5 ms·

I tend to agree with you. Corporations will often test you out in what you consider to be a "crap" job. Why? It's not a test of skill, it's a test of initiat

I tend to agree with you. Corporations will often test you out in what you consider to be a "crap" job. Why? It's not a test of skill, it's a test of initiative. Without slamming him -- it's his personal choice, after all, and good luck to him -- this is why some people don't advance. They see a position as being "beneath" them when actually they're being watched to see if they can -- on their own -- bring something new to it.

xtracto 13y ago
I used to be like that (no really I did): I started programming when I was about 7 years old (LOGO, then Basic, then C). I finished my degree in Software Engineering with the highest grade of all my peers and with honours. About one year before graduation I started working at a software company (doing some rent-a-car systems and tourism web-dev) but inside me thinking I was so-much-better than what I was doing (programming .NET v1). So I took off and went to the UK to do a Master and a PhD. Fastforward 8 years (4 of Masters/PhD, 4 of a PostDoc), I am 'back' as a 'simple' software engineer in a great company doing what I realized I love: programming software. I have been one year now, learning the company processess and their domain, meeting the people. And after this year, I've got a good career path laid in front of me with the opportunity to sometime become a tech lead.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Can I suggest you nip off and read michaelochurch's blog about 1.3-1.5 programmers. If you are not (as a Phd (in CS?)) delivering 5x your value and knowing that you are you are being underused or overpaid.
michaelochurch 13y ago
Corporations will often test you out in what you consider to be a "crap" job. Why? It's not a test of skill, it's a test of initiative. Without slamming him -- it's his personal choice, after all, and good luck to him -- this is why some people don't advance. They see a position as being "beneath" them when actually they're being watched to see if they can -- on their own -- bring something new to it. It's a total waste of time to play that game. Why? Because not everyone starts on a crap job. When you apply for transfer after 1.5-2 years, you will be competing against people had real work, and you won't be able to get out of your second-class citizen status. You might get a slightly better project, but you'll never get an actually good one. Were it not for the job-hopper stigma imposed by Boomersaurs holding the reality of the new economy against us (as if we had something to do with it) the most viable thing would be to roll the dice again after 6 months. The only way to get good projects in a company is to start on one (or have a pre-existing personal relationship with the CEO).
- mikecane 13y ago
  >>>It's a total waste of time to play that game. I disagree and the experience of many others in prominent positions have experience that runs counter to that. From the outside, it's easy to dismiss it as a "game" (which is a bit odd, given the popularity of games in software...). From the inside, find a better way to separate those who can make an actual contribution to those who just do what they're told and need to be told what they should do? >>>Were it not for the job-hopper stigma In large companies, perhaps, where your entry depends on a corporate checklist. But in a smaller company where the opinion of those doing the hiring counts for more than procedures, it won't matter if you have the skills they need to fill the job. Let's not forget that Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft are all behemoths the size of non-digital corporations.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    I disagree and the experience of many others in prominent positions have experience that runs counter to that. From the outside, it's easy to dismiss it as a "game" (which is a bit odd, given the popularity of games in software...). I'm using "game" as a synonym for "gamble", not "engaging, interactive experience". When you let your boss assign you crap work to support his career goals while you don't learn anything, you're essentially gambling. The idea is that if you let him use your career in the way that a teenager uses a Kleenex, for about 3 years, his sense of indebtedness will inspire him to start giving you real work and this sudden turn to political favor compensate for your wasted time. What actually happens is that the real work always goes to people with higher-quality work experience than what you got. You're not eligible for the good stuff, because you wasted years of your life on the garbage out of a misguided sense of loyalty (or perhaps financial desperation). From the inside, find a better way to separate those who can make an actual contribution to those who just do what they're told and need to be told what they should do? People who try to work directly for the company by solving important problems they weren't told to solve get fired for breaking the #1 Rule of Corporate Survival: Never Outshine Your Master: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMy8Tf-zCag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMy8Tf-zCag. (Ok, that's actually one of the 48 "laws of power" and I don't agree with the whole body of work, but that one is 100% true.)
SatvikBeri 13y ago
And this is a great way to lose your best talent. Why work for a place that puts you through bullshit tests when you can work for a company that gives you important work and helps you succeed from day 1? Personally, I did achieve significant success in a highly bureaucratic environment and got rewarded for it...but then I left anyway to work at a place actually encouraged me to work on problems that mattered, instead of constantly getting in the way when I tried to get anything done. Any sane person would do the same thing.

