3 ms·

The issue with professional licensing, is that it's very, very specific. In things like civil engineering, there's usually mandated context. You have to work w

The issue with professional licensing, is that it's very, very specific. In things like civil engineering, there's usually mandated context. You have to work within certain parameters, so it's not too difficult to test with real-world criteria. With software engineering, it's all over the place. In fact, one of the most exciting things that I used to look for, in potential candidates, was people who were not bogged down with dogma, and would bring alternative viewpoints to the team. Since anyone coming into my team would require a ton of training; regardless of their seniority, I always had a nice, long on-ramp, in which I could evaluate people.

ryandrake 1y ago
There can be a halfway solution that helps: A professional software engineering license that signifies an extremely basic, barebones level of skill. Companies would still need to interview candidates, but they wouldn't have to do FizzBuzz or "write a for loop" types of interviews with candidates who literally cannot write code at all. It wouldn't guarantee the person was an expert in inverting binary trees, but it would at least represent a minimal knowledge and skill bar that one would expect any software engineer to meet.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  It really, really sucks, that we have to be here. Maybe have online application pages, that can’t be submitted, unless you fizzbuzz. :(
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  One of my interview questions used to involve putting up a parameterized SQL statement on the whiteboard, (select userid, email from users where userid=?), give the candidate instructions on how to use a data reader, and then expect them to construct a "user" object. I did this because I was part of a project that failed because the leads did not know how to work with a database. They thought the ORM would just magically load objects. Without understanding the basic limitations of data readers, they painted themselves into a corner. Licensing basically needs to filter this kind of thing. IE, you don't get a license to work with a SQL database unless you can work with a data reader. --- The irony was that we very rarely touched SQL, but the question was one of the greatest filters out there! It showed who understood basic concepts, who was just BSing their way though, and who would get stuck in high-level abstractions.

ryandrake 1y ago

There can be a halfway solution that helps: A professional software engineering license that signifies an extremely basic, barebones level of skill. Companies would still need to interview candidates, but they wouldn't have to do FizzBuzz or "write a for loop" types of interviews with candidates who literally cannot write code at all. It wouldn't guarantee the person was an expert in inverting binary trees, but it would at least represent a minimal knowledge and skill bar that one would expect any software engineer to meet.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
It really, really sucks, that we have to be here. Maybe have online application pages, that can’t be submitted, unless you fizzbuzz. :(
gwbas1c 1y ago
One of my interview questions used to involve putting up a parameterized SQL statement on the whiteboard, (select userid, email from users where userid=?), give the candidate instructions on how to use a data reader, and then expect them to construct a "user" object. I did this because I was part of a project that failed because the leads did not know how to work with a database. They thought the ORM would just magically load objects. Without understanding the basic limitations of data readers, they painted themselves into a corner. Licensing basically needs to filter this kind of thing. IE, you don't get a license to work with a SQL database unless you can work with a data reader. --- The irony was that we very rarely touched SQL, but the question was one of the greatest filters out there! It showed who understood basic concepts, who was just BSing their way though, and who would get stuck in high-level abstractions.