3 ms·

Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders li

Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it.

lmm 5y ago
> Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. In my experience no-one cares who's "junior" or "senior" day-to-day, and no-one can compare levels across multiple companies, and that's good for the industry; I've worked with plenty of "juniors" who were better than corresponding "seniors", standardising and formalising some years-of-experience metric would make the industry much less meritocratic. > Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it. I've yet to find any software-related qualification that wasn't an active negative. I've worked in a place that applied the acknowledged "best practices" of 10 years ago and it was a terrible environment for producing good code.

lmm 5y ago

> Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. In my experience no-one cares who's "junior" or "senior" day-to-day, and no-one can compare levels across multiple companies, and that's good for the industry; I've worked with plenty of "juniors" who were better than corresponding "seniors", standardising and formalising some years-of-experience metric would make the industry much less meritocratic. > Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it. I've yet to find any software-related qualification that wasn't an active negative. I've worked in a place that applied the acknowledged "best practices" of 10 years ago and it was a terrible environment for producing good code.