5 ms·

opened doors? you must be nuts. all it has done, is made it easier to discriminate candidates, turn a highly specialized field into a commodity, and put more po

by b20000 5y ago

opened doors? you must be nuts. all it has done, is made it easier to discriminate candidates, turn a highly specialized field into a commodity, and put more power in the hands of tech companies, especially FAANGs. it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit.

chii 5y ago
> it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. i don't see how any of the above indirectly causes prevention of organization of a union. If it required you to get a degree to get a tech job, far fewer people would be available. Far fewer people would be able to transition from low paid jobs to a higher paid job such as tech. Making a specialized, technical field into a commodity is actually a global gain - even if those who used to enjoy a highly paid position gets their advantage lost because of such commoditization. Either they specialize into something that is even more valuable, or be lost amongst the commodity. Imagine if, during the iron age, the blacksmiths prevented the commoditization of industrial production.
- b20000 5y ago
  just like the field of medicine or law owes you nothing, the tech industry owes you nothing. it does not need to solve your problems. it is annoying that people think it should. the reason that tech prep and tech programs and STEM are promoted, and kids are sold on “learn to code”, is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.
  - chii 5y ago
    > is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT. you say it like it's a bad thing. Lowering the cost of _anything_ is good for society overall. It makes this resource more affordable for all entities requiring such resources, and it increases total output. Doctors today costs too much, because there's a lobby group called the AMA that restricts entrants (rightly or wrongly). i would argue that it's better to have lower cost, because this service is valuable to people, and if the cost matches the value (or exceed the value), then some people will miss out on being able to utilize this resource.
ozzythecat 5y ago
I’m a big tech veteran, and I agree tech interviews aren’t perfect. Your assessment on discrimination is misleading. The tech interview is a signal, which is “good enough” but far from perfect, especially in this world of hiring at scale. >if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit. There’s a significant number of candidates, who despite their CS degrees and fancy GPAs, can’t solve basic programming problems. And then there are the senior or principal engineer candidates who can talk a big game but can’t write fizz buzz. Frankly, you can call it bullshit, but hiring unqualified people, coaching them, and eventually letting them them go is expensive. It’s not just expensive for the company, but it has a personal toll on the candidate, their manager (if they’re sincere), and the team. Tech interview loops aren’t a perfect solution. We still let go of people who get through these loops. People try to study specific questions and anticipate the same or similar question in their own interview. Or other times, people get hired because the hiring manager is just bringing in “talent” from their previous company to expand their empire and get their promotion. Yeah… there’s corruption in every system. > it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. I have literally no idea how unions are relevant or how tech interviews encourage or discourage unions.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > There’s a significant number of candidates, who despite their CS degrees and fancy GPAs, can’t solve basic programming problems. And then there are the senior or principal engineer candidates who can talk a big game but can’t write fizz buzz. The problem is, I am not trying to hire people to write FizzBuzz. If I am looking for someone to compose a concerto for violin and lyra from scratch, but the question I ask them to determine their qualifications is: "Here is a whiteboard and a pen but you don't get a ruler, draw me a pentatonic scale freehanded in 30 seconds or less, and I will evaluate how similar it is to the picture here in this book on musical theory.", how nice will the resulting concerto sound?
htlion 5y ago
> if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit. There are many flaws in this argument: - what about people without degrees but skills, do they deserve such a job? - Is university free? If not, do poor people deserve such a job? Finally, we are not talking about the average SE job. We are talking about the top 10% of the jobs where competition is fierce. People at this level, as in any domain, are willing to compete fiercely. Should the marathon been shortened to 10k so that people who can't train can compete?
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > what about people without degrees but skills, do they deserve such a job? What about people with actual problem solving and engineering skills, who worked hard to teach themselves, but are bad in test situations? Some people cope well with tests. Others don't. Neither tells me ANYTHING about how well they will do as engineers. > People at this level, as in any domain, are willing to compete fiercely. But the competition is about "who's the best engineer", not "who was best at memorizing leetcode questions".
- wildrhythms 5y ago
  I work in 'the top 10%' as you describe, and I certainly did not compete fiercely to get here... I was just good with HTML, CSS, and Javascript that I learned from a community college, but what got me into the interview was a BS in Compsci. Now that I'm involved with hiring, I see candidates who obviously have spent many hours on Leetcode, but struggle to write a for-loop, or who might come up with a solution to the interview exercise, but can't describe why it's the best solution. Despite that, I can see when people are willing to learn and grow, and I pass them through to the next interview. The world is not black and white. Personally, I wish there was a guaranteed pathway from a degree into an apprenticeship with the same pay and benefits as any other employee. If America wanted to grow and maintain its global economic power, it would guarantee a highly compensated job for every college graduate. Just because people are willing to compete fiercely doesn't mean they have to. You sound like a crab in a bucket[0], when the reality is that the bucket doesn't need to exist. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

by b20000 5y ago

chii 5y ago

> it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. i don't see how any of the above indirectly causes prevention of organization of a union. If it required you to get a degree to get a tech job, far fewer people would be available. Far fewer people would be able to transition from low paid jobs to a higher paid job such as tech. Making a specialized, technical field into a commodity is actually a global gain - even if those who used to enjoy a highly paid position gets their advantage lost because of such commoditization. Either they specialize into something that is even more valuable, or be lost amongst the commodity. Imagine if, during the iron age, the blacksmiths prevented the commoditization of industrial production.

