FWIW, preparing for interviews is standard practice irrespective of the industry.
This is simply wrong. I suppose if you've spent your whole life as a developer, it may seem like it would be done likewise other industries, but it's not the case.
Typically, how you might "prepare" for interviews in other industries is...learning about your potential employer. And maybe reviewing your accomplishments. That's it. And most people don't even do those things. None of this hours and hours reviewing textbooks from your college classes, since you've been in the same job for 5 or 7 years and have forgotten algorithms that you never use in your job. It's simply perverse.
Software development is the only industry I'm aware in which technical preparation for job interviews is not only advisable, but increasingly necessary for interviews at all levels of the career hierarchy.
Even in other engineering disciplines, this kind of bullshit is unheard of for any interviews except maybe your first interview out of college. And in industries like law, medicine, etc., if a potential employer asked you to perform some random task from a highly technical and complex subject from med school or law school, it would be very unusual.
Actuaries aren’t expected to prepare for and pass a vector calculus and linear algebra exam every time they interview, but they are required to pass a proper exam consistently administered and graded.
This might be a big improvement in our field as well.
I'm not a developer, so maybe this sounds absurd, but as someone who has good understanding of how medicine works, maybe this industry could use a few standardized exams/certifications?
I think it's possible that, because a practicing physician will have passed the MCAT, USMLE Step 1/2/3, and have obtained a license, they don't have to deal with this sort of bullshit in interviews. It seems like the idea of a "licensed software developer" may never exist, but maybe that's why the hiring process is the way it is.
I doubt it. for example having OCJP doesn't prevent interviewers from asking basic Java questions. It is like they are telemarketers with prepared script and aren't flexible enough to skip some parts no matter what.
It has always shocked me that people don't instinctively think that doing this is an absolute necessity for every single job interview. I have very often been met with a totally blank look when I've asked candidates what they think it is the company I'm interviewing them for does, even when phrased as nicely as, "Tell me a little about what we do and why you'd like to work for us" - surely not a hard question, you would think!
Not so much hard, more that it sounds like a complete waste of time and could be signaling to people that this is one more non-technical/HR interview they have to get through before getting to talk to people they'd be working with and who can fill them in on details specific to their prospective job or team. Whatever you're trying to figure out with that question, there's gotta be a better way to probe that, that doesn't make it look like you're wasting the available time.
I normally for public companies read the annual report and accounts.
There are many reasons for candidates to be excited to work for a company:
- friends
- great team fit
- technological challenges or preferences
- work-life balance
- location
These and others contribute to an employee doing his job with passion. (note: money is not one of them. there is a study that showed that above a certain level for a person, no amount of extra remuneration will result in an increase in productivity)
And I imagine this is the case even for pinnacles of vision like SpaceX. I imagine employees at SpeceX do not care about the future of SpaceX , they care about putting man on mars, making space available cheaply, pushing the boundaries of human exploration and of technological capabilities, Musks vision and enthusiasm. But not SpaceX as a company.
People should really stop expecting companies to have emotions. Companies do not care about people so people should not care about companies either. People care about other people and society at large.
In music, you often get handed some sheet music or asked to prepare something.
In the cooking industry, you throw them at a kitchen and tell them to impress you.
In the programming industry... We ask people to write toys and logic puzzles. That isn't what they'll spend their days doing, that's just practice, like scales.
A violinist might be asked to play a technically difficult but short piece during an audition, even when most of the music they would play as a member of the orchestra would be less challenging and take a much longer time to play, with plenty of time for rehearsing ahead of time. Likewise, a software engineer is ideally asked to solve a small but technically challenging problem during the interview.
No. Compared to what we do as software developers, the correct analogy for a violinist interview would be to ask them to whiteboard all kinds of obscure music theory principles, like the set theory underlying serialism and Arnold Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique.
That's what it's like for many other in-demand and well paying industries (she's mid-20's and makes low six figures in San Jose). Stop pretending like everyone else has to deal with the same bullshit as you, hiring in tech is BROKEN. Other industries do it better.
People's lives are dependent on how well she does her job. Are the hoops you have to jump through justifiable for how "important" your job is?
In the vernacular, with regards to salary, it is used to describe a range between 100 and 200k. So low six figures tends to mean closer to 100k. That’s very consistent in usage.
It is a little odd though, I would agree about that.
Nursing
Medicine
There is not one single shared course between the two degrees. If you can find a course shared between medical and nursing students in all of Europe I'd be surprised.
Nursing is taught at many universities with medical degree, first and second year students tend to share some of the lectures.
