Those rare situations stink. I agree. But from my own experience with blind auditions and from the actual data on how they allow, for example, the percentage of women in symphony orchestras to jump from around 5% to more than 50% in the case of the New York Phil in particular and above at least 35% across the whole industry of orchestral music, I'd say they were resoundingly effective in diversifying professional music. Yes, there are a couple of instances I know of where musicians didn't make it past the probation period. But these instances are extremely rare. The audition to get a job is so difficult, it tends to weed out the un-humble and those whose focus is not mainly the production of great music. They know how to select for top skill and the auditions test for it. Part of that skill is the ability to be flexible, to identify vibe and style of your team, to blend when necessary and to take risks when called upon and above all to be a great collaborator with others of extremely high skill. The process tends to filter out the on-the-job jerks. Not every time, but mostly. And that is what probation review is for. It is for every player and is decided by committee. I think for the rare mistake, such diversity advocacy is well worth the occasional error as opposed to the current system which yields very poor diversity numbers in tech as we are all aware.
I'd recommend blind auditions, just like the best professional orchestras use to hire "the best players". But they need to be blind from absolute beginning to sign the job offer. This culture fit nonse is nonsensical. If culture means that much in an almost entirely at-will environment- it is straight up discrimination. Have a probation period for the love of Pete! -just like the orchestras do. Why is this so hard for a bunch of really smart so-called scientists?
I feel for you. I have been in that position myself. I have not yet found a great solution. Over time and through several interviews I realized I was not being hired due to my age. I don't know if you are in a protected class, but perhaps you are. We need some kind of blind hiring practices to become the expected standard because illegal discrimination is rampant in tech jobs. It leaves those of us with ample skill unemployed for no good reason and with no access to a strategy that has any hope of working. I'm open to ideas...
I guess I'm wanting people to realize that they already have a library of building blocks in their own imaginations. "writing music" is a vast thing to say. Writing music in the manner of Mozart or LMFAO or Bruno Mars is narrower. But you have to study those exact folks to do that and then immitate their vocabulary of chords, rhythms, forms, orchestrations, styles... even to say "writing jazz in real time" isn't narrow enough. Jazz is too vast. I think people limit themselves when they get vast unknowingly like this. Better to improvise as one's self than to immitate someone else. If you want someone else to play it back as you wrote it... record yourself.
I love the OP's definition of "cheesy". Spot on and well said! Still, the article didn't really talk about how to write music in real time. Anyone at all can do this. It is simply improvising a collection of sounds.
why was this down voted. as a career musician, I'd agree with this- but maybe not the transpose it into the same key part. Perhaps that is a piano related issue? (although f major is a horn player's key, so the key confused me) It is true that even world class professional musicians hate playing in certain keys because the key itself does not sit well under the fingers on a particular instrument. For example, the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto sits great under the fingers of every pro level violinist, and that is because it sits great on the violin. That's why he wrote it in D!
I can attest to this being true. That is how it started for me. But it isn't like relative pitch (all practicing musicians have well developed relative pitch) -- it is more like seeing colors or feeling textures. I have noticed that most of my colleagues with perfect pitch are pianists. I think it helps to have that same pitch always be reluably the same. Few string or horn players have perfect pitch on all instruments, but many do have it for their own instrument only.
Perfect pitch is definitely learnable. I can tell you the exact pitch of anything played on the two instruments I play (learned at age 13) but not on other instruments or if sung. It is so severe, i can't un-know what they are- happens with film scores- my brain just starts saying the pitches to me. It's like when you pass a bilboard while driving-- you don't mean to read it, but your brain does it without your asking. I didn't have this ability until after I'd practiced these instruments for around ten years.
its also about chord spellings within a context- how a musician, especially in a string quartet, thinks about how to play the note based on how it is spelled (eg is it the third, fifth, seventh or some extension of a chord?) the spelling tips you off to its context based on the key and other factors you feel but don't have time to contemplate when sight-reading.
That's nuts. That's like asking a beginning programmer to stop coding because their code is garbage. The only way to be a great singer is to be a bad singer first.
Wow, great job on this for being someone who dosn't play an instrument. Seriously. Sure, there are some kinda not exactly right things, but sheesh, maybe you should make your own instrument! This is a great way to teach people about machine learning in a friendly way. Keep adding to it. Obviuosly you know there is random music- you were just speaking of songs. And You seem to know about blues, so you probably also know about rhythm changes and stuff? If not- check that out- see also Donna Lee.
