3 ms·

If the employers are truly desperate, they should be considering the option. Or I suppose they can just do without if they want to be stubborn.

fredophile 12y ago
Let's assume that they do this and check how the numbers work out. Say the program takes six months and they pay candidates $50000 a year while they're taking it. Google is notorious for preferring false negatives in their interview process to making bad hires so maybe 1 in 10 candidates gets offered a job at the end. The program also costs money to run. They need teaching staff, computers, space, etc. You're easily at over $300 000 and six months latency to get one junior programmer. Alternatively, they could offer someone more senior a $200 000 signing bonus, save a bunch of money and hire someone experienced. Which do you think is a better way to invest their recruiting money?
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Move the 1 in 10 filtering up front, before they're hired in the first place. And don't compare jr devs to sr devs since those aren't the same jobs to fill. Even Google has jr jobs.
  - fredophile 12y ago
    Writing code is part of the typical interview/application process. The hypothetical people in this process can't write code. How can a company pick which ones will do well before they've been trained? You're correct that big companies have positions for people at all levels. However, they usually aren't willing to pay more to fill a junior position than they'd need to pay to fill a more senior role.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      I'm not sure how you come to the idea they pay trainee jrs more than experienced srs, not without some crazy 10:1 hire:retain ratio. And I'm confident it's possible to develop aptitude interview processes that avoid 10:1 false positives. The bottom line though, is this- If there's a genuine shortage, on the job training is a solution with centuries of history behind it. If companies aren't willing to train, they can't be that desperate.
      - fredophile 12y ago
        You seem overly hung up on the 10:1 thing. I'll summarize my argument without any numbers: Currently there are cheaper ways for companies to recruit and retain programming talent than paying for their training. Here's another example to illustrate the point with more realistic numbers. Using the same training program described above and an improved filter a company can get one qualified graduate for every two people it sends through the program. On the first day of work he company has invested $50 000 in this new jr programmer. Alternatively, the company could offer a generous, $30 000-40 000, signing bonus to new qualified jr programmers and pocket the difference. Hey can also structure the terms of this bonus so that it is spread over one to two years to incentivize retention. There are lots of real world training programs with qualified, motivated students that have high failure/drop out ratios so I'd say 2:1 is reasonable here. I'm not saying that paid training is a bad idea. I am saying that it doesn't make sense for most companies currently and they will continue to use cheaper alternatives while they exist.
sumedh 12y ago
> If the employers are truly desperate, they should be considering the option. This actually happens in India with companies like Infosys, TCS hire people from all different domains and then give them basic programming training.

fredophile 12y ago

Let's assume that they do this and check how the numbers work out. Say the program takes six months and they pay candidates $50000 a year while they're taking it. Google is notorious for preferring false negatives in their interview process to making bad hires so maybe 1 in 10 candidates gets offered a job at the end. The program also costs money to run. They need teaching staff, computers, space, etc. You're easily at over $300 000 and six months latency to get one junior programmer. Alternatively, they could offer someone more senior a $200 000 signing bonus, save a bunch of money and hire someone experienced. Which do you think is a better way to invest their recruiting money?

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Move the 1 in 10 filtering up front, before they're hired in the first place. And don't compare jr devs to sr devs since those aren't the same jobs to fill. Even Google has jr jobs.
- fredophile 12y ago
  Writing code is part of the typical interview/application process. The hypothetical people in this process can't write code. How can a company pick which ones will do well before they've been trained? You're correct that big companies have positions for people at all levels. However, they usually aren't willing to pay more to fill a junior position than they'd need to pay to fill a more senior role.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    I'm not sure how you come to the idea they pay trainee jrs more than experienced srs, not without some crazy 10:1 hire:retain ratio. And I'm confident it's possible to develop aptitude interview processes that avoid 10:1 false positives. The bottom line though, is this- If there's a genuine shortage, on the job training is a solution with centuries of history behind it. If companies aren't willing to train, they can't be that desperate.
    - fredophile 12y ago
      You seem overly hung up on the 10:1 thing. I'll summarize my argument without any numbers: Currently there are cheaper ways for companies to recruit and retain programming talent than paying for their training. Here's another example to illustrate the point with more realistic numbers. Using the same training program described above and an improved filter a company can get one qualified graduate for every two people it sends through the program. On the first day of work he company has invested $50 000 in this new jr programmer. Alternatively, the company could offer a generous, $30 000-40 000, signing bonus to new qualified jr programmers and pocket the difference. Hey can also structure the terms of this bonus so that it is spread over one to two years to incentivize retention. There are lots of real world training programs with qualified, motivated students that have high failure/drop out ratios so I'd say 2:1 is reasonable here. I'm not saying that paid training is a bad idea. I am saying that it doesn't make sense for most companies currently and they will continue to use cheaper alternatives while they exist.

sumedh 12y ago

> If the employers are truly desperate, they should be considering the option. This actually happens in India with companies like Infosys, TCS hire people from all different domains and then give them basic programming training.