3 ms·

People tout Guilds and Apprenticeships as a solution to improving quality and filterting out subpar coworkers, but I don't think it would be any better, and may

by dexwiz 6y ago

People tout Guilds and Apprenticeships as a solution to improving quality and filterting out subpar coworkers, but I don't think it would be any better, and maybe worse. Obtaining membership seems like an enormous gatekeeping device, similar to those that modern equality movements are trying to tear down. It does widen sharing skills from father to son to a community, but there is nothing stopping the same sort of exclusionary practices that we have problems with today. Apprenticeships often boil down to grunt work and "watch me do it" for the first few years. This kind of work mode is acceptable as a teenager. But today the apprentice level would probably be until 30 or so. This education phase is currently owned by higher level academia. Many people choose industry over academia to avoid a lengthy education. If industry became the same, I think this would frustrate and burn out many people. Those running the guild are probably not the best at a craft, just best at politicking and with the most vested interest. Those that would run a guild 900 years ago and VPs and CSuites today. Also tech is too new. A technology can rise and fall within a decade. This makes lengthy learning periods impractical. We don't value consistency across generations (in-fact this would be now considered stagnation). This also means customers are less able to discern (or even care about) high versus low quality products. On the flip side, education is much more readily available. A dedicate Master <> Apprentice relationships was key, because they were likely your only source of learning. This is just no longer true. Today we have so many knowledge sources that no single one gets such an illustrious title as master. Most engineering disciplines have a professional community that requires you to take a proficiency exam (usually on graduation) and continued education. Companies will outright refuse to hire any candidates without the certifications. Programming will eventually have something similar, but the field needs to crystalize more.

