Believe the Occupational Outlook Handbook?

concerned00 writes "In their latest Occupational Outlook Handbook, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics says that employment of software engineers and system analysts is expected to increase 'much faster than the average' through 2014 (here, and here). In contrast, employment of programmers is expected to increase 'more slowly than the average,' with outsourcing given as one of the major reasons why (here). However, from the stories I read from American programmers on the Net, the profession is lost. Is the government wrong, or lying, then, when it implies that software engineers and system analysts can expect to have a good future? As an American, am I a fool if I decide to undertake this for a living?" Read more for details of concerned00's analysis.
The difference between a "software engineer" and a "programmer" seems somewhat dubious to me, although from the Web pages in question apparently the software engineer is involved in requirements gathering, analysis, and design, whereas the programmer usually is not. According to the Web page for programmers, "[t]he consolidation and centralization of systems and applications, developments in packaged software, advances in programming languages and tools, and the growing ability of users to design, write, and implement more of their own programs mean that more of the programming functions can be transferred from programmers to other types of information workers, such as computer software engineers." (?)

The page for software engineers says: "Computer software engineers are projected to be one of the fastest-growing occupations from 2004 to 2014." Reasons given: the increasing complexity of computer systems, the need to "adopt and integrate new technologies," "the expanding integration of Internet technologies and the explosive growth in electronic commerce," the increasing reliance on "hand-held computers and wireless networks," and concerns about security. Yet: "As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat as more software development is contracted out abroad. Firms may look to cut costs by shifting operations to lower wage foreign countries with highly educated workers who have strong technical skills. At the same time, jobs in software engineering are less prone to being sent abroad compared with jobs in other computer specialties, because the occupation requires innovation and intense research and development." (?)

On the other hand, to hear the personal anecdotes of many (American) programmers on the Internet, the profession is lost and anyone in college majoring in computer science or software engineering must be either naive or insane. According to them, you have to be a genius programmer if you expect to compete successfully for the slim pickings that are left, there is no job security at all, and the best most can realistically hope for these days is a job at Home Depot. Furthermore, even if you could get work, you wouldn't want it: the deadlines are impossible, the bosses are naive, petty-minded, and perversely self-serving, and the technology changes so fast that if you allow yourself to slip behind you might as well kiss your career good-bye.

Comments

You can't get there from here.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I believe it, but you can't get there from here.

Software engineers and software analysts are *highly skilled* positions that require experience in addition to at least a Bachelor's degree in Software Engineering or Software Project Management.

Programming, on the other hand, can be done by anybody with a Computer Science or related mathematical degree, usually a two year Associate's degree. India is graduating 50,000 people with this training EVERY YEAR.

You need to know some demographics to understand why, in the 2008-2014 era, the first will be in demand- it's because the first generation of Software Engineers and Analysts and Project Managers are all Baby Boomers. They're all in their late 50s and early 60s now- getting ready to retire. We're going to need to replace them with people who have similar skill levels.

Which leads to my question to prompt discussion: just how the hell do you become a software engineer without being a programmer first, unless you're independently wealthy enough to work in Open Source for 5-10 years?

One potential answer is government instead of private industry- I'm a software engineer with 10 years of experience and that's where I ended up after the last recession because I simply didn't have enough experience in enough languages to get a private industry job.

But beyond that- I just don't see any way for a young person graduating from high school to become a software engineer anymore. Sure, you can probably get the 4 years of schooling. But you'll be competing with people who earn $2.50/hr halfway around the world when it comes to getting experience. And that's not a winning bet when it comes to paying back your $40,000 of student loans it will take to get that Bachelor's degree.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, but the difference is this- it was rare for a manufacturing assembly line worker to become a manufacturing engineer. It's NECESSARY to be a computer programmer for a while on a variety of projects before you can become a good software engineer.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[joedeaux]

> As an American, am I a fool if I decide to undertake this for a living?"
>
Yes.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Programming, on the other hand, can be done by anybody with a Computer Science or related mathematical degree, usually a two year Associate's degree. India is graduating 50,000 people with this training EVERY YEAR.

As a manager at a software development firm, I laugh at what you're saying. We've interviewed several of these people, unfortunately. They're essentially useless, even as programmers.

