Hacker News Reader

Comment by satellites | Hacker News Reader

You're saying that as if it means tech should have a large, expensive barrier to entry.

That financial barrier is a problem in those other fields too, and it does disproportionately affect people from disadvantaged backgrounds in those fields. Your argument is basically "well it's tough for the poors to become a doctor, so it would be okay if it's tough for them to become a software engineer too!"

EDIT: also, the costs incurred by becoming a doctor or nurse are debts to educational institutions and licensing boards which, ostensibly, are doing good by educating and regulating. This is a proposal for a financial barrier imposed by your employer, and paid for by your social or professional networks. It's not the same.

View on HN

That is an assumption that is not stated or implied.

But, if you want to go down that tangent the tech industry would benefit from a set of standard minimum qualifications. Such would reduce employer liability and result in higher quality products pushed to market in shorter time at lower expense. That last sentence is technobabble really meaning employers could more easily discern candidate maturity and thus require a lower headcount for an equivalent task. The great discriminator there isn’t financial but the time and cognition required.

I've had this argument on HN before and I'm generally against that - I don't think the ability to pass a standardized licensing test is any more of a marker of a good engineer than an interview is. If anything, it's less effective than a good interview. I've never taken a test in all my education that I felt was truly and fairly assessing my skills as a software engineer. And I went to a well-ranked CS program. Long-term projects, and the ability to talk in depth about the technical aspects of those projects, is the best marker of ability to me.

But, if a testing system were proposed that could demonstrably add value to the industry and wouldn't select for privilege, then I'd be for it. I'm just very skeptical, and I think lots of licensing programs are onerous and only exist to enrich the licensing organization without adding real value to society.

Have you gone through a professional licensing program? Nearly 100% of the people on HN that make this argument have not.

The big difference is that a licensing process is objective in a way an interview can never be. That alone adds value in a way you cannot possibly imagine until you have worked in a different industry.

There is no greater institutional barrier or discriminator than implicit bias.

> disproportionately affect people from disadvantaged backgrounds in those fields

And, a less worse problem: it's bad for the companies too

imo this should exist alongside interviewing and a variety of other methods for proving your potential to an employer.

Also, if you make it two months, you double your money. It's not just a fee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com