Absolutely he should! De Blasio did sign off on some "conceptually" important legislation protecting tenants from landlord harassment. He even followed through in some egregious cases--a small but important conceptual step. But affordable housing that is safe for tenants to actually live in remains elusive because the penalties for predatory landlords aren't high enough and because a landmark case involving reciprocal financial responsibility on the prevailing party in housing court made it more precarious for tenants to pursue legal relief. (the case decided that no party thoroughly prevailed, so the landlord didn't have to pay legal costs for the tenant to defend their rights, even though the tenant effectively "won" the case- they came out with a net loss-- and now this case is legal precedent, and a powerful deterrent to tenants who fight for their rights in court)
But in this topic in NYC and in the US in general, there is a real lack of effective, job-getting education, as you of course already know. And then these for-profit ed institutions claim to be solving this problem. I'm not sure oversight can be the way forward here. There is just too much political interdependency here. Perhaps the way forward is for people to speak out about their experience with bold honesty. This is difficult for students to do at these schools, and therein lies the dilemma, because they don't want devalue this $$$ education before it even helps them. What many realize later is that this idea of "culture fit" in every sense of the word will bar many of them for the field. This is why people need to start speaking out about diversity in tech. Well, it has started, but we need a deluge of truth here. We need real reporting on this false idea of a skills gap that isn't real if it doesn't admit members of certain groups unless they are the next Wozniak on crack.
Interestingly, and funny you should mention real estate... the Enbars are also very deep into NYC real estate. (Adam Enbar is the CEO of the Flatiron School) And you are right- the real estate situation in NYC is a disaster for rental tenants. It seems like De Blasio and the AG support real change, but when it comes down to it, tenants can't afford to defend themselves against the tycoons who own property even when the tycoons are in the wrong. So, the for-profit schools are an easier target in that they involve a lot less of the wealth of NYC than real estate feeding into politics but the schools are somewhat similar in that they too oppress those who seek a "fair" way into the economy with certain protections offered by the state.
Anybody know how "Galvanize" is doing in NYC? They have a similar model, and from what I've heard-- they had to fire 11% of their employees nationwide to "adjust". I also heard that they aren't getting enough numbers in their classes in NYC to warrant hiring real full-time faculty-- I think they just have two instructors and some contract help. (I knew someone who applied to be a teacher there, semi-recently.)
if you dig even further, like into Enbar's claims on Quora, you'd see that they were highly misleading. if you dig even further, you'd realize that they were vague about who got what- to say nothing of ageism.
Actually, I'd be interested in what is required of a school and its founders who want this license. There may be more to it than meets the immediate assumption. For example, are there any requirements for its CEO in terms of other pending lawsuits/levies/fines regarding other business they might be into? If so, I might want to look into its leadership... So, it isn't the literal license that should be concerning. It is what that license requires of those who seek it. Of course there are all sorts of crap institutions that provide little value for their graduates who ARE licensed. A license doesn't tell you if a school is effective. Shoot-- if that were the case, then why not hire CS grads who have degrees without putting them through a ridiculous battery of tests before handing them a piddling little jobs in web dev? We should all be more rigorous in what we accept as good mentorship in a time when we so need it, when so many are unemployed or underemployed. As to teaching licenses-- please. The coding bootcamps are hiring grads to boost their outcomes. That's what is happening at all of these places. And most of these grads are not skilled enough at the subject matter to guide anyone else (some of them are, of course). Certainly many of them have virtually no teaching experience. That said, the whole teaching license thing is not really working. For example, teachers with PHDs in their subject can't work in a public school without a teaching license for NYS. They CAN, however, teach at the very tippy top private schools in Manhattan like Dalton, Horace Mann, St. Ann's, Ramaz, and the rest-- because those schools really must seek the very best teachers who are expert in their respective fields if they expect the wealthy to pay them $40-60,000 in tuition for their kids' high school experience. The wealthy 1% who have really buying power differ from the typical code school student in that they can stand to pay whatever it costs to hire the best teachers for the job, whereas the code school student is looking desperately for a way into this kind of broken labor market. They don't have the power because they are desperate and it is this desperation that is preyed upon. ANd that isn't ok.