Some of these dipshits, err, "expert C# developers" couldn't even explain the basic concepts behind a linked list implemented in C#. One notable Indian-trained fellow we interviewed told us all about arrays when asked to describe a linked list. When we asked him to elaborate on where the linking comes into play, he told us that "the addresses of the memory cells were linked by virtual memory".

The developer I was interviewing this fellow with was also of Indian descent, but trained in France. He told the candidate flat out, "Sandeep, you are a disgrace to the people of India!"

The few times we've actually given such people a chance, there has been nothing but trouble. Some of them run into major problems just getting simple code to compile. In the end, they waste the time of our better developers with stupid, near-pointless questions. So I think it's almost always a mistake to hire the people you describe.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the jobs over here are being taken by those people over here, it's that management will sometimes outsource whole projects to indian/whatever firms. The people taking the jobs don't get interviewed, they already have jobs with companies that bid the lowest for the contract. As a manager, surely you know that? Or maybe you just work at a great place :)

The other problem over here is that consulting companies (*cough* Accenture *cough*) hire the cheapest people they can that seem smart, and then try to crash-train them to program later.

maybe just my experience though...

Re:You can't get there from here.

[stefanlasiewski]

Software engineers and software analysts are *highly skilled* positions that require experience in addition to at least a Bachelor's degree in Software Engineering or Software Project Management.

It's different at different organizations. Some of these job titles never made sense.

In my experience 'System Analyst' is often used as a a generic job title, something like 'System Operator'. Analysts are often at the low end of the totem pole, have less computer experience then the 'Programmers', and are towards the bottom of the pay scale. 'System Analysts' often support the other technical groups, but have little computer experience. 'System Analyst' is often used as one of those 'foot in the door' positions so that people can start learning technical or project management skills. After several years experience, an Analyst is promoted to 'System Administrator', 'System Engineer', QA Engineer, 'Product Manager', etc.

But then again, I know 'System Analysts' consultants who have the ear of the CEO, but again--- but few of them be 'highly skilled' in an engineering sense. They have good communication skills, which is why they can effectively present ideas to the management team.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a warning: the following is going to be offensive to anyone who's not putting it into the context of cultural differences.

"Programming, on the other hand, can be done by anybody with a Computer Science or related mathematical degree, usually a two year Associate's degree. India is graduating 50,000 people with this training EVERY YEAR."

As someone who's working heavily on an Indian offshoring project right this moment, and has had the opportunity to talk to many others in the same situation, I'm going to have to disagree with this entire line of thought.

If you think those two years of Indian schooling produce anything resembling the equivalent that two years of an American school will produce - even a low-end community college - you're fooling yourself. The Indian education system is fundamentally broken in terms of teaching initiative and critical thinking, in the sense that they don't. They produce robots, for the most part.

If they don't understand what you're saying, you know what they say? "Yes, I understand." Because they're too damn scared to say no, because their teachers and parents yell at them when they said "no, I don't understand" in school.

The project's running late? Don't expect any notice from your Indian team until it's too damn late to save it. Ambiguity in the specs? Same thing. They can code pretty well given an extremely exacting spec. They fail miserably when they're expected to make good design decisions on the fly. Their culture is big on shame and saving face, and it bites you in the ass every time.

High productivity? You wish. That's not the way their culture works, for good or for bad. They're not lazy, per se, but office socialization will take up huge amounts of time, meaning that the time you do get isn't going to be quite as good (think late at night work binges).

Performance reviews? These guys are high management. If you give them anything less than perfect, they'll bawl in tears in your office. Why? Well, mommy and daddy expect nothing less than perfect, so that's what they've gotten used to. In the real world, though, no one's perfect, and they never seem to figure this out.

Is any of this fixable? Yes, given time. I'm quite pleased with the progress a couple of our guys have made after a few months, even if they're nowhere near American standards yet. But you'll often spend quite a lot of time trying to just work with their constraints, and worse yet, dedicate significant resources to trying to just get them into gear.

