4 ms·

>You realize that most engineers do have a college degree right? You realize that most engineers are not dumb script kiddies who went through 10 PHP tutorials t

>You realize that most engineers do have a college degree right? You realize that most engineers are not dumb script kiddies who went through 10 PHP tutorials to learn how to code? This doesn't match the dialogue I see here and other places about college graduates and/or job candidates who can't fizzbuzz or have no other skills required in the industry. Although I think it would be nice if we simultaneously had a steady supply of skilled engineers, constantly increasing salaries, and constantly increasing demand.

dudul 12y ago
Not sure I see your point. Most "non-fizzbuzzers" are college graduates who got a liberal arts degree and are trying to pivot to a more lucrative field. Just to be clear: I don't think all developers need a degree, but I think there is much more than just attending a 4 week codecamp required to become a good developer. The author makes it sound so trivial and easy.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  > Most "non-fizzbuzzers" are college graduates who got a liberal arts degree and are trying to pivot to a more lucrative field. Prove it. That has not been my experience in hiring at all.
  - dudul 12y ago
    It has been mine. I have been interviewing and hiring developers for the past 6 years, this was my empirical observation. I am glad you had a different experience.
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      I think the important thing to remember in any discussion about hiring qualification is that our empirical evidence largely fails us. Even those of us who have spent lots of time, effort and experience on the subject are largely dealing with small sample sizes. These small sample sizes inform our biases which is a negative feedback loop, especially in the case that the confirm our existing biases. So for instance, in my empirical observations, candidates from top tier engineering schools largely perform more poorly on fizzbuzz than candidates with no college experience what so ever. This observation was so largely opposed to my existing bias that it caused me question fizzbuzz as a qualification tool. My investigations into this found lots of things that made me think that fizzbuzz is a bad tool (even though I had very high biases towards it in the beginning). The lesson I took from that, was not "don't use fizzbuzz" even though I don't anymore, or "people with no college degree are better candidates than those from top tier universities". It was "small sample sizes make nearly all statements about hiring trends dubious." So "prove it". Is my default answer to that sort of statement.
- FLUX-YOU 12y ago
  There was probably a bit of exaggeration about the pay but I don't think the author talked about engineer quality. He is not wrong that you can get some sort of position from attending a coding school though (maybe not just any coding school), but it probably won't be 100k and equity. Someone is willing to pay for what a coding school produces though and in my experience, not all jobs require good engineers. When weighed against the time and money spent on college with today's dubious outlooks on ROI, code camps are understandably worth a look even if you won't be a good engineer or making 100k at the end of it. (as an aside, still waiting on Zed Shaw's boot camp destruction)
  - dudul 12y ago
    The salary was an exaggeration, and really doesn't mean anything. What is $100k in SF? At the end of the day, aren't you better off making half that in a less expensive area? What bothers me most is the idea that coding is just a random skill that anyone can pick up over a weekend just by reading an O'reilly book. There is a push to make coding look easy, "anyone can do it, why not you?" "Let's teach it at school, even a 4th grader can pick up python". The goal is clearly to increase the supply and help tech companies drag wages down. But coding is not easy. I may be foolish but to me developer is a creative work, akin to writing a book, or a song, or painting. Not everyone is gonna be good at it. Would we say "yeah writing poetry is easy, just go to a poetry camp for 4 weeks"?

dudul 12y ago

Not sure I see your point. Most "non-fizzbuzzers" are college graduates who got a liberal arts degree and are trying to pivot to a more lucrative field. Just to be clear: I don't think all developers need a degree, but I think there is much more than just attending a 4 week codecamp required to become a good developer. The author makes it sound so trivial and easy.

kasey_junk 12y ago
> Most "non-fizzbuzzers" are college graduates who got a liberal arts degree and are trying to pivot to a more lucrative field. Prove it. That has not been my experience in hiring at all.
- dudul 12y ago
  It has been mine. I have been interviewing and hiring developers for the past 6 years, this was my empirical observation. I am glad you had a different experience.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    I think the important thing to remember in any discussion about hiring qualification is that our empirical evidence largely fails us. Even those of us who have spent lots of time, effort and experience on the subject are largely dealing with small sample sizes. These small sample sizes inform our biases which is a negative feedback loop, especially in the case that the confirm our existing biases. So for instance, in my empirical observations, candidates from top tier engineering schools largely perform more poorly on fizzbuzz than candidates with no college experience what so ever. This observation was so largely opposed to my existing bias that it caused me question fizzbuzz as a qualification tool. My investigations into this found lots of things that made me think that fizzbuzz is a bad tool (even though I had very high biases towards it in the beginning). The lesson I took from that, was not "don't use fizzbuzz" even though I don't anymore, or "people with no college degree are better candidates than those from top tier universities". It was "small sample sizes make nearly all statements about hiring trends dubious." So "prove it". Is my default answer to that sort of statement.
FLUX-YOU 12y ago
There was probably a bit of exaggeration about the pay but I don't think the author talked about engineer quality. He is not wrong that you can get some sort of position from attending a coding school though (maybe not just any coding school), but it probably won't be 100k and equity. Someone is willing to pay for what a coding school produces though and in my experience, not all jobs require good engineers. When weighed against the time and money spent on college with today's dubious outlooks on ROI, code camps are understandably worth a look even if you won't be a good engineer or making 100k at the end of it. (as an aside, still waiting on Zed Shaw's boot camp destruction)
- dudul 12y ago
  The salary was an exaggeration, and really doesn't mean anything. What is $100k in SF? At the end of the day, aren't you better off making half that in a less expensive area? What bothers me most is the idea that coding is just a random skill that anyone can pick up over a weekend just by reading an O'reilly book. There is a push to make coding look easy, "anyone can do it, why not you?" "Let's teach it at school, even a 4th grader can pick up python". The goal is clearly to increase the supply and help tech companies drag wages down. But coding is not easy. I may be foolish but to me developer is a creative work, akin to writing a book, or a song, or painting. Not everyone is gonna be good at it. Would we say "yeah writing poetry is easy, just go to a poetry camp for 4 weeks"?