6 ms·
Yes. I work at Conde Nast. I helped work with a bootcamp program to create a "internship" program for new graduates. We took eight students after attending a r
by rememberlenny 12y ago
Yes.
I work at Conde Nast. I helped work with a bootcamp program to create a "internship" program for new graduates. We took eight students after attending a recruiting event and invited them to work on a cycling program. From the eight, we hired four.
We cycled the students through four of Conde Nast's brands/responsibilities. Currently, we have junior developers from this program working on GQ magazine, Glamour, and our in-house CMS system. They are doing JavaScript web app development.
Going into the hiring process, I was betting on the students rate of learning. We knew they didnt have the domain experience. We were hiring out of a RoR bootcamp, so their knowledge was also going to be irrelevant. Knowing they spent 10 weeks learning at a rapid pace, I believed we could extend that to our own code base.
Our experience was good. Because our company was in a unique hiring period, it made sense. We wouldnt do it again.
- jaredsohn 12y ago>Our experience was good. We wouldnt do it again. I assume you mean 'would do it again'?
- rememberlenny 12y agoNo.
- wlesieutre 12y agoThe confusion here probably comes from the past tense phrasing. "We wouldn't do it again" strongly implies "If we were in the same situation as before we wouldn't do the same thing." It'd be more clear to say "We probably won't do it again," I think. And if you did end up needing multiple entry-level hires, it sounds like you would be open to a similar approach?
- dragonwriter 12y ago> The confusion here probably comes from the past tense phrasing. Possibly pedantic, but, that's the simple conditional (which, in this particular context without an explicit condition, has the implicit condition of "in similar circumstances"), not the past tense.
- wlesieutre 12y agoPedantic but appreciated! My formal schooling in English was a bit lacking, so I don't always know what things are called. Filed away for future reference!
- tenementfunster 12y agoHe writes it that way for a reason and clarity is not one of them. Only a fluent speaker would catch the tidbit of 'humor' in the way he wrote it so who cares if non-natives get confused?
- yongjik 12y agoApologies for out-pedanting you, but I believe it is still called the past tense. English past tense (a grammatical form) can be used in several situations, the dominant being signalling past time, but also used to signal conditionals.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Apologies for out-pedanting you, but I believe it is still called the past tense. English past tense (a grammatical form) can be used in several situations, the dominant being signalling past time, but also used to signal conditionals. Its almost the reverse in this case. Among the meanings of the simple conditional form is the "future-in-the-past" meaning (which is sometimes called a form or tense of its own.) There are conditional sentences in which one or the other of English's past tenses/forms are used, but they are used in the condition clause (which was implicit, not stated, in the sentence at issue). The other clause (the conditional) uses a future form (usually marked with the modal verb will or shall -- English doesn't actually have a future tense, as such) or a conditional form (marked with the modal verb would or should.)
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Apologies for out-pedanting you, but I believe it is still called the past tense. English past tense (a grammatical form) can be used in several situations, the dominant being signalling past time, but also used to signal conditionals. Its almost the reverse in this case. Among the meanings of the simple conditional form is the "future-in-the-past" meaning (which is sometimes called a form or tense of its own.) There are conditional sentences in which one or the other of English's past tenses/forms are used, but they are used in the condition clause (which was implicit, not stated, in the sentence at issue). The other clause (the conditional) uses a future form (usually marked with the modal verb will or shall -- English doesn't actually have a future tense, as such) or a conditional form (marked with the modal verb would or should.)
- rememberlenny 12y agoSpot on.
- selllikesybok 12y ago>Our experience was good. We wouldn't do it again. If the experience was good, why not?
- rememberlenny 12y agoAs a company, we dont normally do large scale hiring. When we do large scale hiring, we can bring on junior devs. If we are hiring for single spots, we need experienced developers.
- s0uthPaw88 12y agoBut if you were in the same large scale hiring situation again and can bring on junior devs, would you do it again?
- rememberlenny 12y agoIt was a once a decade hiring process.
- mcguire 12y ago"If we are hiring for single spots, we need experienced developers." That's why you don't see openings for entry level positions.
- nsxwolf 12y agoYou chopped the context out of the quote. I thought the original was sufficiently explanatory.
- niklasni1 12y agoWhy wouldn't you do it again if it was a good experience?
- rememberlenny 12y agoOur company was in a unique hiring period where we were bringing on a relatively large number of junior developers. We dont normally have that case.
- alxndr 12y agoWhat if the company needed to bring on a large number of junior developers again?
- ankitml 12y agoThey would probably be not in the same situation again where they end up having junior position.
- rememberlenny 12y agoExactly
- shaohua 12y agoSo why wouldnt do it again?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- endeavour 12y agoIs this in the US or UK?
- rememberlenny 12y agoUS. New York city.