4 ms·

You didn't start this argument in good faith, you started with a straw man and then added several more. You have also misquoted me and ignored most of what I wr

by dahart 5y ago

You didn't start this argument in good faith, you started with a straw man and then added several more. You have also misquoted me and ignored most of what I wrote. > have trustworthy qualifications. This doesn't answer the question. People already have trustworthy qualifications, so this solves nothing. Your own point proves your answer wrong: people will game the system. You're contradicting yourself. Doctors and structural engineers achieve trustworthy qualifications by doing a 4 year residency / apprenticeship program after their degree. Is that what you want in software? You would prefer years of supervised and low paid work rather than spend a total of a few days of your life doing easy coding tests?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
So trustworthy qualifications solve nothing and we already have them, except we don't and they do solve the issue for structural engineers and doctors as you pointed out exactly they are more trustworthy than anything we have in software. For the fourth time, yes, thats exactly what I want. Having two years of supervised work would dramatically improve this industry But i am the one arguing in bad faith.
- dahart 5y ago
  > For the fourth time, yes, thats exactly what I want. Having two years of supervised work would dramatically improve this industry You do see that this is the first time you've mentioned in this thread spending time (years!) on a certification process apart from school, right? I've re-read all the text above and can't find the other three times that you answered my question with anything concrete. What problem, exactly, does this solve? > So trustworthy qualifications solve nothing and we already have them, except we don't and they do solve the issue for structural engineers and doctors as you pointed out exactly they are more trustworthy than anything we have in software. I feel like you're not being either clear or fair with your jumping between talking about interview process and certification process for other fields. Maybe I'm not being clear either. Let's be more clear. When I said we already have trustworthy qualifications, I was talking about school degrees, because that is the primary thing we have in software. In your reply here, you are conflating apprenticeship programs (doctor's qualifications) with school degrees (software developer's qualifications). School degrees, unfortunately, while they are trustworthy in what they provide, are not providing a guarantee that an applicant is fit for industry work. That's what an apprenticeship program does. Again, like above, the issue is not one of trust. The issue is what the qualification is qualifying, and what the hiring company wants to see. Ultimately, I'd rather do a few easy coding tests when I change jobs than have to spend 2-4 years in some kind of certification program. People who have to do certification programs complain all the time that the work is bureaucratic and jumping through hoops and irrelevant to their eventual jobs. And, certification programs have not solved the only concrete reason you've cited as a hiring problem: cultural bias. Be careful what you wish for.

by dahart 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

So trustworthy qualifications solve nothing and we already have them, except we don't and they do solve the issue for structural engineers and doctors as you pointed out exactly they are more trustworthy than anything we have in software. For the fourth time, yes, thats exactly what I want. Having two years of supervised work would dramatically improve this industry But i am the one arguing in bad faith.

dahart 5y ago
> For the fourth time, yes, thats exactly what I want. Having two years of supervised work would dramatically improve this industry You do see that this is the first time you've mentioned in this thread spending time (years!) on a certification process apart from school, right? I've re-read all the text above and can't find the other three times that you answered my question with anything concrete. What problem, exactly, does this solve? > So trustworthy qualifications solve nothing and we already have them, except we don't and they do solve the issue for structural engineers and doctors as you pointed out exactly they are more trustworthy than anything we have in software. I feel like you're not being either clear or fair with your jumping between talking about interview process and certification process for other fields. Maybe I'm not being clear either. Let's be more clear. When I said we already have trustworthy qualifications, I was talking about school degrees, because that is the primary thing we have in software. In your reply here, you are conflating apprenticeship programs (doctor's qualifications) with school degrees (software developer's qualifications). School degrees, unfortunately, while they are trustworthy in what they provide, are not providing a guarantee that an applicant is fit for industry work. That's what an apprenticeship program does. Again, like above, the issue is not one of trust. The issue is what the qualification is qualifying, and what the hiring company wants to see. Ultimately, I'd rather do a few easy coding tests when I change jobs than have to spend 2-4 years in some kind of certification program. People who have to do certification programs complain all the time that the work is bureaucratic and jumping through hoops and irrelevant to their eventual jobs. And, certification programs have not solved the only concrete reason you've cited as a hiring problem: cultural bias. Be careful what you wish for.