4 ms·

Isn't it the companies' role to turn those junior developers into senior developers? Where else are they going to come from?

josephg 7y ago
I don't know! Is it their job? The attention of senior engineers is the single most valuable, expensive and scarce commodity of a modern software company. The incentives are absolutely not aligned for most companies to make it worth their time to hire junior engineers. But obviously thats a problem - because as you say, where else will senior engineers come from? And I don't think we have a good answer here. The old school answer was apprenticeship - a company trains you up, and in exchange you work for them for a time. But most companies are loathe to do that because you're likely to quit and go somewhere else for a pay bump as soon as you have enough skills and experience that you're worth hiring. For my money this, right here, is the real problem with modern programming / career development. Whiteboard interviews are the least of our problems.
- onion2k 7y ago
  But most companies are loathe to do that because you're likely to quit and go somewhere else for a pay bump as soon as you have enough skills and experience that you're worth hiring. This is only true in bad companies. Good companies understand that people move on, and don't assume that someone is hired in to a role forever. Once you realise that hiring is an expensive process that you will always be doing you then you can optimize it appropriately. Some really good companies even use it as a point in job adverts. There are plenty of senior developers who actively want to teach and mentor juniors, and will be happier working in companies that encourage that process. It's a good way of retaining those staff.
  - loopz 7y ago
    After the Y2K-bust, where are these good companies?
  - ativzzz 7y ago
    > Good companies understand that people move on, and don't assume that someone is hired in to a role forever. Once you realise that hiring is an expensive process that you will always be doing you then you can optimize it appropriately. Yes, they understand this, so they simply do not hire people who need to be trained for a year or two to be effective hires.
- watwut 7y ago
  There is the part where you give junior pay raise after he or she learns enough to get raise elsewhere.
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    If you're going to end up paying what it would cost you to hire the trained person anyway to avoid having your staff leave for higher wages, that heavily reduces your incentive to put a lot of resources in to training. Training + market rate compensation is more expensive than just market rate compensation.
    - duggan 7y ago
      I think you also have to account for the cost of acquiring senior staff. If you train them and pay them, your pipeline becomes more predictable than plucking them ad-hoc from other companies. That makes planning (your roadmap) more predictable.
    - Icathian 7y ago
      While this is true, it seems to me that most companies don't actually have both choices. Instead it's "training + market rate compensation" or "you will forever struggle to have enough senior devs to accomplish your goals". If you can't attract talent, you have to grow it and pay to retain it. Simple as that, no?
    - C4stor 7y ago
      But is training + market rate more expensive than hiring + market rate ? Also, it seems to ignore the fact that training people is actually an incredibly useful thing to do to hone your skills as a senior dev, and that having to teach forces you to cristallize, simplify and explain thoughts and processes that you possibly never challenged before. Tbh, I think I'm more productive and learning more when I have a decent intern to coach in my team than otherwise. So it's really a win-win situation.
    - arkh 7y ago
      Even if your junior-turned-okish developer goes away, if you did a good job and part on good terms you now have a working advertisement in another company. And maybe a couple years down the line they'll come back. Investing in your workforce for the long term: when you're big enough I think you should do it. Having a "reserve" is also useful. You don't have devs doing nothing: you have devs learning, teaching and ready in case a business opportunity appears.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  > The old school answer was apprenticeship - a company trains you up, and in exchange you work for them for a time. But most companies are loathe to do that because you're likely to quit and go somewhere else for a pay bump as soon as you have enough skills and experience that you're worth hiring. One problem is that companies with the means to fund this- FAANG and the like- are also the ones are incentivized to gatekeep the most to maintain their elite status and engineering superiority that leads to business edge. Startups, being naturally less risk adverse, are less likely to engage in formalized apprenticeship programs for juniors. What happens instead is that you get the half-hearted approach of hiring college students to be interns or co-ops. Not all students are able to intern. The ones who do have a leg up once they graduate. Hence the stellar reputation of U of Waterloo grads.
opportune 7y ago
They can make that decision if they want, or they can wait a bit to hire a more experienced dev for money money. I wouldn't say it's their "role" - nobody's forcing them to do so, and if it doesn't help them, I don't see why they would feel obligated to do it
- FridgeSeal 7y ago
  I feel like this is a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle: “Why would we train them up, they’ll just leave anyway” -> “screw this place, I am going to leave when I get the chance” -> leaves -> go to step 1