But it isn't just the ads or how outcomes are portrayed with a broad brush on the school website to prospective students. It's how the CEO of the Flatiron School answers direct questions from prospective students and interested others online. Here's a question from Quora answered by Adam Enbar, the CEO of The Flatiron School:
question: "The rise of the coding boot camp has resulted in a recognized glut of junior developers. How does Flatiron plan to distinguish its students in future?"
Enbar's answer, in part: "Look at salary data and remember what we’re talking about here: a three-month educational program that leads to a ~$75,000 salary (for Flatiron graduates; Course Report lists about $68k for a national average of bootcamp grads). The point at which there are more people prepared for those jobs than there are existing job openings, we will see salaries decrease—that’s supply and demand. But the “price” to hire a developer has not gone down because the supply has not grown enough. There may be a giant, growing supply of unqualified talent who are not getting jobs. But the supply of qualified talent? It’s been so far behind the demand that the salaries have not lowered. (It’s also worth noting that for a three-month education training program, given average salaries across this country, a $75,000 salary is insane! There is room for average salaries to come down and still provide a great ROI on bootcamps, so long as they are providing outcomes.)..."
---
He doesn't even answer the question! He challenges its "assumption" that there is a glut of junior dev talent out there now in a tightening market. He offers no information about how future Flatiron grads will distinguish themselves in this market except the implication that they will continue to get jobs and make money because these jobs are just so plentiful, and he implies that Flatiron grads are just so exceptionally skilled. "Skills Gap", the old refrain- but the issue of this recent ruling is that the Flatiron School's outcomes in this junior dev job-plentiful market aren't as super duper! as they make them out to be. (or since Enbar claims there are just so many junior dev jobs, perhaps Flatiron grads aren't distinguishing themselves within that pool?...which was the original question he was supposedly answering) Then, Enbar flatly states that his coding bootcamp leads to ~$75,000 salary job. He even says that it's "insane"!But do note the huge emphasis on supply and demand (and the salary lowering potential offered by a "distant" future glut) for these ~$75,000 jobs. It's a long answer, but within his answer, Enbar cites a graph from code.org highlighting everybody's favorite "skills gap". The problem is again conflict of interest with this graph and where it comes from- the source is not an uninterested party just doing a study. The founder/CEO of code.org, Hadi Partovi is an investor. Code.org itself is supported by donations from all of the big tech companies who would ever require coding talent. These companies have an interest in driving supply so that one day, salaries cold be lowered, and one day, H1B visas could be a thing of the past to solve this "skills gap" "problem". In fairness, toward the end, Enbar points to the outcomes report link from The Flatiron School, but the real deal is always hidden in the fine print. And there isn't even enough detail in the report to get a real handle on who gets what. That would be the "transparency" Enbar constantly 'advocates for". This ruling is just scratching the surface's surface of what is going on in these bootcamps and with this so-called "skills gap". We need an anonymous transparency platform. Enbar says he's all for real transparency when it comes to coding education and this "skills gap". So I'm guessing he won't mind.
Bang. You nailed it. So, so far from enough. These students are being told that there is a lack of skilled labor in tech. The city makes a tech-talent pipeline! It seems to the students like a huge opportunity. The news gets Katie Couric on it! And then they are presented with these really positive outcomes that are "verified". It seems like a lot of work to them, but it also looks like real hope.
In the end, when the truth is revealed, each eligible student gets only $375? That might be enough for some raw denim. Who cares about any kind of certification? Real penalties for false claims alone would do it. How about providing each student with that salary they signed up to the program for for a full year? I have a feeling the teaching would get a whole lot better and the admissions process would keep the program small and help with individual mentorship. Not only are these programs wasting students' money, but they are eating up their time in a youth-favoring labor landscape. These schools should have to pay hefty restitution to every student who, encouraged by the so-called "verified", robust outcomes, signed up, and who eventually stopped doing their online course mid-program because they correctly assessed the bootcamp's lack of honesty/interest/vigor regarding the post-apocalyptic tundra that is the web-dev software employment landscape for career changers just entering it.
If a student/grad gets more employer response from a résumé with the "well-respected" bootcamp removed from it...is that something that gets a bootcamp to hold a school-wide pow-wow to brainstorm ideas on how to approach the issue? Does the director send everyone a sincere and heartfelt apology for that? Are there transparent steps taken to get to the bottom of the issue and change it? No, the problem(s) get buried deep under the suffocating culture of infinite positivity that is designed to mute productive critique (that critique, if encouraged, might inspire positive change).
