4 ms·

Side point: The author throughout nearly all of the article uses engineer (without any further qualification) and programmer interchangeably. A vast range of en

Side point: The author throughout nearly all of the article uses engineer (without any further qualification) and programmer interchangeably. A vast range of engineering has nothing to do with the design of software, and engineering is not programming.

Domenic_S 12y ago
Needlessly pedantic.
- thanatosmin 12y ago
  Really? As a non-software engineer, the title and bridge picture suggested this would be relevant to me, much more so than an article about programmer interviews.
- etimberg 12y ago
  Except if you're somewhere where it does matter. Take Canada for instance, you cannot call yourself an engineer without being a licensed Professional Engineer.
- rpcope1 12y ago
  I strongly disagree; it seems rather perverse to label many developers and programmers as engineers, because most of what occurs in development and programming, especially because of the lack of rigor involved, could scarcely be passed off under the heading of traditional engineering, and should not be confused as such.
sgustard 12y ago
It's an interesting point, since I don't know how much other engineering fields are beset with this problem. The article features a photo of a collapsed bridge, but obviously its topic is software. Do civil or aerospace engineering firms have the same problem of incompetent coworkers who manage to pass all their interviewing hurdles? It seems hard to imagine -- I don't know how I'd fake the math on static and dynamic loads without actually knowing what I was doing. Why is software so different, lacking basic shared and provable prerequisite skills?
- mkeeter 12y ago
  There are a series of licensing exams for the (non-software) engineering fields: one typically takes the Engineer-In-Training exam at the end of undergrad, then can take the Professional Engineer exam after a few years of working under a licensed PE (exact regulations vary from state to state). These exams are more common for civil than electrical engineers; if I remember correctly, there are regulations that require a Professional Engineer to sign off on blueprints.
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  "Why is software so different, lacking basic shared and provable prerequisite skills?" It shouldn't be; I think we generally don't have enough people that yet recognize this as a Real Problem(tm), and therefore don't know how to do good filtering/interviewing up front. I think it may be another generation or two before there's really enough pushback to start demanding the same level of scrutiny other industries may have. Now, a bad doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc might slip through the cracks now and then, but there's pretty strong proof that at one point they did Know Something (tm) about their field, more through professional licensing than standard higher ed, for example, but it was there. I have so little faith in the value of most higher-ed degrees as higher-ed seems primarily profit and ratings driven, vs capabilities driven. Professional orgs like bar associations actually have some economic incentives to keep people out of practicing law. Universities seem to have no incentive to fail people out, and every incentive to continue grade inflation.
  - omegaham 12y ago
    > Universities seem to have no incentive to fail people out, and every incentive to continue grade inflation. Ostensibly, the idea is that if you don't weed out the idiots, you are going to end up with people with degrees from your university who are garbage, and this hurts your brand. You see this happening with for-profit colleges, where grade inflation is particularly egregious. "Well, we've given a bunch of DeVry grads a chance, and they've all done terribly. We're not going to be considering DeVry grads anymore unless they can really, really prove that they're any good." This should, in turn, get back to prospective students, who won't go to a college if it can't get them a job. Unfortunately, you're now at three steps that are pretty opaque and difficult to measure, and the rewards for lowering standards are immediate and vast.

Domenic_S 12y ago

Needlessly pedantic.

thanatosmin 12y ago
Really? As a non-software engineer, the title and bridge picture suggested this would be relevant to me, much more so than an article about programmer interviews.
etimberg 12y ago
Except if you're somewhere where it does matter. Take Canada for instance, you cannot call yourself an engineer without being a licensed Professional Engineer.
rpcope1 12y ago
I strongly disagree; it seems rather perverse to label many developers and programmers as engineers, because most of what occurs in development and programming, especially because of the lack of rigor involved, could scarcely be passed off under the heading of traditional engineering, and should not be confused as such.

sgustard 12y ago

It's an interesting point, since I don't know how much other engineering fields are beset with this problem. The article features a photo of a collapsed bridge, but obviously its topic is software. Do civil or aerospace engineering firms have the same problem of incompetent coworkers who manage to pass all their interviewing hurdles? It seems hard to imagine -- I don't know how I'd fake the math on static and dynamic loads without actually knowing what I was doing. Why is software so different, lacking basic shared and provable prerequisite skills?

mkeeter 12y ago
There are a series of licensing exams for the (non-software) engineering fields: one typically takes the Engineer-In-Training exam at the end of undergrad, then can take the Professional Engineer exam after a few years of working under a licensed PE (exact regulations vary from state to state). These exams are more common for civil than electrical engineers; if I remember correctly, there are regulations that require a Professional Engineer to sign off on blueprints.
mgkimsal 12y ago
"Why is software so different, lacking basic shared and provable prerequisite skills?" It shouldn't be; I think we generally don't have enough people that yet recognize this as a Real Problem(tm), and therefore don't know how to do good filtering/interviewing up front. I think it may be another generation or two before there's really enough pushback to start demanding the same level of scrutiny other industries may have. Now, a bad doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc might slip through the cracks now and then, but there's pretty strong proof that at one point they did Know Something (tm) about their field, more through professional licensing than standard higher ed, for example, but it was there. I have so little faith in the value of most higher-ed degrees as higher-ed seems primarily profit and ratings driven, vs capabilities driven. Professional orgs like bar associations actually have some economic incentives to keep people out of practicing law. Universities seem to have no incentive to fail people out, and every incentive to continue grade inflation.
- omegaham 12y ago
  > Universities seem to have no incentive to fail people out, and every incentive to continue grade inflation. Ostensibly, the idea is that if you don't weed out the idiots, you are going to end up with people with degrees from your university who are garbage, and this hurts your brand. You see this happening with for-profit colleges, where grade inflation is particularly egregious. "Well, we've given a bunch of DeVry grads a chance, and they've all done terribly. We're not going to be considering DeVry grads anymore unless they can really, really prove that they're any good." This should, in turn, get back to prospective students, who won't go to a college if it can't get them a job. Unfortunately, you're now at three steps that are pretty opaque and difficult to measure, and the rewards for lowering standards are immediate and vast.