The dangerous trend of inexperienced individuals flooding the tech market

OP, it sounds more like you feel threatened - threatened that someone can take a 3 month course and be able to get hired and maybe eventually challenge you for your position.

I don't feel the same way.

If someone can pass an interview, this person deserves a chance, no matter the background.

It really feels like the original post is just saying that "bootcamp grads can't compete with truly elite computer science majors" debate all over again that we've had since the early 2010s.

The truth is, like many different jobs, you don't need to be a true "expert" to be effective. Coding isn't that hard. Creating data pipelines isn't that hard. Training basic models isn't that hard. If you got a job writing code, go ahead and call yourself a "software engineer". I got no problem with it just like I got no problem with someone fresh out of college with a marketing job with the title of "Product Marketing".

> If someone can pass an interview, this person deserves a chance, no matter the background.

Eh... This is the problem. You assume that the interview that is given is a valid judge of competency. Often they are not. They judge whether you've done enough leetcode to see a similar problem to whatever esoteric coding puzzle you're given. OR it shows that you can stand toe to toe (or at least give acceptable answers) to whatever the question de jour is in the "open session".

(This may come off as spiteful) I've built web applications in the web 2.0 LAMP/ajax era (as a young kid). I've built modern Java applications from struts to spring. Built microservices in new languages (go, rust, typscript). I've used Linux for going on 20 years (slackware, suse, gentoo, and debian). I've built and maintained modern container based web applications on Kubernetes. Even contributed to open source. These all show competence.

None of that matters in the current interview era that we live in. If you can't solve some bs problem in 30 min like a hot and ready pizza, you're passed on. Often, the interviewer couldn't do the question in the time alotted. Or you're badgered about some random "gotcha question" (I was once disqualified for not being able to describe shell tokenization "to standard"... It wasn't a job to replace zsh, bash, or fish.. I'll tell you that). That's not sifting through candidates for competency at all.

And frankly... it will show in the quality of the code (should you get "the pleasure" of an offer). Or the architecture of the systems.

It's more of a subset of companies that have this problem, rather than the industry as a whole I think.

There are still companies that don't test you on trivialities (like for ex. l33tcode), there will always be.

It sounds like you're complaining about the interview system than a "dangerous trend".

If you are that qualified, you should be a tech lead, manager, CTO, VP Engineering, etc.? You should tell your team how to look for qualified workers.

Why do you consider this trend dangerous? Where is the danger exactly?

The vast majority of inadequate professionals are already being filtered out as companies have realized this trend and are increasing their interview standards accordingly.

Or by letting people go after realising this.

Because it’s clickbait?

> Additionally, we're seeing a trend of people calling themselves "data scientists" after completing a three-week course in Python. These individuals may have a basic understanding of the language, but they do not have the necessary skills and experience to truly be considered data scientists.

Those people don't get hired anyway. If they do, they won't be able to do anything productive and hold a job. And if they can hold a job and be productive, that proves that you were wrong about their not having the necessary skills. So things are fine either way.

That's why you have levels. Entry level software engineer/data scientist is still software engineer/data scientist. People have to start from somewhere.

Plus let me tell you that - not everyone wants to excel in a field some people may just want to do just enough. Not everyone is dreaming of mighty promotions and titles. And that's should be fine too. If you don't want such people - fix your interview/performance processes.

Bootcamps train narrow and deep, where the number one thing that you have to be to be successful in engineering is wide.

there is a good point within this post - that different kinds of work are not suitable for every kind of person - but the danger is inverted from what is implied, as the real risk is not for the employer but the person who has committed resources to a career path for which they may not be best suited.

there will also be plenty 'diamonds in the rough' who have entered these new fields in non-traditional ways. Overall net positive that more people are getting into these fields