5 ms·

@leeny, Q. for you, how should startups tackle the problem of re-qualifying "experienced programmers" outlined in this quote: "There are good arguments for all

@leeny, Q. for you, how should startups tackle the problem of re-qualifying "experienced programmers" outlined in this quote: "There are good arguments for allowing experienced programmers to skip screening steps, and not have to continually re-prove themselves." [0] How do you solve this problem? Surgeons, pilots, Infantry soldiers, classical musician have extensive and verified training that equips them for high levels of technical execution in each field. Each of these professions have some form of continual re-testing and evaluation. What makes technical candidates in software a special case? [0] "Three hundred programming interviews in thirty days" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9766816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9766816

leeny 11y ago
Credentialing of some kind needs to exist for software engineering. Clearly traditional means like college degree aren't cutting it, and more and more people are going outside the system to learn to code, so I expect degrees are going to become even more noisy over the next few years. Whatever this credentialing looks like, I hope it's based on ability rather than proxies.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  The difficulty with credentials in software development is that you need some sort of objective standard for the knowledge and/or skills required to merit a certain credential. No-one really knows yet how to consistently build good software with a normal workforce within commercially realistic timescales and budgets. For that matter, even what constitutes "good software" probably depends on the context; in the real world, it is usually a question of "good enough" rather than any absolute standard that applies to all projects. Therefore, I'm not sure there is anyone in the world who could write those objective standards yet. Even if there were, there is a significant risk that they would be shouted down by the kind of consultants who don't actually make a lot of software and don't actually have a good track record of success in their own projects, yet have no problem writing books, blogging, speaking at conferences, or otherwise telling the rest of the industry how it should be doing its job. That could lead to the worst possible outcome: an industry with de facto or even de jure regulation of who may practise, similar to other engineering disciplines for example, but where the regulation actively favours people who are buzzword compliant and up on the latest fads, rather than people who are actually good at building useful software.
ovi256 11y ago
I did five year of engineering school, like a lot of other people. Let's see how I could have used this time in other fields. In five years, an infantry soldier can go to bootcamp (BCT, 10 weeks), advanced infantry combat school (4 weeks). Then he'll go on to a combat unit, and train with them to prepare for a combat deployment. With a week or two of visits home, this will take up the first year. He could use the remaining four years to conduct up to two 18 months combat tours (with about six month back in country after each one), deployed in a warzone. At the end of his five years, providing everything went well, he will be considered ready to try joining the special forces, if his IQ and fitness are good enough. He could go to NCO school or officer school even sooner, after his first combat tour. At the end of his five years, a just graduated engineer is considered too green to touch a production server, much less try joining the 'special forces' of our profession. The difference in autonomy in various professions after five years is striking. A surgeon would just start his internship, and assist senior surgeons, but a pilot would already be flying for several years!
- marktangotango 11y ago
  That kind of skirts what the grandparent is asking, in the army for example everyone has to annually qualify with their firearm, and each mos has set of tasks they have to demonstrate competency in. All enlisted have to do this with the difference being more senior are also responsible for training. I think that's what the g p was referring to. Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job. So if an engineering grad did five years of work study or coop, I think they could be trusted with prod servers as you say.
  - bootload 11y ago
    "Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job." There is a culture in the SF community to have continual improvement, 1% a day. "Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job." Exactly the point I was thinking of.
- lmm 11y ago
  Programming teaching sucks. This is not too surprising considering how unstable programming is. Heck, people who were excellent programmers 10 years ago can suck, I've worked with some of them.

leeny 11y ago

Credentialing of some kind needs to exist for software engineering. Clearly traditional means like college degree aren't cutting it, and more and more people are going outside the system to learn to code, so I expect degrees are going to become even more noisy over the next few years. Whatever this credentialing looks like, I hope it's based on ability rather than proxies.

Silhouette 11y ago
The difficulty with credentials in software development is that you need some sort of objective standard for the knowledge and/or skills required to merit a certain credential. No-one really knows yet how to consistently build good software with a normal workforce within commercially realistic timescales and budgets. For that matter, even what constitutes "good software" probably depends on the context; in the real world, it is usually a question of "good enough" rather than any absolute standard that applies to all projects. Therefore, I'm not sure there is anyone in the world who could write those objective standards yet. Even if there were, there is a significant risk that they would be shouted down by the kind of consultants who don't actually make a lot of software and don't actually have a good track record of success in their own projects, yet have no problem writing books, blogging, speaking at conferences, or otherwise telling the rest of the industry how it should be doing its job. That could lead to the worst possible outcome: an industry with de facto or even de jure regulation of who may practise, similar to other engineering disciplines for example, but where the regulation actively favours people who are buzzword compliant and up on the latest fads, rather than people who are actually good at building useful software.

ovi256 11y ago

I did five year of engineering school, like a lot of other people. Let's see how I could have used this time in other fields. In five years, an infantry soldier can go to bootcamp (BCT, 10 weeks), advanced infantry combat school (4 weeks). Then he'll go on to a combat unit, and train with them to prepare for a combat deployment. With a week or two of visits home, this will take up the first year. He could use the remaining four years to conduct up to two 18 months combat tours (with about six month back in country after each one), deployed in a warzone. At the end of his five years, providing everything went well, he will be considered ready to try joining the special forces, if his IQ and fitness are good enough. He could go to NCO school or officer school even sooner, after his first combat tour. At the end of his five years, a just graduated engineer is considered too green to touch a production server, much less try joining the 'special forces' of our profession. The difference in autonomy in various professions after five years is striking. A surgeon would just start his internship, and assist senior surgeons, but a pilot would already be flying for several years!

marktangotango 11y ago
That kind of skirts what the grandparent is asking, in the army for example everyone has to annually qualify with their firearm, and each mos has set of tasks they have to demonstrate competency in. All enlisted have to do this with the difference being more senior are also responsible for training. I think that's what the g p was referring to. Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job. So if an engineering grad did five years of work study or coop, I think they could be trusted with prod servers as you say.
- bootload 11y ago
  "Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job." There is a culture in the SF community to have continual improvement, 1% a day. "Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job." Exactly the point I was thinking of.
lmm 11y ago
Programming teaching sucks. This is not too surprising considering how unstable programming is. Heck, people who were excellent programmers 10 years ago can suck, I've worked with some of them.