7 ms·

Anecdotal evidence in the opposite direction: only half of my computer engineering peers in my graduating class of 2011 had jobs in the industry within 3 months

Anecdotal evidence in the opposite direction: only half of my computer engineering peers in my graduating class of 2011 had jobs in the industry within 3 months of graduating. While I think some devs are in high demand, I think many have little horizontal or upward mobility if they can get a job at all. I don't have a lot of evidence to back this up, and that WP study seems to talk a lot more about IT than software development, but I think it's probably something to think about. I think there's a crisis in training and mentorship in our industry, rather than one of willing bodies.

pbiggar 13y ago
I totally agree, and I don't think that's actually an argument in the opposite direction, but rather an affirmation: good people have great opportunity, bad people do not. Half of my classmates in college were poor programmers, so I don't doubt that yours were too. Which is my point above: we're starved of great devs because of stats about shit devs.
- yen223 13y ago
  How would you differentiate a "great" dev, a "good" dev, and a shit one? Not being snarky, genuinely curious.
  - pbiggar 13y ago
    A shit dev can't reverse a list. A good dev can code arbitrary problems you give him, and can actually ship working code. A great dev can discuss ins-and-outs of an arbitrary system you give him to design, moving up and down the stack with ease. That's a rough guide, with many edge cases, but that's how we go about it.
- bicknergseng 13y ago
  But I think that misses my point... I don't think we get to complain about a lack of good developers without trying to do something to make the bottom 50% of developers better. Taken in the context of the general population, that bottom 50% is still highly intelligent and generally very capable group of individuals. IMO we're starved of great devs because we don't make bad devs better.
  - ktsmith 13y ago
    It used to be that employers trained less skilled individuals and there was more incentive to stay with employers for a long time. Now there is very little loyalty between employees or employers. I think this is a significant part of the problem.
    - shrughes 13y ago
      It's not. You couldn't beat programming ability into the vast majority of incompetards.
    - lsc 13y ago
      > It used to be that employers trained less skilled individuals and there was more incentive to stay with employers for a long time. Now there is very little loyalty between employees or employers. I think this is a significant part of the problem. Uh, I dono about the whole staying long time thing, but employers do train, or at least hire unqualified people they expect to grow into the position. Especially low-budget web startups... yeah, they talk about "rockstar ninja" this and that, but who do you think they actually get, when they are paying below market rates? I mean, I'm not criticizing; some people really respond to "non-monetary compensation" - and that's what the rockstar ninja bullshit is. I hire from the same pool, really; but I'm all apologetic about paying you shit. Who would you rather work for? me, saying "Hey, sorry I'm paying you shit. but hey, the last guy who had the job got a really good job with $realcompany after two years." - or some startup, that says you are an awesome best in the world rockstar ninja, and you aren't getting much money, but you have equity in this startup that will change the world!" I mean, it's really the same thing, just framed in different ways. And most people? they like the rockstar ninja framing.
      - ruswick 13y ago
        You.
        lsc 13y ago
        really? well, I'm actually looking for people right now. I mean, this month I need a bunch of rack and stack help (but I'm willing to take you through setting up several brands of switches, if you sign on before I set 'em up myself) I can pay $15/hr on a 1099, (remember, that means you pay both the employer and employee payroll taxes, so at minimum, that means you are paying 7.5% more of that as taxes than you would as a w2. Plus tax calculation effort and stuff.) but I've got a kinda informal headhunting deal with a buddy who needs similar skills. He pays a little more (full time, though, and w/ health benefits, on a w2, and I think he would pay like $15-$18/hr, but between the w2 and the benefits, that's significantly better than the $15 on a 1099.) I point him at good folks who work for cheap, and instead of giving me a recruiting bonus, he lets me rent you back at a discounted rate. So yeah, if you are in silicon valley, drop me an email (in my profile) and call your first few days 'paid interview' and maybe you get a full time gig with that other guy? (I hire people full-time with benefits, too- but right now, I don't have enough revenue to hire another full-time. I do need some help moving, though, which is why that shady deal with my buddy is so good for me; I get some per-day work, but can attract someone that wants to be full time, and thus end up paying closer to full-time rates.) I am okay with a full-day minimum; I'm not expecting you to show up for an hour for $15, and I usually get lunch or dinner or something. But yeah; I don't know. “Napoleon's hat on the battlefield is worth 50,000 men”. - most people expect /leadership/ - and most people think leadership involves motivating people through personal charisma and confidence. Personally? I understand how bad leadership can destroy value, but I don't really see how good leadership (in the personal charisma sense) can help anything. I think good leaders pick good people, (or, at least, the best people available considering the compensation the company can afford.) then mostly get out of the way. I mean, i do a lot of "no, don't spend time on that, this other thing is more important" - like today, I redirected an employee away from working on new images and towards improving our per-port BCP38. And I do training, too, but that's really more experienced individual contributor type work. (And as for Napoleon, after the french revolution? the french soldiers were treated better than any of their contemporaries, and I think that had a lot to do with their success. I mean, I'm not entirely discounting Napoleon, but "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," I think, really had a lot to do with his success. It's not a unique strategy; every Caesar since, well, Caesar has used populist rhetoric and policies to gain and keep power, but at that time? the rest of the world really treated their soldiers poorly, and France was, at least in Europe, uniquely populist.)
argonaut 13y ago
Did they end up in finance/management consulting?
wooster 13y ago
Anecdotally, Computer Engineering degrees have a bad rep with HR and hiring managers. The degrees seem to cover too little EE to do hardware work and too little CS to do software work. I agree about the crisis in training and mentorship. A lot of people who seem like weak candidates are really just lacking in experience and direction.
tomkarlo 13y ago
It's hard enough to find qualified devs out of the pool of folks with CS degrees, which often fail to prepare students for the workplace. CE is possibly at a disadvantage because in covering two disciplines, it doesn't serve either particularly well; there aren't as many jobs where that kind of mixed software/hardware expertise is crucial. It's kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none problem, at least in terms of perception.