You are correct, of course. But when someone over 40 has a much deeper understanding of programming in several languages, a CS degree, AND experience from 2 bootcamps, AND at teaching (in 2 bootcamps, at a University, and with private clients) AND has coding experience at a school, with private clients, and one's own side projects in several languages- a linguistics blog, journalism and technical writing experience, and they are then turned down for a junior technical writing role at a company where the tech writers can't code at the same level, I don't know... it is hard to say what that is, isn't it? But yes, I completely understand skepticism of the breadth and depth of the skills of those whose ONLY experience of programming was at a bootcamp. And when that same company makes a mistake in their own assessment (which you politely point out after you are told you are incorrect in your technical writing), and when that same company hires someone with virtually no experience in any of these things as its next writer hire and also for its manager of technical writing, and while those two employees are in their 20s...what would you think? Am I excluding a possible interpretation? "Culture fit"? The candidate we speak of doesn't fit the expected cultural profile in several areas for a tech company. Might it be that in some other form? It is just really tough to say. I realize it stinks to see how blatant ageism can be. It makes all of us feel unsettled for our own futures-- it is also just stupid and embarrassing in an industry that prides itself on being so smart. But we have to get real about it. We also have to get real about sexism and racism. It seems to take more than a village (of women at Google, Uber, Tessla, etc.) shouting it out with lawsuits and news articles. We have not even begun to handle race issues in tech, perhaps because so few can break through. We need to face these things and stop trying to explain them away with coded words like "culture fit" or "updated skills" (when the skills are updated, of course). We need to look around our departments and seriously ask if there was ever a new hire over 40. Then, we can dig into these issues. We have to stop knee-jerk dismissing the stories of those who are shafted by these practices. Yes, it is uncomfortable.
I'd say this is a great tip for a candidate who isn't underrepresented in tech. I just came from an interview at a conservative midwest company that isn't technically a "tech" company but has a huge tech dept. Got to the end of 5 interviews at breakneck speed and with lots of acclaim from the team about my speed and competence...that is until they saw me. Everyone, and I mean everyone in the engineering dept., save one woman (she must be a 20Xer) was firmly within the typical tech demographic. I felt I did quite well despite suddenly being asked CTO-type questions. I was told there would be whiteboard algorithms and questions about the company itself. They knew I'd never worked at a big company with a giant code base before, and yet they were enthusiastic about my ability to contribute-- it had come up and was not an issue. They wanted to fly me out and put me up in a hotel. It turned out I didn't need it because I happened to be there, but they offered. They even talked to me about salary numbers. When I got to the on-site, I got questions more fitting for a candidate with many years' experience with a giant code base at a big company. Still, I felt I answered well. In the end, they told me I didn't answer those questions quickly enough (not correctly enough-- just quickly enough). I'm fairly certain that If I were given the chance to actually work at a large company, I'd know the answers to these system design issues without having to think to arrive at the correct answer. I'd know from experience. If I'd looked like more of a "culture fit" let's say, but still over 40, I think it might have been fine. By the way, the city that this company is in is 82% African American. Its tech department was 0% African American.
but how many people who are middle age try to "enter" the industry and succeed? I can answer that for you: those who have close friends in power who wish to hire them. As you age yourself, you may see this if you are sensitive to it. We need to separate the two groups, because thrre are two issues here. 1.aging programmers already working in the industry and 2.those who are accomplished in another dying field who decided to/had the good fortune to be able to reeducate themselves in a new field for them--programming. It's the second group that have trouble even getting an interview, and when they do, are often passed up for a younger "junior dev" who is not as skilled. I realize I can only speak to what I've seen here in NYC, but I keep seeing it, and I see it a lot. So are we going to acknowledge it? i hope so. I hope we can find a way to allow people to change paths in life when their path ends, if they are humble and willing to work hard. That is the kind of society I'd like to foster.
Actually, we all need to grapple with the fact that big corporations are behaving more and more like startups because they can. If Google has a higher standard (as has been reported by Google SWEs who perform interviews at Google right here on HN) for entering SWEs based on their age, then we need to take a hard look at that. Yeah, it's illegal and unfair, but no one over 40 and really over 35 is allowed to be a great "junior dev" - they are only comfortable w over 35 who have been in the industry. The ladder is pulled up at most places for even excellently skilled beginners after 35. One should be able to enter if one has skill at a higher level, but we all need to face that the level one must hit at 35+, as a woman, as a person in any underrepresented category in this industry is much higher than it is for those who are a good "culture fit".
no one claims ageism at the first sign of it... you typically spend the years between 35 and 45 thinking... "no way! that's so stupid!" until it finally hits you, and you still can't believe it's really a thing. It's a lot like racism or sexism, except it's a bit more comforting to know that it will come to its perpetrator with a swiftness that will blow their mind.