The culture differences here are huge, and they have a huge impact on the effectiveness of offshoring. If you gave me the choice between 10 newly-graduated Indians and 2 newly-graduated Americans, and I got to do the interviews, I would take the 2 new Americans EVERY TIME on a programming project. In a call center environment, where those cultural differences work to my advantage? Definitely the Indians. Sometimes, bodies count. Other times, they don't.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[pokerdad]

but I have to wonder: how long will it be before US companies realize that we really are worth our salaries, that you get what you pay for?

This will happen shortly after the economic model that rewards CEOs and stockholders for the companies short-term gains, even if it is at the expense of the long term, comes to an end. I am not an economist, but I am not hopeful this will happen in my lifetime.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[rjstanford]

Those people should be smart and experienced enough to send a detailed cover letter explaining how, regardless of the fact that they don't know the language (no big deal), the libraries (much harder to grasp) and the "right way" of doing things (the biggie), their operational and business domain experience is still enough of a good fit for the company to have them come in for a chat. The fact that they don't (apparently) leads me to believe that their business skills won't, indeed, make up for their lack of language knowledge.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[GoMMiX]

The company I just started for layed off 15 people from the IT department the first week I was there. Yesterday we had a meeting discussing next years budget, and where cuts would be made - I'll give you one guess what department was mentioned first...

Ignorance is bliss, and if you've got a good job in IT it's easy to be blissful.

You should be thankful you have one of those jobs, not berate others who do not.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[PopeRatzo]

It's not that hard; it's called good old fashioned true grit. If you can demonstrate to companies that you are worth something to them, believe me you'll get hired.

What he means is that it's more important to be lucky than good. The dirty secret is that hard work accounts for a very small part of success.

Re:You can't get there from here.

[stefanlasiewski]

And this practice will remain 'theory' for quite a while. CEOs, salespeople and consultants promote these magic code-generating systems, but have you ever seen one actually work?

Is it possible to create specification which is so good, that you could feed it into a interpreter/compiler, and the compiler 'automagically' pumps out quality code? If you're going to write a spec in such detail, might as well write the spec *in* a programming language.

I've seen a dozen attempts at these automated systems in web environments over since 2002, and nobody has body has ever gotten close to a working product-- the end result is unworkable *and* expensive. The projects have all either been scrapped, or required extensive cleanup (which creates a demand for *more* programmers, engineers, etc). The business looses. The only people who win out are the consultants who sold the software.

The devil is in the details. No specification is perfect, and specs always miss out on important details. Programmers and engineers are the people who take a flawed specification and create a workable product.

These systems will work eventually, but the solution is still in the distant future.

Job Growth Doesn't Answer This

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fool to choose a career that doesn't interest you. Pick something you love, and you'll be happy. And as far as money is concerned, if you actually enjoy it, it will show in your work and you will be sought after.

Re:Job Growth Doesn't Answer This

[fractoid]

Make a website for yourself. Right up there with "no-one ever went broke underestimating human intelligence" is "on the internet there's always someone who will pay for the weirdest shit."

Right conclusions, incoherent reasons

[autophile]

The Handbook's conclusion is probably correct, but the reasons they give are pretty much incoherent. My theory goes like this.

There's a food chain in project development. At the top is the customer, and at the bottom are the implementers. The closer you are to the top, the more important it is to the customer to be in the same country as the customer. The closer you are to the bottom, the more likely your job can be done in any country.

I don't like it, either, but there you go.

--Rob

The profession's fine, if you're good.

[cduffy]

If you're good, there's plenty of work.

If you aren't good, then:

1. You won't enjoy it
2. People who are good won't enjoy working with you
3. You'll have cause to seriously worry about outsourcing as competition for your job

People who say the profession is dead mean that the profession is no longer supporting as many gross incompetents as it did back during the boom. That's thankfully quite true.

The point: Don't go into software development as a profession if you're in it for the money. You won't want the profession, and the profession doesn't want you. If you're in it for something other than the money -- come on in, the water's fine.

Re:The profession's fine, if you're good.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's more than that- to get good, you need experience. To prove to HR that you're good, you need experience that you can put on a resume (no, writing a virus to control a 50,000 node botnet isn't experience). And getting that experience is exactly what is being outsourced. It's not just the incompetent that have lost their jobs- it's also the ignorant young guys who might have become good programmers if given half a chance.

Re:The profession's fine, if you're good.

[darrint]

It's not just the incompetent that have lost their jobs- it's also the ignorant young guys who might have become good programmers if given half a chance.