xtracto 13y ago

I used to be like that (no really I did): I started programming when I was about 7 years old (LOGO, then Basic, then C). I finished my degree in Software Engineering with the highest grade of all my peers and with honours. About one year before graduation I started working at a software company (doing some rent-a-car systems and tourism web-dev) but inside me thinking I was so-much-better than what I was doing (programming .NET v1). So I took off and went to the UK to do a Master and a PhD. Fastforward 8 years (4 of Masters/PhD, 4 of a PostDoc), I am 'back' as a 'simple' software engineer in a great company doing what I realized I love: programming software. I have been one year now, learning the company processess and their domain, meeting the people. And after this year, I've got a good career path laid in front of me with the opportunity to sometime become a tech lead.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Can I suggest you nip off and read michaelochurch's blog about 1.3-1.5 programmers. If you are not (as a Phd (in CS?)) delivering 5x your value and knowing that you are you are being underused or overpaid.

michaelochurch 13y ago

Corporations will often test you out in what you consider to be a "crap" job. Why? It's not a test of skill, it's a test of initiative. Without slamming him -- it's his personal choice, after all, and good luck to him -- this is why some people don't advance. They see a position as being "beneath" them when actually they're being watched to see if they can -- on their own -- bring something new to it. It's a total waste of time to play that game. Why? Because not everyone starts on a crap job. When you apply for transfer after 1.5-2 years, you will be competing against people had real work, and you won't be able to get out of your second-class citizen status. You might get a slightly better project, but you'll never get an actually good one. Were it not for the job-hopper stigma imposed by Boomersaurs holding the reality of the new economy against us (as if we had something to do with it) the most viable thing would be to roll the dice again after 6 months. The only way to get good projects in a company is to start on one (or have a pre-existing personal relationship with the CEO).

mikecane 13y ago
>>>It's a total waste of time to play that game. I disagree and the experience of many others in prominent positions have experience that runs counter to that. From the outside, it's easy to dismiss it as a "game" (which is a bit odd, given the popularity of games in software...). From the inside, find a better way to separate those who can make an actual contribution to those who just do what they're told and need to be told what they should do? >>>Were it not for the job-hopper stigma In large companies, perhaps, where your entry depends on a corporate checklist. But in a smaller company where the opinion of those doing the hiring counts for more than procedures, it won't matter if you have the skills they need to fill the job. Let's not forget that Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft are all behemoths the size of non-digital corporations.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I disagree and the experience of many others in prominent positions have experience that runs counter to that. From the outside, it's easy to dismiss it as a "game" (which is a bit odd, given the popularity of games in software...). I'm using "game" as a synonym for "gamble", not "engaging, interactive experience". When you let your boss assign you crap work to support his career goals while you don't learn anything, you're essentially gambling. The idea is that if you let him use your career in the way that a teenager uses a Kleenex, for about 3 years, his sense of indebtedness will inspire him to start giving you real work and this sudden turn to political favor compensate for your wasted time. What actually happens is that the real work always goes to people with higher-quality work experience than what you got. You're not eligible for the good stuff, because you wasted years of your life on the garbage out of a misguided sense of loyalty (or perhaps financial desperation). From the inside, find a better way to separate those who can make an actual contribution to those who just do what they're told and need to be told what they should do? People who try to work directly for the company by solving important problems they weren't told to solve get fired for breaking the #1 Rule of Corporate Survival: Never Outshine Your Master: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMy8Tf-zCag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMy8Tf-zCag. (Ok, that's actually one of the 48 "laws of power" and I don't agree with the whole body of work, but that one is 100% true.)

SatvikBeri 13y ago

And this is a great way to lose your best talent. Why work for a place that puts you through bullshit tests when you can work for a company that gives you important work and helps you succeed from day 1? Personally, I did achieve significant success in a highly bureaucratic environment and got rewarded for it...but then I left anyway to work at a place actually encouraged me to work on problems that mattered, instead of constantly getting in the way when I tried to get anything done. Any sane person would do the same thing.