36 ms·

You make a statement without explanation and then when people dismiss it you ask for an explanation. Its very odd behavior. At best I would say it is asymmetric

You make a statement without explanation and then when people dismiss it you ask for an explanation. Its very odd behavior. At best I would say it is asymmetric way of thinking.

908B64B197 6y ago
I find that there's an implicit assumption that an engineer will posses certain knowledge. Things like a solid math background, project planning, economics... Also, that they should be able to apply rigorous solutions to problems and be capable of doing root cause analysis. It's the same thing in the medical field where everyone had the same core courses in med school before choosing their specialty. I don't think "Front-end engineers" is the correct term to designate someone with a 6 month bootcamp on their resume, because it really breaks all assumptions I've made above.
- petermcneeley 6y ago
  I dont disagree. However I do think the 21 century is partially about the breakdown of certifications and professional organizations and a shift to purely merit. There are people in FAANG the dont even have any post secondary making > 500k a year as "Software Engineers". How this works without total chaos is that each company has a rigorous testing procedure for candidates. This cataclysm has yet to reach the field of medicine or law but it is sorely needed. (I say this with family in both). I understand the difficulty and that the term "engineer" probably should never have been used as a substitute for "skilled knowledge worker" but I would expect this kind of deracination to continue till the economic calcification is no more.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    > There are people in FAANG the dont even have any post secondary making > 500k a year as "Software Engineers". How this works without total chaos is that each company has a rigorous testing procedure for candidates. That's what I expect from a credible credentialing organization, to be able to tell me that person X meets a minimum bar. Right now they get a bad press because, especially in the medical field, it's more about gate keeping and lobbying than actually enforcing standards and protecting the public. I would argue that surely someone making that type of money at a world class organization like Google would have no problem passing any engineering exam.

You make a statement without explanation and then when people dismiss it you ask for an explanation. Its very odd behavior. At best I would say it is asymmetric way of thinking.

908B64B197 6y ago

I find that there's an implicit assumption that an engineer will posses certain knowledge. Things like a solid math background, project planning, economics... Also, that they should be able to apply rigorous solutions to problems and be capable of doing root cause analysis. It's the same thing in the medical field where everyone had the same core courses in med school before choosing their specialty. I don't think "Front-end engineers" is the correct term to designate someone with a 6 month bootcamp on their resume, because it really breaks all assumptions I've made above.

petermcneeley 6y ago
I dont disagree. However I do think the 21 century is partially about the breakdown of certifications and professional organizations and a shift to purely merit. There are people in FAANG the dont even have any post secondary making > 500k a year as "Software Engineers". How this works without total chaos is that each company has a rigorous testing procedure for candidates. This cataclysm has yet to reach the field of medicine or law but it is sorely needed. (I say this with family in both). I understand the difficulty and that the term "engineer" probably should never have been used as a substitute for "skilled knowledge worker" but I would expect this kind of deracination to continue till the economic calcification is no more.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  > There are people in FAANG the dont even have any post secondary making > 500k a year as "Software Engineers". How this works without total chaos is that each company has a rigorous testing procedure for candidates. That's what I expect from a credible credentialing organization, to be able to tell me that person X meets a minimum bar. Right now they get a bad press because, especially in the medical field, it's more about gate keeping and lobbying than actually enforcing standards and protecting the public. I would argue that surely someone making that type of money at a world class organization like Google would have no problem passing any engineering exam.