The current students and grads talk to each other and find out just how few employers are interested in bootcamp grads, and of those employers the even smaller group who is interested in bootcamp grads who are also career changers and let's just say "those who are not an obvious culture fit".
The problem with "using your network" for an older worker, is that in a severely ageist climate, your network has to be made up of those who are 10-20 years younger than you are. These kinds of connections across generations are difficult to forge in a way Dan Lyons illustrates better than I can. I have found that "network" as a resource is better explained as "knowing someone with CEO hiring power and strong desire to hire you in particular." If you are in your early to mid 40s, you may have built strong connections of this type, but many of those who are in powerful hiring positions don't want others around who can compete at their level, because they face the same thing comming for them. And many more who have this power these days are much younger than they used to be, which makes them less likely to hire someone they see as "mentor age". It feels awkward and unnatural--they want to hire those they can come up with, just like in any other time in history. I feel that this "get a job through your network" advice tends to become very thin at around age 35 and up, especially if you are a member of another protected class.
With you. Applied to around 1000 jobs myself in anything squarely in my wheelhouse or just next to it. 47. Get very few responses. When interviews are offered, I'm getting same feedback as you. It's difficult to speak up about it, because if someone has not yet experienced it, (or if it has not yet happened enough to them that they are sure what it is now) they assume it has something to do with you socially or technically. I think this is because it is so outrageously hard to believe: the idea that its root causes are insecurities that otherwise ambitious, intelligent people would not allow to negatively affect their company or its professional edge. - especially in a time when the industry can't stop talking about its shortage of highly qualified workers. So if someone calls it out, others assume there is something wrong with them they aren't facing. It took me a full 7 years of self critique and experimentation before I was sure it was ageism.
Thank you for confirming this. I'll start using this tactic immediately. I do think if we are forced to retire at 40 or even before, the younger folks in the industry should get hip now, and demand much much higher salaries like the athletes in professional sports do. And if it is collectively decided that no one wants to start a union, engineers (and even those in other professions now) should get agents just like the pro athletes do, because those negotiations will require some seriously professional legal and negotiation skill. People don't have time to become both Grace Hopper AND Jerry Maguire. Imagine if sportsers had to negotiate their own contracts... those folks would be abused and dumped.
I had a suggestion from a friend that I should just cut off everything from my résumé that happened before 7 years ago. I have not yet tried this, but my friend just started getting calls for interviews having done this. Do you have any more advice?
You are so right about all of this! Here are my notes from "the resistance" (distant, muted chuckle) This year, after my fourth experience with ageism in the hiring phase as a candidate, I was disgusted, frustrated, and fed-up. When I contacted an attorney about the outrageous level of age discrimination I recently experienced at an interview, he was skeptical, at first, saying that these cases are very difficult to prove. He asked me for the key facts-- When I told him exactly what happened and some other facts about the job description as it was posted online versus what was told to me about why I was not hired versus who they ended up hiring (a 20-something year old with none of the posted experience supposedly "required" at the job). He asked me if I had written proof of this. I said that sadly, I did. I also had a recording. (Yes, they are that irresponsible about their hiring practices)He said that it was one of the most clear-cut cases of age discrimination that he had heard of in hiring, particularly because I offered every single experience and skill requirement listed in the job posting while the job winner offered none of these.(no, the online posting/position was never changed) He wanted to take it on contingency without hesitation. He did warn me that going after discrimination in any form is best as a last resort (i.e. If I know I'm too old for anyone to ever hire me in tech), because I will be marked as someone who stands up for themselves and no company wants to hire that person. He pointed out that since they were a well-known company in tech I'd face significant blowback and shunning, even if I won, which he felt I would. He also pointed out that the compensation I can get from it is not what it should be. I told him that changing this in our industry is important to me. If more people filed EEOC complaints it might help, but I'm not sure. (FYI, I just turned 47)