josephg 7y ago

I don't know! Is it their job? The attention of senior engineers is the single most valuable, expensive and scarce commodity of a modern software company. The incentives are absolutely not aligned for most companies to make it worth their time to hire junior engineers. But obviously thats a problem - because as you say, where else will senior engineers come from? And I don't think we have a good answer here. The old school answer was apprenticeship - a company trains you up, and in exchange you work for them for a time. But most companies are loathe to do that because you're likely to quit and go somewhere else for a pay bump as soon as you have enough skills and experience that you're worth hiring. For my money this, right here, is the real problem with modern programming / career development. Whiteboard interviews are the least of our problems.

onion2k 7y ago
But most companies are loathe to do that because you're likely to quit and go somewhere else for a pay bump as soon as you have enough skills and experience that you're worth hiring. This is only true in bad companies. Good companies understand that people move on, and don't assume that someone is hired in to a role forever. Once you realise that hiring is an expensive process that you will always be doing you then you can optimize it appropriately. Some really good companies even use it as a point in job adverts. There are plenty of senior developers who actively want to teach and mentor juniors, and will be happier working in companies that encourage that process. It's a good way of retaining those staff.
- loopz 7y ago
  After the Y2K-bust, where are these good companies?
- ativzzz 7y ago
  > Good companies understand that people move on, and don't assume that someone is hired in to a role forever. Once you realise that hiring is an expensive process that you will always be doing you then you can optimize it appropriately. Yes, they understand this, so they simply do not hire people who need to be trained for a year or two to be effective hires.
watwut 7y ago
There is the part where you give junior pay raise after he or she learns enough to get raise elsewhere.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  If you're going to end up paying what it would cost you to hire the trained person anyway to avoid having your staff leave for higher wages, that heavily reduces your incentive to put a lot of resources in to training. Training + market rate compensation is more expensive than just market rate compensation.
  - duggan 7y ago
    I think you also have to account for the cost of acquiring senior staff. If you train them and pay them, your pipeline becomes more predictable than plucking them ad-hoc from other companies. That makes planning (your roadmap) more predictable.
  - Icathian 7y ago
    While this is true, it seems to me that most companies don't actually have both choices. Instead it's "training + market rate compensation" or "you will forever struggle to have enough senior devs to accomplish your goals". If you can't attract talent, you have to grow it and pay to retain it. Simple as that, no?
  - C4stor 7y ago
    But is training + market rate more expensive than hiring + market rate ? Also, it seems to ignore the fact that training people is actually an incredibly useful thing to do to hone your skills as a senior dev, and that having to teach forces you to cristallize, simplify and explain thoughts and processes that you possibly never challenged before. Tbh, I think I'm more productive and learning more when I have a decent intern to coach in my team than otherwise. So it's really a win-win situation.
  - arkh 7y ago
    Even if your junior-turned-okish developer goes away, if you did a good job and part on good terms you now have a working advertisement in another company. And maybe a couple years down the line they'll come back. Investing in your workforce for the long term: when you're big enough I think you should do it. Having a "reserve" is also useful. You don't have devs doing nothing: you have devs learning, teaching and ready in case a business opportunity appears.
Apocryphon 7y ago
> The old school answer was apprenticeship - a company trains you up, and in exchange you work for them for a time. But most companies are loathe to do that because you're likely to quit and go somewhere else for a pay bump as soon as you have enough skills and experience that you're worth hiring. One problem is that companies with the means to fund this- FAANG and the like- are also the ones are incentivized to gatekeep the most to maintain their elite status and engineering superiority that leads to business edge. Startups, being naturally less risk adverse, are less likely to engage in formalized apprenticeship programs for juniors. What happens instead is that you get the half-hearted approach of hiring college students to be interns or co-ops. Not all students are able to intern. The ones who do have a leg up once they graduate. Hence the stellar reputation of U of Waterloo grads.

opportune 7y ago

They can make that decision if they want, or they can wait a bit to hire a more experienced dev for money money. I wouldn't say it's their "role" - nobody's forcing them to do so, and if it doesn't help them, I don't see why they would feel obligated to do it

FridgeSeal 7y ago
I feel like this is a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle: “Why would we train them up, they’ll just leave anyway” -> “screw this place, I am going to leave when I get the chance” -> leaves -> go to step 1