3 ms·

Depending on the program, college is a filter for higher IQ and attention to detail. There's a cheaper filter called an IQ test, but they are illegal in the US

Depending on the program, college is a filter for higher IQ and attention to detail. There's a cheaper filter called an IQ test, but they are illegal in the US. There is no compelling reason why s/w engineering couldn't be taught on an apprenticeship model after passing some cheap psychology tests. Can you hold 11 variables in your head vs the standard 3 of normal humans? You may be good at s/w. Do you have a high G score? You may be good at software. Too bad we have to encumber kids with crushing debt instead.

throwawaygh 4y ago
> There's a cheaper filter called an IQ test, but they are illegal in the US. Tech people have been repeating this bullshit since the days when Slashdot was the HN. Maybe earlier. It's always been 99% false and 0% true, with 1% "it depends" (please spare us that bullshit). IQ and IQ-like employment proficiency testing is literally an entire cottage industry. > There is no compelling reason why s/w engineering couldn't be taught on an apprenticeship model Two reasons, without thinking particularly hard: 1. Why internalize a cost that can be externalized? 2. Who's doing the mentoring? Senior Engineers make $300K-$600K. Professors make $60K-$200K. Most CS educators make less than their students' first year offers. So, even if you internalized the cost, you'd run it as a stand-alone training program as opposed to embedded apprenticeships. Which, btw, is what companies with "learn to code career pathways"tend to do. > Do you have a high G score? You may be good at software. I know lots of geniuses -- in the sense of high Putnam scores even -- who are clever programmers but couldn't SWE their way out of a wet paper bag. I also know a lot of folks who are not particularly bright but who are really fantastic SWEs. It's not clear to me that IQ is a good predictor of SWE performance for most SWE roles, any more than it's a good predictor for literally any job (including checkout clerk or fry cook, btw). IME certain types of Software folks massively over-estimate their own intelligence and also the importance of IQ-like intelligence required to be excellent in 99% of software development roles.
WkndTriathlete 4y ago
20% of good software engineering is knowing the computer science aspect of software. 80% of good software engineering is being able to translate the problem domain into software and back, as well as communication. IQ tests do not test for the latter, which is arguably the most important part. My ability as a software engineer to effortlessly shift between industries is directly due to the broad college education I received. Software apprenticeships would only lead to a largely immobile workforce stuck in one or two particular technologies. There seems to be this perception in some circles that software engineering is a handful of senior or principal software engineers tediously writing very detailed stories with specifications for hundreds of junior software engineers to crunch out without thinking. This is, without a doubt, one of the most expensive and least efficient means of software development. It's also what an apprenticeship system without college gets you.
- Jensson 4y ago
  > IQ tests do not test for the latter, which is arguably the most important part. They do, proper IQ tests have a language component. Properly reading, understanding and writing text is very much related to IQ.

throwawaygh 4y ago

> There's a cheaper filter called an IQ test, but they are illegal in the US. Tech people have been repeating this bullshit since the days when Slashdot was the HN. Maybe earlier. It's always been 99% false and 0% true, with 1% "it depends" (please spare us that bullshit). IQ and IQ-like employment proficiency testing is literally an entire cottage industry. > There is no compelling reason why s/w engineering couldn't be taught on an apprenticeship model Two reasons, without thinking particularly hard: 1. Why internalize a cost that can be externalized? 2. Who's doing the mentoring? Senior Engineers make $300K-$600K. Professors make $60K-$200K. Most CS educators make less than their students' first year offers. So, even if you internalized the cost, you'd run it as a stand-alone training program as opposed to embedded apprenticeships. Which, btw, is what companies with "learn to code career pathways"tend to do. > Do you have a high G score? You may be good at software. I know lots of geniuses -- in the sense of high Putnam scores even -- who are clever programmers but couldn't SWE their way out of a wet paper bag. I also know a lot of folks who are not particularly bright but who are really fantastic SWEs. It's not clear to me that IQ is a good predictor of SWE performance for most SWE roles, any more than it's a good predictor for literally any job (including checkout clerk or fry cook, btw). IME certain types of Software folks massively over-estimate their own intelligence and also the importance of IQ-like intelligence required to be excellent in 99% of software development roles.

WkndTriathlete 4y ago

20% of good software engineering is knowing the computer science aspect of software. 80% of good software engineering is being able to translate the problem domain into software and back, as well as communication. IQ tests do not test for the latter, which is arguably the most important part. My ability as a software engineer to effortlessly shift between industries is directly due to the broad college education I received. Software apprenticeships would only lead to a largely immobile workforce stuck in one or two particular technologies. There seems to be this perception in some circles that software engineering is a handful of senior or principal software engineers tediously writing very detailed stories with specifications for hundreds of junior software engineers to crunch out without thinking. This is, without a doubt, one of the most expensive and least efficient means of software development. It's also what an apprenticeship system without college gets you.

Jensson 4y ago
> IQ tests do not test for the latter, which is arguably the most important part. They do, proper IQ tests have a language component. Properly reading, understanding and writing text is very much related to IQ.