I have asked these questions in interviews like these and truly -- I get straight-up blatantly illegal discriminatory answers based on age and experience level. It's as though these interviewers have no idea that we have laws against discrimination in the US, and I'm guessing because they are not properly trained in hiring practices/we just don't hold companies accountable for discrimination like we should. This has happened to me four times in the past year alone. Even worse, it has happened to my over 40, African American friend and colleague many more times than that in the past year even though he has a CS degree and experience in teaching code with modern languages. He can't get a dev job, despite his ability to code and teach it and document it well. He's a published writer to boot. They always ask him in interviews why he has not worked as a dev (outside his own projects) at a company... why has he only taught coding? Of course the unvoiced answer goes a little something like this: "well, because companies tend to hire devs according to what is more politely known as "culture-fit", and I just don't seem to "fit the current culture", if you know what I mean." He just needs a job, any job, working in his field or adjacent to it in any way. For three years, he has looked as though it was his more-than-full-time job. (of course then the question is-- what have you been doing outside these side-projects and the unspoken answer is: "interviewing, if I get lucky enough to get an interview, with anyone who will hire me every waking moment of the past three years, when I'm not doing side-projects to make it look like I'm doing something time-consuming and deep and meaningful for no money." He went through his savings doing side-projects and applying to jobs. He's about to be homeless. He recently went after technical writing positions instead of dev roles hoping the age and race thing would be less of an issue. It was ridiculous: he applied at a well-known hosting company for a tech writer job. They put him through his paces with a take home of ridiculous scope/length (for free, as you do). He politely and squarely nailed it. They wrote him back telling him he didn't get to advance because he made a mistake in his directions and they didn't do what he said they did. This was outrageously incorrect. It makes a person want to scream. Instead of being outraged and screaming out the window like in the movie Network, he wrote them back in the most gracious way possible and explained how he understood how their mistake can easily get made by anyone, (not really, but ok, he was being nice) and why his direction was in fact correct and that as a result, he hoped to meet them in person soon, as he was eager to discuss "how he could help over at XYZ" or similar. (this after two phone interviews with them worried he might be overqualified for an associate role there, during which he assured him that the pay would be great, and that he's be happy to write documentation at any level and help in any way he could--). Well, guess what? They wrote back to thank him for alerting them to their ridiculous error, stating that they would change the assignment for future candidates based upon his gracious and clear suggestions (pretty much the definition of his effective technical writing helping them at their company right there). They then explained that he didn't do some other piddling aspect of the writing that if it were an actual compaint, could be solved by a team conversation on preferences. (but the crit was actually untrue in a concrete way, just like the above) Anyway, they let him know that they would not be inviting him to the on-site.
Neither one of us can get hired anywhere despite multiple degrees and experience in engineering and in other fields. We are both over 40 and unemployable. Can't get jobs at Trader Joe's bagging groceries (and other unskilled labor, yes- have tried very hard)... overqualified, you see. Maybe we should try for a job in neurosurgery? Neither one of us has experience in that field...
If your wife is a woman and you too are a woman, this would be puzzling. If you are a man, it becomes a lot less puzzling. "Race/culture"still trumps gender.
Unfortunately, most industries are rapidly becoming ageist if they aren't already. And if you work in a job with lower general compensation (most of them... except finance which has major discrimination problems too) It's impossible to make enough money to retire at 40, which is exactly what most of us are now being asked to do, at the prime of our expertise, due to "overqualification"... ahem... ageism, I mean.
>I clicked on the comment section assuming I misunderstood something. No. Apparently "over-qualified" is a thing in Silicon Valley. Wow.
Yes. And it isn't just Silicon Valley. I started getting "you are overqualified" in my former profession at age 35, when I was at the top of my former field. Many of my similarly experienced colleagues got the same treatment. So I switched to software hearing that qualified developers were in short supply only to find that this same lame "overqualified" argument was being used for over 35 year olds I came to know in my new profession. There doesn't seem to be a place for anyone who isn't already securely positioned at 35 in any profession these days. Career changes after 30 are becoming impossible in many fields.
>More likely than not, Im looking for an intern who I can pay intern wages, and maybe slightly more as he improves.
The problem with this interpretation is that a lot of these so called "intern-level" jobs are not labeled as such. In fact, many of these opportunities require this so-called intern to have senior level skills based upon the job description and (no joke) seven-part interview spread over several weeks. So if these companies are just looking for interns, why not decide in one simple interview? And the other problem here is that many who apply to be older "interns" who are career changers are also rejected. There is really no way for the hiring company to explain that away as over-qualification.