hpoe 6y ago
>Those running the guild are probably not the best at a craft, just best at politicking and with the most vested interest. Those that would run a guild 900 years ago and VPs and CSuites today. This so much, I often see people believe that if things were more organized the best developers would rise to the top, but the fact of the matter is the best developers don't like meetings and positions and what not they like developing. Often times the people that are most eager to tell people how to do their job and run their workflow are those least capable of doing it themselves and as such why they chose a position on telling others what to do rather than doing it themselves, a la the Dilbert Principle. But that's just my 2 cents maybe I am way off, but it seems to me the people most interested in setting up more structure and organization to "empower" developers are those who I least want to represent me.
shuntress 6y ago
What do you think a modern "Programmers Guild" could be practical if it is essentially a semi-gated meta-community that spans, integrates, and documents stack overflow, HN (and similar forums), FOSS projects, and publicly available higher education CS courses? Similar to the Wikimedia Foundation but specifically focused on programming history, theory, and practice.
artsrc 6y ago
You say "gatekeeping device" like it is negative. All companies I have worked for have had a system of gatekeeping that includes things like university qualifications. I don't see why this system can't be improved. Many companies now invent their own proficiency exams. We do. Medical graduates work in a specific setting under supervision for a period after extensive education. I don't think the conditions of their work are ideal, but many people make it through without burn out. Although technologies are changing, there are some things that transcend technology. Concepts about like documentation, naming, decomposition, components, interfaces, concurrency, locking, algorithm efficiency, many considerations of user experience.
- dexwiz 6y ago
  Right now getting hired is a gate, but having to join a guild before getting to learn would be another gate. Also the guild gate is a gate on knowledge, which is even more egregious, and its evaluations would be even more nebulous as it would be based on potential skill and not current skill. This means joining a guild is more akin to apply for college. Companies have to abide by Labor laws and Colleges must have fair admissions, but a private guild could be much more exclusionary without the same legal repercussions. I think medicine is more unique because it's one of the few fields that customers (patients) consistency demand quality over innovation. Do you want the treatment that works, or the new experimental one? Most people will want tried and true first. Of course there are always exceptions to this.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  > Many companies now invent their own proficiency exams. We do. Companies are not doing it to artificially restrict supply. They have no incentive to raise the cost of labour. (On the other hand, the process could be captured by incumbent employees who do have that incentive).
  - jrott 6y ago
    (On the other hand, the process could be captured by incumbent employees who do have that incentive). That seems to be way more common than most people want to admit. So many software engineering interviews have very little to do with the job. Worse of course is when there is no process and it seems like the whole thing is just designed to get the hiring manager friends hired.
R0b0t1 6y ago
>Companies will outright refuse to hire any candidates without the certifications. Programming will eventually have something similar, but the field needs to crystalize more. I don't see this happening and sincerely hope it does not. Computers and programming are too accessible, and I think are the first thing to become so accessible. Proof of competency is related to effort, not the time you spend seeking qualifications.
- pampa 6y ago
  > Computers and programming are too accessible, and I think are the first thing to become so accessible. But are they? Computers have become insanely complicated.
  - loopz 6y ago
    It's all learnable online, no schooling required.
ghaff 6y ago
>Most engineering disciplines have a professional community that requires you to take a proficiency exam (usually on graduation) and continued education. This isn't really true. Most engineering jobs in the US don't require a PE. The main circumstances under which you need to take an Engineer-in-Training exam (which probably requires a 4-year degree) and then work for some number of years in the field--and then I think take another exam--is when you need to sign off on designs, etc. for government regulators. When I was in the oil business I got an EiT because I would eventually have been signing off on offshore drilling rig design blueprints. (But ended up changing careers so I never got past that point.)
- dexwiz 6y ago
  I just assumed it was required. Most of my friends in engineering had to take a PE exam (or equivalent) when they graduated. Either way, it seems like there is a level of certification needed for higher levels of work. I have not encountered anything similar in Software Engineering.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    It depends heavily on the field and whether or not they will work in a regulated field. All of my civil engineer friends go through the EiT and then PE track, but most of the mechanical engineers I know don't. I'm not sure how it breaks down for electrical engineers, both of the ones I know didn't do a PE.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I don't know the numbers but I imagine it skews heavily towards Civil. I was a mechanical engineer and the only reason I would have needed one was because I basically designed ships (from a regulatory perspective). I'm sure there are people at places like Boeing, GM, and so forth who have PEs but I imagine it's a fairly small minority. It definitely isn't like passing the bar if you're a lawyer. I know someone who runs a fairly large systems engineering group in aerospace and they don't have one. (And my understanding is that the software engineering PE exam has been phased out because basically no one was taking it.)
red_admiral 6y ago
I agree with the negative points about guilds, but I don't think they're any worse than the current PhD system in academia. Another important difference between guilds and academia was that you did not have to pay tuition fees to become an apprentice. In some cases apprentices got no salary, but lived in the master's household and had free board and lodging - although their role typically also included some aspects of being a household servant. But you didn't have to pay an extortionate fee to get into an apprenticeship, and you typically did leave with skills that let you earn a living. The apprenticeship system was in other words accessible to a much wider class of people than "good" degrees nowadays are. Nowadays of course, apprenticeships pay you - not a lot, but enough to survive on.

by dexwiz 6y ago

hpoe 6y ago

>Those running the guild are probably not the best at a craft, just best at politicking and with the most vested interest. Those that would run a guild 900 years ago and VPs and CSuites today. This so much, I often see people believe that if things were more organized the best developers would rise to the top, but the fact of the matter is the best developers don't like meetings and positions and what not they like developing. Often times the people that are most eager to tell people how to do their job and run their workflow are those least capable of doing it themselves and as such why they chose a position on telling others what to do rather than doing it themselves, a la the Dilbert Principle. But that's just my 2 cents maybe I am way off, but it seems to me the people most interested in setting up more structure and organization to "empower" developers are those who I least want to represent me.

shuntress 6y ago

What do you think a modern "Programmers Guild" could be practical if it is essentially a semi-gated meta-community that spans, integrates, and documents stack overflow, HN (and similar forums), FOSS projects, and publicly available higher education CS courses? Similar to the Wikimedia Foundation but specifically focused on programming history, theory, and practice.