It's not like you don't have the whole stinking internet available help you, let you hack on production code, or promote projects of your own creation.

If you can tolerate a startup environment there's a glut of python positions IMHO.

Boo-hoo-ing about the inability to find good programming work in the climate of 2007 is asinine. Outsourcing is a lot more narrow than the whiners would have us believe.

Re:The profession's fine, if you're good.

[rossifer]

It's more than that- to get good, you need experience.

There's different kinds of good.

I've worked with kids fresh out of school who can understand good design and have the enthusiasm to get into the system and the domain really quickly. Tell them something once, and later you see other people going to them for help for that exact same topic.

Then I've also had the misfortune to work with people with "15 years of experience" who have clearly been making the same mistakes each year for 15 years.

When you're looking at fresh-out-of-school-hires, there's only one real way to know if someone is one of those sharp kids that you really want on your team: someone told you about him/her.

My advice to the poster: learn how to network. Work on class projects with different people and keep working with the smart people. Get into a co-op or intern at interesting companies (ask other people who have already interned and don't stop asking until you find someone who's (1) sharp and (2) gung-ho about their job). Go to the local language user group meetings and see if those people are any good. Ask to help out on other people's senior projects that seem interesting to you.

The more people who know that you're a badass problem solver, the more likely you are to find work you enjoy.

Regards,
Ross

Re:The profession's fine, if you're good.

[typidemon]

I've interviewed kids who haven't even finished University and you can tell that they are going to be fantastic. Kids with amazing observational skills, aware of small differences and really eager to learn how to do things right. They are the people that get gigs straight out of uni and have the world open to them.

Unfortunately, most of the people on the job market are deadshits.

Re:The profession's fine, if you're good.

[jalmond]

I agree with rossifer.
In actuality, there are plenty of companies that aren't looking for experience, but are looking for raw ability. Heck its in Google's hiring charter "we value ability over experience". My company is the same and so are plenty of others. When I'm interviewing candidates, I'll choose a kid who quite clearly is a good problem solver, has solid engineering fundamentals, and comes from a good university over a guy with a mile long resume any day.

In my experience, if a company is looking for a mile long resume there are two scenarios present: 1. They are looking for a high level position, that an entry level guy isn't qualified for, or 2. the hiring managers are idiots themselves and won't be able tell what a good software engineer would look like so they have to compensate by relying on an inflated resume.

As an entry level guy trying to find his first job, you really don't care about scenario 1 or 2. Your not qualified for scenario 1 and you don't actually want scenario 2.

Instead what you should look for are companies that innovate, ones that have a strong tech department in the first place. Because the companies that don't are looking to hire a monkey to do monkey jobs. And if you really have the chops to be a good software engineer, then you don't worry about the monkey jobs - let them go to India, or the moon for that matter. Companies that you WANT to be mentoring you are the same ones that will be able to recognize your talent and ignore your thin resume.

Science vs. "The internet"

[Hacksaw]

I won't speak to the accuracy of the studies that you might be citing, I haven't read them. But remember that anecdotes collected on the internet, or anywhere else, are almost useless since they are self-selecting participants in an ill designed casual survey. You don't have a real survey, you have the rantings of perhaps ill treated people.

True, but is it the right question?

[Loopy]

While it is true that "software engineer" spots are going overseas at high rates, two things should be taken into account:

1) "Software engineer" isn't the shiny, highly-technical bastion of the well-edumacated like it used to be. As computers have become more standardized these jobs, like many other "old high-tech" jobs, have become more or less commodity positions. Look at clerical (read: typing/wordprocessor, etc.) work, for example. Everyone and their dog thinks that if they can use Windows, they're automagically a PC expert.

2) The "jobs are going overseas" mechanic implies a zero-sum game, when there isn't one. There is a growing need for generic PC software weenies in all sorts of QA and other fields at companies that didn't need them a few years back. This is A Good Thing(tm).

So, basically, having been in the industry pre and post-dot-com-boom, I'm more or less of the "Nothing to see here, move along," mindset. /shrug

Programmers are uselessn

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is in the summary. Programmers are a dime a dozen. Software engineers are useful. I've never hired anybody with a CIS degree because they were taught to be (shitty) programmers. However, folks from all walks of life can learn to be software engineers if they apply a bit of logic and problem solving skills. With outsourcing, more and more modules will be programmed by contractors (probably overseas) and more and more design will be done by software engineers then (not) done by programmers.