True. What we need is a"not hotdog" style app for tech interviews. Simply photograph the face of the candidate and wait for the app to tell you if they are too old for the job. It needs a hip name. Suggestions? (this was a bit of light humor about a serious and important issue)
we need a #metoo movement for ageist experiences in the interview process and beyond! This antiquated EEOC complaint business needs a "disruption" by a more "agile" and effective approach.
can we please be honest here? Is anyone who's claiming it's all about "staying hip with the skillset" actually over 40? Because if you are, and if your skillset totally matches what the job asks for, and especially if you are nimble and quick to boot, then I promise you have heard "overqualified" and "culture fit" many sad times, most often after you nail the first sixteen (i kid, but only a little) interviews in record time and find yourself at the sunny end of a kick-butt onsite at which your facial lines can be seen. Then what was once "the team loves your passion and personality" becomes "we just don't think it's a culture fit". I'm going to have to start sending in a body double. It's that bad/sad/stupid.
As a former LSAT tutor, I can tell you that 158 isn't humblebragging for a journalist. Most of my tast-taking students were in the 150s before tutoring. I was a test prep tutor for other tests for a few years before I added the LSAT to my repertoire. Most students had no idea how to set up charts or mental pictures for the logic problems. While I understood this aspect right away, I needed to work on speed before I helped anyone else. Later in life, when learned how to code, I realized that coders would do well at this section. If I'd known how to code back then, I'd have used algorithmic thinkg techniques to help students improve their LSAT score.
This is the key point, "Would you rather have Frank Lloyd Wright in his 20s or 60s?". They aren't looking for designers/artists/masters. This is the big reveal you have hit upon. If they were, age would not matter or might even be prized. It isn't about skill or style or mastery or speed or experience-- it is about something else.
And when you do get to the on-site, you may be met with (as I have and few others I've known have and some on HN have mentioned) a junior interviewer who isn't prepared to understand that they don't understand the problem maybe or its optimal solution, and that they are making a coding error, not matter how generously/graciously you put it. And then you have to allow them to come back to you and apologize for their error (which is fine- everyone is always learning, and no one has to be perfect!) after which they proceed to not hire you and hire a younger, less experienced programmer for the job. So yeah, ageism.
Another +1 to this! If anyone over 35, or (shiver) over 40 here has had to look for a job in tech after a period of unemployment due to this "culture fit" nonsense and faux downsizing, they would know that applying to and preparing for engineering interviews these days is a full time, olympic-level sporting event requiring generous reserves of money, perfect physical health and time. One doesn't doubt one's skill at white boarding, but getting invited to the on-site is the real trick after someone sees your face in a visual tech hangout that you nail to the wall with your updated skills and well-honed coding ability (showing a few smile lines). One can't keep in shape for these increasingly grueling, multiple white boarding inquisitions, apply to every opportunity one qualifies for, make side projects for zero pay, and learn every new technology that comes out while still having time and energy to eat and sleep and remain a sane human without the help of a cleaning staff (a parent?) or a private investor (another parent?). And think of those who are well-trained and looking for their first job in tech having come from another technical skill-valuing industry (higher education, the arts, the law, medicine) in which they have already distinguished themselves? The jobs in these fields are drying up, so people are leaving these sectors and taking that athletic step to reeducate themselves. These are not lazy oldsters, but brave folks who believe they can learn anything new and double-prove they can only to be turned away because of their age.
Then there is this "positivity" culture in tech that grinds anyone of any age. It's just that the older you get, the more you begin to recognize it for what it actually is: a method through which to enforce an outwardly happy compliance with an environment that is needlessly grueling and sometimes even abusive. It is designed to bully you into submission with conditions that are unhealthy. "If you can't remain positive, well, then you are out!" is the loud-and-clear on that one.
To detail: I think these code schools should be transparent about the race, gender, age, prior experience, previous degrees/where they were obtained, family connection to industry, and their relationships with hiring partners for those who get each job. That would be impressive transparency. There is a reason why this kind of transparency isn't available, but it should be. I'm not sure that hooking up with WeWork is going to head in that direction of radical transparency. I fear that it will just contribute to the further ossification of current closed circles of job entry and keep it even more "in the family" than it already is, while not expanding that family and appearing really "exciting" and bursting with possibility for cross pollination. But appearances seem to be everything.