5 ms·

There would be a lot fewer recruiters, and more experienced engineers. Also a less monolithic tech culture. Right now every employee is more or less compatibl

There would be a lot fewer recruiters, and more experienced engineers. Also a less monolithic tech culture. Right now every employee is more or less compatible across every company because we all seek to be transferable

Robotbeat 4y ago
It would be bad for the industry and would mean greater concentration of talent in one or two corporations.
bmitc 4y ago
An interesting thing that I have experienced is that a lot of recruiters and companies don’t care about your experience. All they care about is the exact experience they are looking for. In a world where most people stay in a position for a while, it’s only natural to gain a lot of experience and responsibility but not necessarily broad experience. So in that case, it would be very hard to switch jobs, industries, etc. So what I am curious about is, did companies used to hire in less myopic ways?
- ncphil 4y ago
  Definitely yes. Over 25 years ago I started a second career, in tech. After 6 months in a Microsoft academic program I got hired by a Big Six accounting firm to do desktop support. My previous education was completely nontechnical (a BA and MA in history, and a JD), as was my experience (10 years as a trial lawyer). No way was I the most qualified on paper for that job, but the people who hired me saw something and acted. A year later I was able to move into a new job with better pay at a Fortune 200 company, originally hired to do applications analysis but shortly after found myself a lead desktop engineer and later a Unix sysadmin. At every turn I was fortunate to have hiring managers that looked beyond my resume to see the potential there. Sure, in 1997 an HR person told me they needed someone with at least 5 years experience in Windows NT, but in general most interviews I had in the late 90s and early 00s were way less myopic. I'm not sure I'd have the same experience if starting out today.
zxcvbn4038 4y ago
You would think so but too many people get really comfortable and never expand their skills beyond the minimum required to do their current job. Last year I had an SRE position open I had to interview over three dozen people before I found one guy who could explain anything he had done in any detail. Everybody else was probably in the room when someone else did something, but could not give details of what was done, why it was done a particular way, or what they might do the same or differently if they did it again. Some of the people I had to be honest with - if they are paying you the kind of money you say to reset passwords and stare at the wall, you should stay where you are and make sure that wall never leaves your sight.
- 10hr 4y ago
  You've been reiterating this across a few threads this month, right? Perhaps it IS the widespread case that a lot of us are getting paid as SRE for much less than you believe an SRE should know. Ultimately, where you've set the bar is arbitrary
- andirk 4y ago
  I always wonder how people who are only in the room when things happen have any pride in their work and aren't embarrassed at their lack of production. A couple jobs ago was people who put most of their effort in to making sure their group of shitty engineers wasn't found out. It was a lot of work! Since they were all about quantity of people over any quality, they had to keep hiring more people, so there was a lot of time and effort in to interviewing to make sure they only hired other shitty engineers of their same ilk. I was hired outside of their scheme so we weren't best of friends lets say.
  - zxcvbn4038 4y ago
    I’ve never understood the people who make no effort to better themselves - they work in technology, everything has a 3-5 year engineering life, they should always be preparing for the next thing. People often can’t control what technologies their employer uses, but if they have solid fundamentals and I can tell they have tried to learn things on their own, more often then not I’ll give them a chance, and it usually works out because they are doing what they really want to do, and they are always looking for ways to build upon and improve what they’ve worked on.
alexandre_m 4y ago
There also would be less innovation as there would be less cross-pollination.
- GenerocUsername 4y ago
  Arguable. Too much cross pollination leads to super-monoculture. It's important to have distinct subcultures to progressultiple fronts sometimes.

Robotbeat 4y ago

It would be bad for the industry and would mean greater concentration of talent in one or two corporations.

bmitc 4y ago

An interesting thing that I have experienced is that a lot of recruiters and companies don’t care about your experience. All they care about is the exact experience they are looking for. In a world where most people stay in a position for a while, it’s only natural to gain a lot of experience and responsibility but not necessarily broad experience. So in that case, it would be very hard to switch jobs, industries, etc. So what I am curious about is, did companies used to hire in less myopic ways?

ncphil 4y ago
Definitely yes. Over 25 years ago I started a second career, in tech. After 6 months in a Microsoft academic program I got hired by a Big Six accounting firm to do desktop support. My previous education was completely nontechnical (a BA and MA in history, and a JD), as was my experience (10 years as a trial lawyer). No way was I the most qualified on paper for that job, but the people who hired me saw something and acted. A year later I was able to move into a new job with better pay at a Fortune 200 company, originally hired to do applications analysis but shortly after found myself a lead desktop engineer and later a Unix sysadmin. At every turn I was fortunate to have hiring managers that looked beyond my resume to see the potential there. Sure, in 1997 an HR person told me they needed someone with at least 5 years experience in Windows NT, but in general most interviews I had in the late 90s and early 00s were way less myopic. I'm not sure I'd have the same experience if starting out today.

zxcvbn4038 4y ago

You would think so but too many people get really comfortable and never expand their skills beyond the minimum required to do their current job. Last year I had an SRE position open I had to interview over three dozen people before I found one guy who could explain anything he had done in any detail. Everybody else was probably in the room when someone else did something, but could not give details of what was done, why it was done a particular way, or what they might do the same or differently if they did it again. Some of the people I had to be honest with - if they are paying you the kind of money you say to reset passwords and stare at the wall, you should stay where you are and make sure that wall never leaves your sight.

10hr 4y ago
You've been reiterating this across a few threads this month, right? Perhaps it IS the widespread case that a lot of us are getting paid as SRE for much less than you believe an SRE should know. Ultimately, where you've set the bar is arbitrary
andirk 4y ago
I always wonder how people who are only in the room when things happen have any pride in their work and aren't embarrassed at their lack of production. A couple jobs ago was people who put most of their effort in to making sure their group of shitty engineers wasn't found out. It was a lot of work! Since they were all about quantity of people over any quality, they had to keep hiring more people, so there was a lot of time and effort in to interviewing to make sure they only hired other shitty engineers of their same ilk. I was hired outside of their scheme so we weren't best of friends lets say.
- zxcvbn4038 4y ago
  I’ve never understood the people who make no effort to better themselves - they work in technology, everything has a 3-5 year engineering life, they should always be preparing for the next thing. People often can’t control what technologies their employer uses, but if they have solid fundamentals and I can tell they have tried to learn things on their own, more often then not I’ll give them a chance, and it usually works out because they are doing what they really want to do, and they are always looking for ways to build upon and improve what they’ve worked on.

alexandre_m 4y ago

There also would be less innovation as there would be less cross-pollination.

GenerocUsername 4y ago
Arguable. Too much cross pollination leads to super-monoculture. It's important to have distinct subcultures to progressultiple fronts sometimes.