Entire IT industry

[nurb432]

Is slowly dying due to its own success in automation, and making hardware nearly disposable.

As things improve each generation, and reduce the need for support people, the jobs get fewer and fewer. Only a handfull of people will be needed at the end of all this. A lot like toaster support.

Jobs Exist

[kmsigel]

I have been a software engineer (working as an independent consultant) for 15+ years. I see plenty of jobs. At least once a year someone asks me if I'm available (I'm not) or whether I know of someone good looking for work (I don't). As with almost any profession, if you are very good at what you do then you won't have any problem finding work. If you are merely "good" (or worse) then you'll have trouble if the field isn't "hot" at the time.

So, you have to ask yourself, "Am I merely good, or am I very good (or even better)?" I think that a lot of what determines that is enjoyment of the field. If you really enjoy programming, are really bothered when something doesn't work, are really driven to find an explanation for the "strange" behavior you are seeing, then you probably have what it takes. If software engineering is just some major that you're ok at that you think will pay well then it probably won't in fact pay well for you and probably isn't the right thing for you.

Good luck.

Yes, you are a fool

[mi]

And a waste of material to boot, if you pick a profession based on its earning potential. And I really have no patience for lectures on how arrogant my saying this is.

Do, what you love to do — and get to be really good at it, and you'll earn a lot.

The problem with Programming today is that much more programming suddenly became required over the last decade or two, than there were naturally born and/or nurtured programmers. You had people becoming "programmers" after a 2-6 months courses... Asking these people, what bit is, results in stares and head-scratching. Many of the better ones got promoted too high as well (a problem in many other professions in America due to its low unemployment today, BTW).

That much of the work of these programmer wanna-bees is outsourced is a good thing — maybe, the quality of burgers will improve, and/or hiring a (legal) baby-sitter will become possible again. The real professionals — and those, who really want to become professionals — don't have much to fear...

The only thing lost is the internet bubble ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

On the other hand, to hear the personal anecdotes of many (American) programmers on the Internet, the profession is lost and anyone in college majoring in computer science or software engineering must be either naive or insane.

And yet nearly everyone I know has an incredibly difficult time filling software engineering positions.

According to them, you have to be a genius programmer if you expect to compete successfully for the slim pickings that are left, ...

Genius? No. However let me make a distinction between those who enter a computer science program because they are genuinely interested in software compared to those who entered because someone told them it was a good career path. The former will generally not have a problem, more on that below.

Let me also rant on "programmers" a little. During the internet bubble anyone who could write two partially correct lines of code/script fashioned themselves a programmer and some of these collected salaries far beyond their true worth. I think many of those whining about conditions today come from this pool of talent, not all, but many.

... there is no job security at all ...

That is universal, not specific to software development. However software developers are inherently better prepared to move from one company to another, work from home, start your own business, etc.

... the technology changes so fast that if you allow yourself to slip behind you might as well kiss your career good-bye ...

Now we return to those who have a genuine interest. Such people tend to tinker with new things at home, on their own time, for fun, and this helps them keep up to date and get/keep the jobs they want. I was dumbfounded many years ago when a coworker (fortunately on a different team) was hoping to be assigned to a particular project because he wanted to learn C++, the language that was to be used. He thought I was crazy when I suggested he get a compiler and learn the language on his own rather than wait for such an event.

Yes, you would be a fool

[tftp]

And here is why. First of all, if you read the replies above you will see that a software analyst is not something you can claim on your resume when the ink on your diploma is still wet. And you won't get the chance to grow into the position because the entry level positions are either not common enough or just a dead end.

A more generic outlook is this. Software can be produced in any country, anywhere at all, and the only thing it requires is the competent personnel to execute the project. India and China produce more software developers in total, and proportionally more *excellent* developers. Now imagine that someone in the world (a transnational corporation, for example, which does not care where the job is done) needs to develop and write a complex software system to, say, operate a 23-legged underwater spider that is being built to fix underwater fiber cables. The company will build the hardware, and now it needs to find a software developer (a company, of course) that can provide at least 100 developers full time, at least 25 senior developers, and a proportional number of managers and other necessary overhead.