pbiggar 13y ago

I totally agree, and I don't think that's actually an argument in the opposite direction, but rather an affirmation: good people have great opportunity, bad people do not. Half of my classmates in college were poor programmers, so I don't doubt that yours were too. Which is my point above: we're starved of great devs because of stats about shit devs.

yen223 13y ago
How would you differentiate a "great" dev, a "good" dev, and a shit one? Not being snarky, genuinely curious.
- pbiggar 13y ago
  A shit dev can't reverse a list. A good dev can code arbitrary problems you give him, and can actually ship working code. A great dev can discuss ins-and-outs of an arbitrary system you give him to design, moving up and down the stack with ease. That's a rough guide, with many edge cases, but that's how we go about it.
bicknergseng 13y ago
But I think that misses my point... I don't think we get to complain about a lack of good developers without trying to do something to make the bottom 50% of developers better. Taken in the context of the general population, that bottom 50% is still highly intelligent and generally very capable group of individuals. IMO we're starved of great devs because we don't make bad devs better.
- ktsmith 13y ago
  It used to be that employers trained less skilled individuals and there was more incentive to stay with employers for a long time. Now there is very little loyalty between employees or employers. I think this is a significant part of the problem.
  - shrughes 13y ago
    It's not. You couldn't beat programming ability into the vast majority of incompetards.
  - lsc 13y ago
    > It used to be that employers trained less skilled individuals and there was more incentive to stay with employers for a long time. Now there is very little loyalty between employees or employers. I think this is a significant part of the problem. Uh, I dono about the whole staying long time thing, but employers do train, or at least hire unqualified people they expect to grow into the position. Especially low-budget web startups... yeah, they talk about "rockstar ninja" this and that, but who do you think they actually get, when they are paying below market rates? I mean, I'm not criticizing; some people really respond to "non-monetary compensation" - and that's what the rockstar ninja bullshit is. I hire from the same pool, really; but I'm all apologetic about paying you shit. Who would you rather work for? me, saying "Hey, sorry I'm paying you shit. but hey, the last guy who had the job got a really good job with $realcompany after two years." - or some startup, that says you are an awesome best in the world rockstar ninja, and you aren't getting much money, but you have equity in this startup that will change the world!" I mean, it's really the same thing, just framed in different ways. And most people? they like the rockstar ninja framing.
    - ruswick 13y ago
      You.
      - lsc 13y ago
        really? well, I'm actually looking for people right now. I mean, this month I need a bunch of rack and stack help (but I'm willing to take you through setting up several brands of switches, if you sign on before I set 'em up myself) I can pay $15/hr on a 1099, (remember, that means you pay both the employer and employee payroll taxes, so at minimum, that means you are paying 7.5% more of that as taxes than you would as a w2. Plus tax calculation effort and stuff.) but I've got a kinda informal headhunting deal with a buddy who needs similar skills. He pays a little more (full time, though, and w/ health benefits, on a w2, and I think he would pay like $15-$18/hr, but between the w2 and the benefits, that's significantly better than the $15 on a 1099.) I point him at good folks who work for cheap, and instead of giving me a recruiting bonus, he lets me rent you back at a discounted rate. So yeah, if you are in silicon valley, drop me an email (in my profile) and call your first few days 'paid interview' and maybe you get a full time gig with that other guy? (I hire people full-time with benefits, too- but right now, I don't have enough revenue to hire another full-time. I do need some help moving, though, which is why that shady deal with my buddy is so good for me; I get some per-day work, but can attract someone that wants to be full time, and thus end up paying closer to full-time rates.) I am okay with a full-day minimum; I'm not expecting you to show up for an hour for $15, and I usually get lunch or dinner or something. But yeah; I don't know. “Napoleon's hat on the battlefield is worth 50,000 men”. - most people expect /leadership/ - and most people think leadership involves motivating people through personal charisma and confidence. Personally? I understand how bad leadership can destroy value, but I don't really see how good leadership (in the personal charisma sense) can help anything. I think good leaders pick good people, (or, at least, the best people available considering the compensation the company can afford.) then mostly get out of the way. I mean, i do a lot of "no, don't spend time on that, this other thing is more important" - like today, I redirected an employee away from working on new images and towards improving our per-port BCP38. And I do training, too, but that's really more experienced individual contributor type work. (And as for Napoleon, after the french revolution? the french soldiers were treated better than any of their contemporaries, and I think that had a lot to do with their success. I mean, I'm not entirely discounting Napoleon, but "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," I think, really had a lot to do with his success. It's not a unique strategy; every Caesar since, well, Caesar has used populist rhetoric and policies to gain and keep power, but at that time? the rest of the world really treated their soldiers poorly, and France was, at least in Europe, uniquely populist.)

argonaut 13y ago

Did they end up in finance/management consulting?

wooster 13y ago

Anecdotally, Computer Engineering degrees have a bad rep with HR and hiring managers. The degrees seem to cover too little EE to do hardware work and too little CS to do software work. I agree about the crisis in training and mentorship. A lot of people who seem like weak candidates are really just lacking in experience and direction.

tomkarlo 13y ago

It's hard enough to find qualified devs out of the pool of folks with CS degrees, which often fail to prepare students for the workplace. CE is possibly at a disadvantage because in covering two disciplines, it doesn't serve either particularly well; there aren't as many jobs where that kind of mixed software/hardware expertise is crucial. It's kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none problem, at least in terms of perception.