Also, because of that, people with nursing degree are able to acquire a medical degree by taking the extra lectures and exams afterwards.
It is not examples that one finds online, rather on corridors and schedule notes.
What I can provide as an example is that nurses and doctors have equal access to many master and PhDs. Check "condições de acesso" in some of the links from the page and you will find "enfermagem" as accepted degree.
http://www.uc.pt/fmuc/gabineteestudoavancados/formacaoposgra...
Can you explain how other industries do it better and come up with a better, plausible, non-fantastical way to interview programmers? I'd love to know how to interview people "better", but it still has to be something where I can later present evidence that my decision is based on, in some kind of report. It would have to allow multiple people at my company to interact with a candidate in a half day or less. Copying what another industry does would be great, if it worked, because it'd help convince people it was a good method to try out.
> Are the hoops you have to jump through justifiable for how "important" your job is?
I never thought a 1 hour phone screen and a few hours onsite was particularly onerous, and based on how much the job pays, it seems well worth it.
> People's lives are dependent on how well she does her job.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that saving lives correlates with strictness of interviewing, especially with the 2 jobs being so drastically different.
What is unusual is that we essentially ask people to set aside and forget everything they know about how to do their jobs, and instead perform a separate set of skills which, since they are't used on the job, must be carefully re-acquired whenever it's time to go interview.
No other industry I'm aware of does that.
Industry is sane. They ask stuff relevant to actual work or real basics. They don't make a gameable process full of rules and techniques.
* Is attractive enough (compensation, lifestyle, etc.)
* and has a larger supply of qualified applicants than desirable positions
Will result in applicants preparing for however they are interviewed, tested, etc. This isn't unique to software engineering interviews. People prepare for interviews or exams in finance, law, medicine, etc. They all have a system that is gameable. It might be newer in software engineering interviews, but that is mostly because CS is now incredibly popular and top talent is compensated very well.
At the same time, the "person who can work with the business user on the software, think about the architecture of it, identify the design necessary, come up with the estimate that actually matches the time frame that it will be done in with a reasonable error... and produce software that takes X as input and provides Y as output while being aware of where the edge conditions may exist and ask for clarification on how it should work"... I believe there is a distinct lack of that portion of labor.
Furthermore, there is also a lack of people who are able to move from the first labor pool to the second, and a lack of mentors who have the time and ability to help that group move to the second.
I don't think its incredibly difficult to hire an entry level person as long as one sets the bar low enough and has people within the origination who are capable of providing the design. On the other hand, it is very difficult to find the people who can give the necessary instruction to the entry level people to allow them to become productive within their ability.
As an aside, I also find that within the entry level group... there are a sizable portion that have the attitude of "I learned language X and that was hard enough, I'm going to stick with it and not learn anything else." That X can be found for all languages and none have the monopoly on it. However, it is disconcerting for me to see those individuals... I started out as a C programmer, and then Perl (full stack web - some JavaScript in there) and then Java (enterprise), and then Java stand alone (swing application)... and while I'm still a Java programmer, I can see other languages looming on the horizon. Java will become the COBOL, and while there are still COBOL programmers out there, its not something that one wants to get stuck in for another two or three decades waiting for that last app server to be turned off before they can retire.
Why would culture developed skills that make you rewarded less?
The ability to teach juniors is not searched for nor rewarded either, where social skills are even sometimes treated as something that makes you less good as programmer.
There's also a sizeable portion of companies that have the attitude of "we want someone who's really passionate and good at learning. oh and they need to be expert in language x. oh you're not an expert in x? sorry, we can't wait for you to learn it. we don't care if you learnt something else"
That you think interviews and exams are interchangeable concepts illustrates the problem. Nothing wrong with a rigorous filter at the gates of the profession, but lawyers don’t need to spend months studying for each company’s half-assed version of the bar exam each time they change jobs. Our industry is dysfunctional because, unlike law and medicine, no one trusts the credentialing mechanisms.
Even the FAANG companies aren't immune from bad hires or people who burn out.
At least in Europe things are a bit more strict.
It is quite different to have spent 5 years doing nothing other than building up engineering knowledge, and just learning a few things to get the job done.
I'm always very weary of companies that tell me I'll earn more money because I have a PhD completely irrelevant to the job I'll be hired to do. It signals that they're valuing the wrong thing, and that doesn't make me want to work there.
Engineers are only those with an university degree from an university acknowledged to actually be teaching engineering.
Then if they want to actually make use of the title, get the credential, which yes requires an yearly contribution.