Given these example conditions, let's see which company will win the bid. A US company will be burdened with high salaries, and at the same time will not be able to provide so many competent developers (warm bodies do not count.) Ability to work *seriously* overtime is probably not there; willingness to travel and participate in testing in Philippines is probably not there either. Compare to an Indian company which can give you as many workers as you need, at fraction of the cost, and they are all best of the best. A US company would need to have some very tangible advantages to win the bid, but I can't imagine how they can win on costs. Practically the only usable story here is previous experience and the ownership of relevant intellectual property, and good luck if they have it. But a US newcomer has no chance to win the bid; and even older companies, with experience of underwater and robotic works, will face fierce competition from far more populous countries.

In other words, a US worker is overpriced on the global market, and exceptions are rare. The USA does export technology, but it is in markets that have extreme barrier of entry (airplanes, nuclear reactors, Windows OS, drugs, CPU and IC designs) or when the products are weapons. Those are the major sectors of US export (not counting food products, since they are not relevant to this discussion.) More and more of US technological output is in knowledge only, and software developers are not high enough to qualify as such.

Why all this is happening is simple. Humans and societies develop more and more knowledge and skills, and then they get to a plateau - no more intellectual growth. That's what Europe and the USA reached decades ago. During that time Chinese cast iron at home and shot intellectuals, and in India Hindus and Moslems tried to determine whose god is mightier. Physics of semiconductors and quantum effects in P-N barriers were not on the horizon there. But now the developing nations advanced, as they should, and they are quickly approaching the same knowledge plateau that US and Europe encountered earlier. That's why they are becoming competitive - their PhDs are just as smart now as any european or american PhD, and there are far more of them, and they charge far less, and the process is only unwinding out of control.

Re:Yes, you would be a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever *tried* working with offshore programmers to get anything done?

It's almost more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. For some extremely generic commodity tasks it's worthwhile for the cost savings, but companies are increasingly learning that the hidden costs make it unattractive in many circumstances.

Programmer vs Software Engineer debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a slightly different take on the definition of a programmer vs. software engineer.

I used to call myself a software engineer. Now that I work in the games industry I call myself a programmer, and I'm much more proud of the title than I was of software engineer.

Programmers create. Software engineers integrate.

Programmers get it done. Software engineers talk about getting it done.

Programmers are technical. Software engineers are technical writers.

The world needs both, and I take offense to comments that claim programmers aren't as well educated. I have an MS in CS.

Software Engineering is applied Computer Science

[MikeRT]

Where I work there is little place for programmers or computer scientists. You have to be able to program, but you also have to be able to write software that shows that you have an ability to construct and follow requirements, use good design practices, and well, approach it like an engineer. They aren't as concerned with whether or not we are the best Java programmer, .NET programmer, etc., but rather how well we can come up with sophisticated architectures for reliably handling a problem.

What we are seeing is a split where programming itself is like being a construction worker, and software engineering is like going into architecture when it comes to construction work.

If your just looking for a job....

[Anonymous Coward]

Brick layers make good money... so do a lot of other jobs. In short, if you're choosing your career on money or security and not your passion, then just pick some job.

If you choose your passion as your work, you will make the job work for you and be happy.

Business definitions

[Corvus9]

I believe the confusion is because the Handbook is using the business definition of Software Engineer instead of the technical definition. The business definition being "an early 20s new graduate with 5 years of experience in a technology that's just been invented who has no family and is willing to work 60 hours per week for $40K p.a. plus stock shares in a company that's never shown a profit".

Being a good (read: hirable) developer...

[Darth Liberus]

...requires a LOT more than the ability to bash out code. I have to hire US-based programmers all the time, and it's amazing how many people I talk to that don't have the faintest idea how to do anything other than program. They may be able to write a demo program using the latest, greatest coding framework, but they are severely deficient in troubleshooting, problem-solving, and social/creative skills. Even a computer can write code; I need people who can think.

So my advice for anyone trying to break in to the programming field would be to work in some other aspect of IT for several years - go be an SA or a network engineer or something and use your programming skills to assist you in those areas. Once you've done that you can transition into development. You'll be a MUCH better developer for it.

