5 ms·

> I also won't hire any other young engineers Your loss, really. I've interviewed and worked with several young engineers who were really top-notch, who worke

> I also won't hire any other young engineers Your loss, really. I've interviewed and worked with several young engineers who were really top-notch, who worked out great, and were mature in their approach to work and life in general. They also tend to come with a lower price tag. Some have not worked out so well, but I don't have any reason to believe that the failure rate changes dramatically with age. As I myself get older, I'm not so sure that the maturity level changes all that much either. People are just better at hiding their flaws as they grow older, then you find out too late when there's an issue.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
wpietri 14y ago
Yes. Good young engineers are very amenable to learning new approaches. And I love the raw energy of somebody who is 25 and sees every project as a fresh! exciting! new! challenge!
flatline3 14y ago
I've never worked with a top-notch young engineer. Brilliant, yes, top notch, no. Every single one has had misguided priorities, significant experience gaps (leading to both bad engineering decisions and misguided priorities), and -- even in the best of them -- hubris. Despite their intelligence they've always required constant senior level supervision, and have generally been the ones most likely to create maintenance-heavy components due to inexperience. I'm not sure why our experiences differ so substantially, but I'm happy to hire only senior engineers and let other companies pay to train the young ones. The senior engineers are more than worth the minimal financial premium.
- mamoswined 14y ago
  "I'm not sure why our experiences differ so substantially" Sounds like you have bad projects management and let people go cowboy and build bad things because you don't communicate with each other.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    No, it's simply impossible to babysit junior engineers to a sufficient degree as to prevent bad implementation without effectively doing their job for them. It's not worth the effort.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      Ah, I love when "I can't think of a way to do it" turns into "it's simply impossible".
      - flatline3 14y ago
        Not only can I not think of a way to do it, I have never, in 15 years, seen an organization that successfully managed junior engineers in a way that resulted in the production of code on par with what senior engineers would produce. Getting good work out of junior engineers requires a management investment greater than the cost of simply hiring experienced engineers to begin with, and they still will not produce code to the same level of robustness and quality. I can see from your company that you don't operate this way. I assume this choice expands the apparent pool of available applicants, but it also ensures that your company is likely completely uninteresting to senior, experienced, genuinely expert engineers. In my experience, there are two kinds of engineering managers. The first is the kind that has figured out (or thinks they've figured out) how to get decent enough code out of inexperienced or just plain bad engineers. The second is the kind that realizes that they don't have to work nearly so hard or jump through so many procedural hoops if they just hire people that know what they're doing to begin with. What's more, those experienced people tend to have extensive contacts and make it easy to hire their friends. That said, I'm happy to let you spend the time, money, and energy training and managing junior engineers, while dealing with their subpar work output.
        wpietri 14y ago
        Fascinating! Please tell me more about how I run my company, and all the things I apparently believe. Plus more about what kind of manager I am. You certainly have an active imagination, so I'm sure the next things you make up would be just as interesting.
Retric 14y ago
Except Engineers have a fairly narrow cost range. Something like 50k - 200k except add in Benefits, Management Overhead, Resources (computers, software, office space etc.) are more or less flat and it's really only about a 2.5x cost increase from fresh from a no name school to some of the vary best in the field. Add in communication overhead if you let the team grow and unless you have really simple problems easily solvable by recent graduates it's best to focus on an experienced team.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

wpietri 14y ago

Yes. Good young engineers are very amenable to learning new approaches. And I love the raw energy of somebody who is 25 and sees every project as a fresh! exciting! new! challenge!

flatline3 14y ago

I've never worked with a top-notch young engineer. Brilliant, yes, top notch, no. Every single one has had misguided priorities, significant experience gaps (leading to both bad engineering decisions and misguided priorities), and -- even in the best of them -- hubris. Despite their intelligence they've always required constant senior level supervision, and have generally been the ones most likely to create maintenance-heavy components due to inexperience. I'm not sure why our experiences differ so substantially, but I'm happy to hire only senior engineers and let other companies pay to train the young ones. The senior engineers are more than worth the minimal financial premium.

mamoswined 14y ago
"I'm not sure why our experiences differ so substantially" Sounds like you have bad projects management and let people go cowboy and build bad things because you don't communicate with each other.
- flatline3 14y ago
  No, it's simply impossible to babysit junior engineers to a sufficient degree as to prevent bad implementation without effectively doing their job for them. It's not worth the effort.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Ah, I love when "I can't think of a way to do it" turns into "it's simply impossible".
    - flatline3 14y ago
      Not only can I not think of a way to do it, I have never, in 15 years, seen an organization that successfully managed junior engineers in a way that resulted in the production of code on par with what senior engineers would produce. Getting good work out of junior engineers requires a management investment greater than the cost of simply hiring experienced engineers to begin with, and they still will not produce code to the same level of robustness and quality. I can see from your company that you don't operate this way. I assume this choice expands the apparent pool of available applicants, but it also ensures that your company is likely completely uninteresting to senior, experienced, genuinely expert engineers. In my experience, there are two kinds of engineering managers. The first is the kind that has figured out (or thinks they've figured out) how to get decent enough code out of inexperienced or just plain bad engineers. The second is the kind that realizes that they don't have to work nearly so hard or jump through so many procedural hoops if they just hire people that know what they're doing to begin with. What's more, those experienced people tend to have extensive contacts and make it easy to hire their friends. That said, I'm happy to let you spend the time, money, and energy training and managing junior engineers, while dealing with their subpar work output.
      - wpietri 14y ago
        Fascinating! Please tell me more about how I run my company, and all the things I apparently believe. Plus more about what kind of manager I am. You certainly have an active imagination, so I'm sure the next things you make up would be just as interesting.

Retric 14y ago

Except Engineers have a fairly narrow cost range. Something like 50k - 200k except add in Benefits, Management Overhead, Resources (computers, software, office space etc.) are more or less flat and it's really only about a 2.5x cost increase from fresh from a no name school to some of the vary best in the field. Add in communication overhead if you let the team grow and unless you have really simple problems easily solvable by recent graduates it's best to focus on an experienced team.