Finally, in any kind of project where human lives are at stake, the engineer signing for the project has to be validated as such.
I happen to think that our profession is no different from lawyers, doctors, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, and so on.
In terms of PE / CENG status its more who you know that what you know :-)
Sorry if I forgot anything, fellow Europeans.
Core tech behind computers is more than just a network protocol that got lucky.
In case you missed it, Robert Metcalfe is an electrical engineer.
Would you disagree if people from the US did not need to pass the bar to call themselves lawyers, or the equivalent for doctors? Is it just because I compared this specific thing from the US in a negative light compared to EU?
The bootcamp style of skilled labour generation is possible simply because of the demand-supply gap.
You can't learn and practice surgery yourself. On the other hand, you can teach yourself software engineering. You can be practitioner with nothing more than a computer - and so many people are.
That doesn't mean CS degrees are a hoax - it just means the field is more accessible to those without college degrees (though its definitely going to be a more difficult path).
Or to have job seekers complete an online test proving their skills?
https://www.indeed.com/forum/gen/Job-Interviews/Has-anyone-h...
Job preparedness training is looked down upon within universities because it's the banal economy poking its nose where it doesn't belong. The industry or a professional association can and should develop job-preparedness-focused training programs to augment (as in law and medicine) or even replace (as in HVAC repair and precision machining) CS undergrad. Nothing wrong with that. They just don't belong in academic departments. Those are for something else, and industry's training needs shouldn't be subsidized.
An employer should value a relevant trade school degree more than it values a Bachelor's, unless it turns out that well-rounded intellectuals with exposure to the underlying discipline perform better than those with direct training in the relevant activities.
I don't think one can ignore the disconnect between the stated charter of top universities (basically to do research) and the motivations for the majority of undergraduates who actually attend them (prestige, which hopefully leads to a high paying job). I doubt that all donors give these institutions donations to further their research goals. I know for one that if I were given the option to focus the impact of my donation, I'd readily choose it be applied to a practical, skills-focused program within the research-focused university that I attended. Furthermore, the undergraduate programs of top private universities in the United States aren't funded by tax payer dollars - they're funded by sky-high tuition. As the OP shared a class applying to the undergraduate curriculum at Stanford, a tax money argument isn't relevant here. If the course were geared toward Masters or PhD students - different story.
Finally, universities seem incredibly resistant to re-evaluating their place in society in the 21st century economy -- at least in the U.S. From childhood, a college degree is pushed as a necessity for financial success. Top universities like Stanford are sought out not just for their academic rigor, but for the network and prestige afforded to their alumni, who can parlay these things into a strong career path and a high paying job. Univerisities seem deaf to this reality. I'm sure they understand it, but for whatever reason are reticent to acknowledge that their role in society and to the economy has evolved since their founding.
I think Stanford should be applauded for offering this course - would love to know how many students registered.
That's not to say we ban career training (or office buildings), but some space is and ought to be reserved for other things.
Students seeking higher education for purely economic reasons are wrong to do so, and a gauntlet has been thrown to the business community to launch serious competitors that more directly address its training needs.
I have trouble understanding why there can be no middle ground between the status quo and pure vocational training. As I mentioned in a comment below, most arguments against middle ground that I've heard boil down to, at the core, nothing more than circular-reasoning like, "this is the way it's always been, and we want it to stay this way because things have always been this way." Why don't universities make an addendum to their charters to maintain the goal of being world-class research institutions AND provide pragmatic, real-world training? What sacrifice would be made? Would the quality of university research truly decline?
Whether students are wrong to pursue higher education for purely economic reasons is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. What is a fact is that many students do pursue higher education for purely economic reasons, because society tells them from a young age to do so, and it's reasonable to assume that a degree from a top institution in a technical field will lead to a high paying job. The business community certainly could do more to shoulder any perceived burden for professional training and/or certification; however, traditionally research-focused universities should also work to better support the motivations of the majority of their undergraduate (and paying) student body, as Stanford has done here.
What universities provide (liberal education, basic research, etc.) is scarce among what surrounds them (capitalism). Time is finite; the more of it we spend on workforce training, the less of it there is for an undergraduate education's current content.
Maybe the current content is not worthwhile, so we may as well gut it and reuse the facilities/framework for vocational training, but surely you recognize that doing so makes the current content less available.
>traditionally research-focused universities should also work to better support the motivations of the majority of their undergraduate (and paying) student body
Customer-service mindset is a poor fit for education. If "the customer is always right," why bother with teaching?