And it isn't just the experience in their technical area-- it is the experience in life, in communication, in seeing many cycles in innovation, and an experience with a culture and time that is different than the one 20-30 year olds have known. It is unfortunate that people can't do many different careers in their lives, applying the skills of one to another. Switching is rare because you have to chose a track and never deviate. For all the talk in the younger generation about iteration and analysis and rapid modification to promote innovation, one might assume that they welcome those who have changed and refashioned skills and careers. Instead, they seem to fear those who are adept, strong, and confident about learning new careers and making change. It's ironic. It is also tragic for those who have the courage and grit to change, and who can't get hired in any new field despite their skill and hipness w new technology. This speaks of fear, and of anxiety on the part of younger generation. About? That there will be no work? I'm not sure...
Nice idea! Could be a great intro for new learners or even those who just want to get at making sound with a lower bar to entry- which is fantastic. I'd love to try it with a student. Have you?
Wait,what? So who is Jonathan Peters (a dj, re-mixer, and producer) to tell us what music is? Excuse me, but I happen to think my air conditioner is making a kind of music. The dude works with Mac Quale (American Horror Story) , and Quale seems to think sounds and textures are music. Also- can we please move beyond this "universal language" thing? What is universal about sounds and contexts? For example, the 12 tone scale is western, while other cultures enjoy microtones but these sounds sound "out of tune" to the average westerner. Steve Reich thought the utterances of a victimof race riots was music as evidenced by his piece "Come Out". John Cage showed that chance ambient sound is music with the famous 4'33"... and well, there are hundres ofexamples. Why can't we reach for a more culturally and intellectually and conceptually expansive defenition of an artform here on Hacker News? What "emotion" was John Cage going for in his prepared piano pieces? What about Richard Serra, the sculptor? I read stuff like this time and again by truly intellectual people on HN and I am always surprised at how behind the developments in artistic thinking are here.And really, it is 2017-- how can anyone think "music" is a universal language. As a composer myself, this defenition of music shoves me into a time machine and thrusts me back to old Vienna where I'm having tea with Brahms and Clara Schuman! Please! I need my modern brain, modern concept of the history of music and art, and my ability to redefine the parameters of my artform! How would you like program in COBOL all day for the rest of your life, denying the existence of modern coding languages? By the way, do yourself a favor and listen to "come out"---- drop in at some middle or later point innthat composition or even anywhere in Reich's "clapping Music" and tell me what emotion one is meant to feel... get back to us on that please.
perhaps we should be less passive listeners. Bach was just a dude who was great at counterpoint and his job. we aren't trapped by Bach- we are not thinking creatively if we think stylistic hybrids is artistic thinking. Shoot -- Bach was doing that his dang self. The point is-- art isn't something that should be justified by labor. It sure is a lot of labor to write a fuge in counterpoint like Bach did. But only if you are doing the math by hand. Time to get to the end of labor so we can see through it to an actual artistic idea about ourselves. The passive listener might be a great place to start.Bach was not a storyteller. He was into absolute music-- mathematical purity-- a marriage of form and function under a set of rules called counterpoint both laterally and vertically-- the ultimate musical 3d Sudoku meets Rubik's cube meets Go meets chess-- in sonic form. What you hear in it as emotion is what you see in the surface of rippling water, and that is kinda the point of its technical and formal strictness and purity. It is musical math. Math has no emotion-- you do. Bach aimed for this kind of pure dedication to musical math. But it isn't idea. It really isn't. But there is something compelling about that which is concrete giving rise to our own ideas. I guess the poet William Carlos Williams was into the same thing-- bringing out the concrete so something personal can float up from that image- so it can be somehow universal. I guess that is cool. But as a lifelong performer of Bach, This Bach worship is its own religion. They didn't have cameras or computers or safe surgery then. (bach dying of an infection from cateract surgery -- knew nothing of blood type also)But we DO! And I think it is time to move on from the whole "wow, check out that perfect form and counterpoint he did by hand" kind of thing. It is a great player who can give real life to pure musical math, and that is what Bach did for us-- he gave us a nice, sturdy, non-flaky canvass, and we all appreciate it. But time to move beyond the hand labor being recognized as the art in music composition and music performance too (wow, look how in tune! how fast! how well structured in phrase! how expertly varied in timbre and sonic texture! how emotional!) It really isn't a marvel of anything but hours of time spent doing counterpoint or scales or technique. None of us expect to be lauded for our facility at speaking our native language-- or even a foreign language. It is the same thing, I promise. And hopefully, machine learning will show us this sooner rather than later so we can get into some new artistic idea. And yeah, loads of performing musicians disagree with me on this. But hey- loads of peoole think they were abducted by aliens too.