artsrc 6y ago

You say "gatekeeping device" like it is negative. All companies I have worked for have had a system of gatekeeping that includes things like university qualifications. I don't see why this system can't be improved. Many companies now invent their own proficiency exams. We do. Medical graduates work in a specific setting under supervision for a period after extensive education. I don't think the conditions of their work are ideal, but many people make it through without burn out. Although technologies are changing, there are some things that transcend technology. Concepts about like documentation, naming, decomposition, components, interfaces, concurrency, locking, algorithm efficiency, many considerations of user experience.

dexwiz 6y ago
Right now getting hired is a gate, but having to join a guild before getting to learn would be another gate. Also the guild gate is a gate on knowledge, which is even more egregious, and its evaluations would be even more nebulous as it would be based on potential skill and not current skill. This means joining a guild is more akin to apply for college. Companies have to abide by Labor laws and Colleges must have fair admissions, but a private guild could be much more exclusionary without the same legal repercussions. I think medicine is more unique because it's one of the few fields that customers (patients) consistency demand quality over innovation. Do you want the treatment that works, or the new experimental one? Most people will want tried and true first. Of course there are always exceptions to this.
mr_toad 6y ago
> Many companies now invent their own proficiency exams. We do. Companies are not doing it to artificially restrict supply. They have no incentive to raise the cost of labour. (On the other hand, the process could be captured by incumbent employees who do have that incentive).
- jrott 6y ago
  (On the other hand, the process could be captured by incumbent employees who do have that incentive). That seems to be way more common than most people want to admit. So many software engineering interviews have very little to do with the job. Worse of course is when there is no process and it seems like the whole thing is just designed to get the hiring manager friends hired.

R0b0t1 6y ago

>Companies will outright refuse to hire any candidates without the certifications. Programming will eventually have something similar, but the field needs to crystalize more. I don't see this happening and sincerely hope it does not. Computers and programming are too accessible, and I think are the first thing to become so accessible. Proof of competency is related to effort, not the time you spend seeking qualifications.

pampa 6y ago
> Computers and programming are too accessible, and I think are the first thing to become so accessible. But are they? Computers have become insanely complicated.
- loopz 6y ago
  It's all learnable online, no schooling required.

ghaff 6y ago

>Most engineering disciplines have a professional community that requires you to take a proficiency exam (usually on graduation) and continued education. This isn't really true. Most engineering jobs in the US don't require a PE. The main circumstances under which you need to take an Engineer-in-Training exam (which probably requires a 4-year degree) and then work for some number of years in the field--and then I think take another exam--is when you need to sign off on designs, etc. for government regulators. When I was in the oil business I got an EiT because I would eventually have been signing off on offshore drilling rig design blueprints. (But ended up changing careers so I never got past that point.)

dexwiz 6y ago
I just assumed it was required. Most of my friends in engineering had to take a PE exam (or equivalent) when they graduated. Either way, it seems like there is a level of certification needed for higher levels of work. I have not encountered anything similar in Software Engineering.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  It depends heavily on the field and whether or not they will work in a regulated field. All of my civil engineer friends go through the EiT and then PE track, but most of the mechanical engineers I know don't. I'm not sure how it breaks down for electrical engineers, both of the ones I know didn't do a PE.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I don't know the numbers but I imagine it skews heavily towards Civil. I was a mechanical engineer and the only reason I would have needed one was because I basically designed ships (from a regulatory perspective). I'm sure there are people at places like Boeing, GM, and so forth who have PEs but I imagine it's a fairly small minority. It definitely isn't like passing the bar if you're a lawyer. I know someone who runs a fairly large systems engineering group in aerospace and they don't have one. (And my understanding is that the software engineering PE exam has been phased out because basically no one was taking it.)

red_admiral 6y ago

I agree with the negative points about guilds, but I don't think they're any worse than the current PhD system in academia. Another important difference between guilds and academia was that you did not have to pay tuition fees to become an apprentice. In some cases apprentices got no salary, but lived in the master's household and had free board and lodging - although their role typically also included some aspects of being a household servant. But you didn't have to pay an extortionate fee to get into an apprenticeship, and you typically did leave with skills that let you earn a living. The apprenticeship system was in other words accessible to a much wider class of people than "good" degrees nowadays are. Nowadays of course, apprenticeships pay you - not a lot, but enough to survive on.