And you would be a greater fool

[bADlOGIN]

I commend you on your example. All of those thousands of companies out there intending to build software to control expensive hardware to do great things!!! Why when the job market heated up, I was just TIRED of telling 23-legged underwater spider manufacturers quit calling me!!

How about a dose of reality. As technology has become exponentially more complex, business people risking companies on delivering it have become exponentially more stupid. And this one simple line of your statement shows why it's wrong:

Software can be produced in any country, anywhere at all, and the only thing it requires is the competent personnel to execute the project.

Show me company with "competent personnel" managing and directing a business critical software project 100% outsourced and I'll show you a company that is either working with glacial specifications or rolling the dice on total failure. The nature of business changes, requirements change, politics change, and nothing worth a damn is going to get built via "throw it over the wall to an outsourcer". Back in the pre-agile days, this was how the world ran. Stupid things were written down in thick specifications that nobody read, then budget and time ran out while unforeseen forces made whatever might have been stared worthless. With the way people operated, "over the wall" didn't matter if software development was in the next cubicle or on the next continent.

And that's where the critical issue comes in. As I jokingly indicated above, most software developers aren't building hardware/software 23 legged spiders. They're working on some internal project that enhances some other part of the business, or accelerates profitability or efficiency, or has the potential to create a new competitive edge. They're not spending millions on it either. They've got a direction and they're spending thousands over six months here on a new initiative, or a couple hundred thousand over a year on some other new initiative. They need people working WITH them to understand the business domain and leverage technology to build opportunities and MAKE MONEY.

Building software is about communication and change management. Putting 5,000 miles, 9 time zones and the history of human civilizations language and MOST importantly culture differences on top of your standard business risk is retarded. Even companies that want to pinch pennies so the CXO's expense accounts can stay fat aren't rushing off to throw stuff over the wall without identical (no, better) local personel.

That's why the job outlook is what it is for "programmers" vs. "software engineers" and "analysts". Nobody in their right mind is going to be a looser in the principal-agent problem that is outsourcing for any small to medium sized business. Oh, and any large company? What do they do? They set up their own local shop to mind the company interests.

The real problem with this, is that nobody is going to become competent at building software on a large scale until they understand what's happening on a medium and small scale. Corporate America and Europe are sowing the seeds of economic destruction by creating an environment where nobody can be paid to be a beginner or novice in building software when the only job positions open are for lucky intermediates, advanced and experts. My crystal ball prediction? In about 15 years, the US will have great greencard programs for "software engineers" with 5 or more years "programming" experience since US corporate short-sighted greed will have poisoned the well for anyone considering fighting through to find entry level work "programming" to become a "software engineer" here at home...

Name game.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... employment of software engineers and system analysts is expected to increase 'much faster than the average' through 2014 (here, and here). In contrast, employment of programmers is expected to increase 'more slowly than the average,' ...

Well golly gosh whillikers.

In my 30 years in software (before I went over to the hard side of the force) I've called myself a programmer, a system analyst, a software engineer, a system architect, and a number of other buzzwords.

Guess what: There is not a standard definition for ANY of those terms. The only distinction between them is the expectations of the employers about the strengths of various parts of your skill set.

So you call yourself the one that your prospective employer hangs on the highest-in-the-design-tree position that you can convince him you're qualified to fill, based on your own skills and your resume.

They're hiring system analysts and SW engineers locally and going abroad for programmers? That just means you have to change the top line on your resume from "programmer" to "software engineer" or "system analyst".

Don't have enough experience to qualify for whatever position they're hiring for when you're just out of school? That's the same old "break-in problem". The "can't get a job because you don't have experience and can't get experience because you don't have a job" vicious circle. It's been around as long as I've been in this industry, and I cut my teeth on computers that had vacuum tubes for the DIODES in the logic.

You get your skills through:
  3) classes,
  2) ripping apart and studying others' code,
  1) playing with the computer to make it do something fun for you,
in that reverse order. (I know because that's how I did it, and I had some big names for teachers back in the day. The lessons were valuable. But self-directed code reading and bug fixing / feature enhancement was more so and self-directed problem solving was the top skill builder.)