of course django was an artist. he innovated the style we now immitate. we don't have a ton of innovators in jazz anymore. I mentioned Mostly Other People Do The Killing. There ate many in the downtown NY scene I could mention--- I'd say Christian Marclay. Shelley Hersh. But- that is getting away from the point. the point is--- we need to put the practice of innovation and diversity of perspective to the fore in computer programming or it dies the same unknown death of monoculture.
with all respect to the great players of gypsy jazz (many of whom I like) gypsy jazz and solos over changes in that style is not really creative. It is a formula that has been invented. People like it;I like it too. But it's what I mean--- not innovative. It has nothing to do with our time. It is retro like BeBop. Recreating BeBop and Gypsy jazz is not creative- it is like really cool Civil War Reenactment. This is what I mean by music lacking creativity for the most part. I mean we don't support innovators- we support technically excellent practitioners of a well-known style. This is a craft, not an art. Nothing against great craft at all-- I love it. But we are in desperate need of art. Ditto in computer programming. It is important that it notice these pitfalls.
also to the "you must have lived" to have anything artistic to say... depends on your defenition of artistic. Certainly, in order to reproduce the piano compositions of middle aged European men, it might help to have lived, especially to the age of the composer. Maybe that gets in the way of your only children and the near-dead understand how to play Mozart. Martha Argerich and Pollini say hi, but when they were middle aged. This whole dusty notion of music is the basis of this completely un-artistic, elitist notion of classical music. Elitism is the good pal if monoculture. It promotes the homogenization and dumbing down of the arts and I fear it will do the same for computer programming if we aren't careful to look out for it and push back with diversity measures.
who is Mika? As to knowing Richter and Beethoven to play the blues...I think it would be difficult for someone who has the money for piano lessons and a conservatory style education with hours to practice on a Steinway in a climate controlled practice room at Juilliard ... i really think it's hard for those people to play rhe blues properly. Not to get all snobby about the blues (joking here) but I do think the player who understands how to do that might come from a different background. Also, they tend to be black, for obvious reasons. Not to say that people from other races don't experience hardships on that level, it is just that the blues is really a particular language and pathos from a group of tragically oppressed people in a particular time in the United States, who didn't get to attend Juilliard or the like, or eat most days. You know, it's part of the Afro-Cuban tradition that created jazz, which has its roots in the African-American community in the United States. Old European and Euro-descent men only wish they knew something about it, which is why they tried to imitate it (Ravel a conservatory drop-out btw, Stravinsky, Bernstein, Gershwin...)The only one who kinda succeeded in reaching back into that ethos from his Juillard practice room was Miles Davis-- and he dropped out too, btw) rich kidz at Juilliard, eastman, the New Scool, and other conservatory jazz programs spend their life trying to understand what it means to be that oppressed. I know, I've heard hours of blues, or should I say "blues" played by the white children of the rich. Beethoven and Richter don't get it. And schoenberg doesn't either. Frankly, very few educators at conservatory have any idea how to teach musicians. That is because they are supposed to get out of the way and help them teach themselves. This rarely happens, because artistry doesn't have a path. It finds its own- conservatory pretends there is a path, which brings us to where we are now with homogenized music. is there something that can be gained here with respect to programming artistic development? I think so, it just seems that the field is so insular and mono culture (just like classical music and jazz) that it can't learn from other pedagogical and culture mistakes the arts have already made. Namely, there is no "path". Thatmight help. but definitely check out Brushy One String. He is a modern blues guy who gets it-- again, hes from an impoverished island background not unlike the Mississippi Delta back in the day-- no Beethoven and Richter for him-- just poverty, drugs, crime, and oppression.