3 ms·

This is a good strategy. However, it does seem to raise a new question - why is this more common in IT than other fields (which may beg the question, is it in

by geebee 12y ago

This is a good strategy. However, it does seem to raise a new question - why is this more common in IT than other fields (which may beg the question, is it in fact more common in IT than other fields)? Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do. I think that a big part of this may be something Michael O Church described as "dimensionality" (in an essay on the relative scarcity of women in programming). http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/dimensionality-and-also-a-theory-about-the-rarity-of-female-programmers/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/dimensionalit... The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do. Because they are required as a condition of professional licensing to stay current (and have a documentary trail of staying current that matches and profession-wide accepted definition of what "staying current" means), which means that while there is some risk of being in a specialization for which demand is reduced, it is virtually impossible to not stay current in the manner expected in the industry without voluntarily choosing to abandon the profession. Consequently, its harder to have covert age discrimination with "not being current" as an excuse. > The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous. Sure, but I don't think that is anything inherent in the subject matter ofprogramming that is less clear cut than, e.g., law, in those terms. Its just a difference in the social and regulatory context.
- geebee 12y ago
  I think the "industry-wide accepted definition" you've referred to is the key here. There's greater awareness of precisely what "staying current" means, and there's a more measurable and straightforward way to fulfill those requirements. That doesn't mean it isn't rigorous - getting through nursing graduate school and getting board certified as a nurse anesthetist is very rigorous! But my guess is that the path is much clearer. You don't end up getting surprise interview questions about the Fourier transform because you claim to know how to interpret ultrasound.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Actually, I think the key might be that tech changes while we still need people capable of dealing (in depth!) with the old stuff. You don't have lawyers that need to practice today in the legal system of 20 years ago. Medicine learns better (we hope) ways of dealing with the same thing, but no one needs to remain an expert in the treatments we've discarded. Tech needs some expert COBOL programmers until it doesn't.

by geebee 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do. Because they are required as a condition of professional licensing to stay current (and have a documentary trail of staying current that matches and profession-wide accepted definition of what "staying current" means), which means that while there is some risk of being in a specialization for which demand is reduced, it is virtually impossible to not stay current in the manner expected in the industry without voluntarily choosing to abandon the profession. Consequently, its harder to have covert age discrimination with "not being current" as an excuse. > The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous. Sure, but I don't think that is anything inherent in the subject matter ofprogramming that is less clear cut than, e.g., law, in those terms. Its just a difference in the social and regulatory context.

geebee 12y ago
I think the "industry-wide accepted definition" you've referred to is the key here. There's greater awareness of precisely what "staying current" means, and there's a more measurable and straightforward way to fulfill those requirements. That doesn't mean it isn't rigorous - getting through nursing graduate school and getting board certified as a nurse anesthetist is very rigorous! But my guess is that the path is much clearer. You don't end up getting surprise interview questions about the Fourier transform because you claim to know how to interpret ultrasound.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Actually, I think the key might be that tech changes while we still need people capable of dealing (in depth!) with the old stuff. You don't have lawyers that need to practice today in the legal system of 20 years ago. Medicine learns better (we hope) ways of dealing with the same thing, but no one needs to remain an expert in the treatments we've discarded. Tech needs some expert COBOL programmers until it doesn't.