b20000 5y ago
just like the field of medicine or law owes you nothing, the tech industry owes you nothing. it does not need to solve your problems. it is annoying that people think it should. the reason that tech prep and tech programs and STEM are promoted, and kids are sold on “learn to code”, is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.
- chii 5y ago
  > is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT. you say it like it's a bad thing. Lowering the cost of _anything_ is good for society overall. It makes this resource more affordable for all entities requiring such resources, and it increases total output. Doctors today costs too much, because there's a lobby group called the AMA that restricts entrants (rightly or wrongly). i would argue that it's better to have lower cost, because this service is valuable to people, and if the cost matches the value (or exceed the value), then some people will miss out on being able to utilize this resource.

ozzythecat 5y ago

I’m a big tech veteran, and I agree tech interviews aren’t perfect. Your assessment on discrimination is misleading. The tech interview is a signal, which is “good enough” but far from perfect, especially in this world of hiring at scale. >if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit. There’s a significant number of candidates, who despite their CS degrees and fancy GPAs, can’t solve basic programming problems. And then there are the senior or principal engineer candidates who can talk a big game but can’t write fizz buzz. Frankly, you can call it bullshit, but hiring unqualified people, coaching them, and eventually letting them them go is expensive. It’s not just expensive for the company, but it has a personal toll on the candidate, their manager (if they’re sincere), and the team. Tech interview loops aren’t a perfect solution. We still let go of people who get through these loops. People try to study specific questions and anticipate the same or similar question in their own interview. Or other times, people get hired because the hiring manager is just bringing in “talent” from their previous company to expand their empire and get their promotion. Yeah… there’s corruption in every system. > it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. I have literally no idea how unions are relevant or how tech interviews encourage or discourage unions.

usrbinbash 5y ago
> There’s a significant number of candidates, who despite their CS degrees and fancy GPAs, can’t solve basic programming problems. And then there are the senior or principal engineer candidates who can talk a big game but can’t write fizz buzz. The problem is, I am not trying to hire people to write FizzBuzz. If I am looking for someone to compose a concerto for violin and lyra from scratch, but the question I ask them to determine their qualifications is: "Here is a whiteboard and a pen but you don't get a ruler, draw me a pentatonic scale freehanded in 30 seconds or less, and I will evaluate how similar it is to the picture here in this book on musical theory.", how nice will the resulting concerto sound?

htlion 5y ago

> if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit. There are many flaws in this argument: - what about people without degrees but skills, do they deserve such a job? - Is university free? If not, do poor people deserve such a job? Finally, we are not talking about the average SE job. We are talking about the top 10% of the jobs where competition is fierce. People at this level, as in any domain, are willing to compete fiercely. Should the marathon been shortened to 10k so that people who can't train can compete?

usrbinbash 5y ago
> what about people without degrees but skills, do they deserve such a job? What about people with actual problem solving and engineering skills, who worked hard to teach themselves, but are bad in test situations? Some people cope well with tests. Others don't. Neither tells me ANYTHING about how well they will do as engineers. > People at this level, as in any domain, are willing to compete fiercely. But the competition is about "who's the best engineer", not "who was best at memorizing leetcode questions".
wildrhythms 5y ago
I work in 'the top 10%' as you describe, and I certainly did not compete fiercely to get here... I was just good with HTML, CSS, and Javascript that I learned from a community college, but what got me into the interview was a BS in Compsci. Now that I'm involved with hiring, I see candidates who obviously have spent many hours on Leetcode, but struggle to write a for-loop, or who might come up with a solution to the interview exercise, but can't describe why it's the best solution. Despite that, I can see when people are willing to learn and grow, and I pass them through to the next interview. The world is not black and white. Personally, I wish there was a guaranteed pathway from a degree into an apprenticeship with the same pay and benefits as any other employee. If America wanted to grow and maintain its global economic power, it would guarantee a highly compensated job for every college graduate. Just because people are willing to compete fiercely doesn't mean they have to. You sound like a crab in a bucket[0], when the reality is that the bucket doesn't need to exist. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality