes in.
  - zeemonkee 16y ago
    Another reason for job-hobbing, especially among hackers, is that they don't want to be pigeon-holed into a single job for too long. You can become too complacent, too specialized, and too tied down to a specific system. After 5 years of maintaining a legacy ERP application how do you get a job working at the hot new social networking company ?
- j_baker 16y ago
  Someone has to train them. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but the whole idea of employers wanting trained employees but only if someone else pays for the training ultimately benefits no one.
nostrademons 16y ago
You generally can't train attitude. Many of those candidates who don't have the skills or passion lack it because there are other things in their life that they value more, like family.
- thomas11 16y ago
  In almost no other field of work is it expected that you have a passion for your work greater than that for your family. Hackers repeating this passion mantra make life harder for all of us, because it raises employers expectations, instead of making them provide training or simply time to study. Good for you if you have that passion - I do - but why not enjoy it in private?
  - ig1 16y ago
    Doctors. Lawyers. Bankers. Military forces. Plenty of occupations require you to put your occupation ahead of your personal life.
    - khafra 16y ago
      When I think "passionate intensity about the work," several professions come to mind. "Banker" is not among them.
      - gaius 16y ago
        Then you don't know many investment bankers.
        bugsy 16y ago
        Oh, you mean psychopathic thieves! You are right, they are passionate about their work. As far as bankers go, they work from 10 to 4 M-Th and from 10 to 6 on Fridays.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        Yeah, if you think programmers have a tough time with work/life balance, you don't know many people in the financial field. I-bankers are expected to work 14 hour days, 7 days a week, and basically have no life outside of work. This is where the "hookers and blow" reputation comes from: they have plenty of money, but no time for fulfilling relationships or hobbies. Things are better for hedge fund managers (many of the ones I know work pretty standard 50ish hour weeks), but most of the good ones find it hard to shut off their financial brains. The foreword to Peter Lynch's books explain that he left investing because he was basically missing his kids' childhood, and at some point, some things are more important than making your next million.
andrest 16y ago
This is the point the article seems to make. The difference between a good candidate and an excellent one is huge. Like it was mentioned before, a good programmer can do in a day what a team of mediocre programmers can do in a week. You say that companies should train mediocre programmers to be excellent programmers. This is not as straight-forward as it sounds, (a) the mediocre programmers might have already reached the limit of their capability (i.e no matter how much time they'll spend learning, the improvements will only be marginal), (b) it could take long time and as we all know, time is money. I like to think of it as a simple exponential graph. Programming Skill on X-axis vs Time Spent Learning on Y-axis. In the beginning the progress will be fast for everybody, but at some point the progress will slow down indefinitely (i.e you've reached your maximum capacity). The point at which this will happen varies from person to person and there is unfortunately no way you can determine where that is. The only hint of the maximum capacity you can get is to compare how long the guy has been programming for and how skilled he is at given time. As a result, it is more cost-effective to search for very good candidates for longer than to take handful on mediocre ones, take the risks, and train them. It should be noted that a programming is without exceptions self-thought. Therefore there is no need for training per se, you will just need to take your time and do it yourself, as programming can not be taught, it can only be learned.
- tomh- 16y ago
  I think he meant technology knowledge rather than skill. For example rejecting a candidate with 10 years of java experience because they need a programmer who needs 10 years of python experience.

elliottkember 16y ago

Unfortunately, it's also very easy for an engineer to jump ship after their training - meaning a very expensive loss of time and effort. Personally, I think the "shortage" has something to do with increases in job-hopping. If there were some guarantee that an engineer were going to stick around for a few years after training, perhaps training new recruits wouldn't seem so unreasonable.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sgift 16y ago
This works both ways - the concept of one job for a whole life (or at maximum two jobs) was really common for the parents (or grand-parents, depending on their age) of many. Then the companies started with hire-and-fire. And now they wonder why their employees have no loyalty in face of a good offer from another company.
lelele 16y ago
> Unfortunately, it's also very easy for an engineer to jump ship after their training - meaning a very expensive loss of time and effort. Keeping your employees is your job, not theirs. No relationship lasts when one partner starts neglecting the other and another interested partner comes in.
- zeemonkee 16y ago
  Another reason for job-hobbing, especially among hackers, is that they don't want to be pigeon-holed into a single job for too long. You can become too complacent, too specialized, and too tied down to a specific system. After 5 years of maintaining a legacy ERP application how do you get a job working at the hot new social networking company ?
j_baker 16y ago
Someone has to train them. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but the whole idea of employers wanting trained employees but only if someone else pays for the training ultimately benefits no one.

nostrademons 16y ago

You generally can't train attitude. Many of those candidates who don't have the skills or passion lack it because there are other things in their life that they value more, like family.

thomas11 16y ago
In almost no other field of work is it expected that you have a passion for your work greater than that for your family. Hackers repeating this passion mantra make life harder for all of us, because it raises employers expectations, instead of making them provide training or simply time to study. Good for you if you have that passion - I do - but why not enjoy it in private?
- ig1 16y ago
  Doctors. Lawyers. Bankers. Military forces. Plenty of occupations require you to put your occupation ahead of your personal life.
  - khafra 16y ago
    When I think "passionate intensity about the work," several professions come to mind. "Banker" is not among them.
    - gaius 16y ago
      Then you don't know many investment bankers.
      - bugsy 16y ago
        Oh, you mean psychopathic thieves! You are right, they are passionate about their work. As far as bankers go, they work from 10 to 4 M-Th and from 10 to 6 on Fridays.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Yeah, if you think programmers have a tough time with work/life balance, you don't know many people in the financial field. I-bankers are expected to work 14 hour days, 7 days a week, and basically have no life outside of work. This is where the "hookers and blow" reputation comes from: they have plenty of money, but no time for fulfilling relationships or hobbies. Things are better for hedge fund managers (many of the ones I know work pretty standard 50ish hour weeks), but most of the good ones find it hard to shut off their financial brains. The foreword to Peter Lynch's books explain that he left investing because he was basically missing his kids' childhood, and at some point, some things are more important than making your next million.

andrest 16y ago

This is the point the article seems to make. The difference between a good candidate and an excellent one is huge. Like it was mentioned before, a good programmer can do in a day what a team of mediocre programmers can do in a week. You say that companies should train mediocre programmers to be excellent programmers. This is not as straight-forward as it sounds, (a) the mediocre programmers might have already reached the limit of their capability (i.e no matter how much time they'll spend learning, the improvements will only be marginal), (b) it could take long time and as we all know, time is money. I like to think of it as a simple exponential graph. Programming Skill on X-axis vs Time Spent Learning on Y-axis. In the beginning the progress will be fast for everybody, but at some point the progress will slow down indefinitely (i.e you've reached your maximum capacity). The point at which this will happen varies from person to person and there is unfortunately no way you can determine where that is. The only hint of the maximum capacity you can get is to compare how long the guy has been programming for and how skilled he is at given time. As a result, it is more cost-effective to search for very good candidates for longer than to take handful on mediocre ones, take the risks, and train them. It should be noted that a programming is without exceptions self-thought. Therefore there is no need for training per se, you will just need to take your time and do it yourself, as programming can not be taught, it can only be learned.

tomh- 16y ago
I think he meant technology knowledge rather than skill. For example rejecting a candidate with 10 years of java experience because they need a programmer who needs 10 years of python experience.