You don't get your job through resumes, degrees, and certifications. You get your foot in the door through contacts with people who have seen your previous work or play. THEN you and your contact use your (tuned to the job) resume, credentials, and references from other contacts to convince the middle-manager in the suit that he's lucked into a paragon who's perfect for the job.

How do you get contacts? Initially you do as much unassigned for-fun stuff as you can when you can and let others see what you did and that you enjoy doing it and are good at it. Some of these people will remember you when somebody they know is looking for somebody like you for a job of the sort you want.

Later you'll make more contacts at work: Co-workers, managers, etc. Your network of contacts will grow to get you into more doors. Your resume's experience section will grow to calm the suits (while your other contacts serve as references ditto). And your skills will grow to let you actually perform in new positions.

Your actual skills are important: to keep impressing people so you can hold your jobs, build your resume with successful project results, and grow your contact network. But it's your contacts - as you/job matchers and references - that are what get you into the jobs.

Re:tea leaves and biz speak

[phantomfive]

It's pretty simple, really. How many jobs have you applied for? Two? Three? If you are serious, you will probably have applied for ten or more. If everyone is applying for ten or more, then every employer will receive a lot of applications, but there will be a lot of duplicates. Three applications is not very many.

As for why you weren't picked, there are a couple possibilities:

1. You are just not very good. In this case, the solution is simple (if not easy). Join an open source project, start your own, or do whatever it takes to get better. Maybe just reading through some guides like a zillion monkeys or even Joel. Programming is a skill, and can be developed.
2. Someone else who applied was better. Whatever, it happens no matter how good you are. Move on, apply somewhere else.
3. You have bad interview skills. It happens. Read What Color is Your Parachute

There are so many companies desperate for programmers out there, you too can find a job. It's just a matter of learning how to do it.

Programming is a WORLD in itself

[unity100]

and just like the real world, programming is in fact something that comprises of MANY fields and areas. These fields are just like jobs themselves.

For example if you are a C++ programmer (or the language you are best at), you are like a mechanical engineer. if you are very good, you will find a very good job. if you are just ok, you will be just another 'engineer' in some obscure manufacturing plant or technical drawing room somewhere. if you have just jumped in the field for 'cash' or because your parents pushed you in, you will have problems finding a job.

if you are an assembler programmer as expertise, you are just like a painter. it will be VERY hard for you to find work, but if you are good, you will find work that noone can find, and it will be solid as hell, you will have to turn down many people. but, you have to be real, real good.

if you are a PHP/MySQL developer as expertise for example, you are like an industrial engineer. if you are good, you will find very good salary jobs. and always think of leaving and setting up your own shop. if you are just ok, then you will still easily find jobs, although not as good paid, but you at all times will be able to take on work via the internet and do freelance.

it all depends on which profession you choose. MANY cs, software engineer grads, programmers scorn php/mysql for example, even at times arguing php is not even a language (it may be, or it may not be thats not important) but this combo is whats hot on the net for a few years now, and even now the demand is nowhere near satisfied and increases. judging by the amount of free/low cost software enabling individiuals, ordinary people, very small businesses (heck, even ma&pa shops) are enabled to come on the internet and create businesses, communities, services and stuff through the php/mysql road says that the more the supply of programmers the more people will be coming in by that lane because prices are kept cheap.

you just have to choose your field accordingly. its just like choosing a business. dont go choosing a university/college that doesnt have good reputation and then learn asp, .net programming and stack up msces and expect to get a job in a microsoft shop - because of the tradition these shops tend to be rather picky, and even if you are good you might have hard time just because your college is not well known.

on the other hand of the spectrum check out php/mysql developer ads, even at slashdot. they do not even require any kind of bs grad. they gather up the exact specific requirements for the job, and EXPERIENCE. because this field and what it should do and what one needs to do stuff in that is well known and defined, and when you get such people you get your work done.

therefore its all choices. programming, it is a world in itself, with MANY professions. it doesnt matter a bit if you say you are a cs grad. its like saying that "i am a human", in the midst of 7 billion people

what really are you ? a LAMPer ? a .NET junkie ? a C++ nut ? an Assembler monkey ? Database freak ? just decide on that, and start working towards a position.