Slashdot Mirror


Hiring Developers By Algorithm

Strudelkugel writes in with a story about how big data is being used to recruit workers. "When the e-mail came out of the blue last summer, offering a shot as a programmer at a San Francisco start-up, Jade Dominguez, 26, was living off credit card debt in a rental in South Pasadena, Calif., while he taught himself programming. He had been an average student in high school and hadn't bothered with college, but someone, somewhere out there in the cloud, thought that he might be brilliant, or at least a diamond in the rough. 'The traditional markers people use for hiring can be wrong, profoundly wrong,' says Vivienne Ming, the chief scientist at Gild since late last year. That someone was Luca Bonmassar. He had discovered Mr. Dominguez by using a technology that raises important questions about how people are recruited and hired, and whether great talent is being overlooked along the way."

326 comments

  1. By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you need someone to code up mergesort for you, hire someone with a phd in mergesort.

    1. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoosh. I think the whole point is that having a phd isn't the best measure of anything. I've worked with phds and high school dropouts and I've never noticed any difference except that the dropouts are less entitled.

    2. Re:By algorithm makes sense by fliptout · · Score: 1

      I'm really loving this attitude that PhDs are not any different from high school drop outs. This is perhaps true for menial tasks. It says something about the posters who tell these stories. Try assigning that high school dropout to do something non-trivial and highly conceptual, and you are mostly likely completely screwed.

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    3. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is though that not having such qualifications doesn't mean you don't know what you're doing. It's unfair to compare high school dropouts in general to people who possess PhDs in specific fields. A better comparison would be PhDs to high school dropouts who have been shown to at least be competent (usually by actually interviewing the damn person).

    4. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm really loving this attitude that PhDs are not any different from high school drop outs. This is perhaps true for menial tasks. It says something about the posters who tell these stories. Try assigning that high school dropout to do something non-trivial and highly conceptual, and you are mostly likely completely screwed.

      I know Slashdot isn't the place to say this, but almost all programming is menial. You wouldn't hire a high school dropout to do something serious like physics or chemistry or biology, but for driving a bus, washing a car, writing a UI, or cleaning toilets they're perfectly serviceable.

    5. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You attitude is why we have abominations like Unity, Gnome3, and Windows8/Metro now.

    6. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know Slashdot isn't the place to say this, but almost all programming is menial.

      No!
      Most programming work is tedious, however most important decisions have to be made constantly, in the midst of that tedious work. You can't make decisions by yourself, then pass the work to an idiot -- he will not notice where he has to make a decision, and will do something random that seems right, and those decisions will eventually destroy everything.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    7. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really loving this attitude that PhDs are not any different from high school drop outs. This is perhaps true for menial tasks. It says something about the posters who tell these stories. Try assigning that high school dropout to do something non-trivial and highly conceptual, and you are mostly likely completely screwed.

      CS is a very new subject. I know a lot of people who teaches CS and most of them are self taught.
      A dropout who is self taught can have about the same knowledge as that PhD. The difference is that the PhD has proven that he is willing to go through with the menial tasks too but this has nothing to do with writing good code and actually creating programs.
      If the position you need to fill requires paperwork, get the PhD. Otherwise, get whoever started programming before they went to school and spent the evenings and weekends programming.

    8. Re:By algorithm makes sense by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Just forget about all those people with advanced degrees waiting tables, or working as tellers in banks. A degree is one metric, and often not a very good one. From the actually article "seeing how the candidate's code is regarded on line" is a much better metric.

    9. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to address the original first post: you misunderstood the story and no one even noticed it. Did you seriously take it in the most concrete sense, like "If person X knows algorithm X, and you need algorithm X then hire them."? Because that is not all what the story is about.

    10. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to understand what CS PhDs actually do. Try reading some of their papers.

    11. Re:By algorithm makes sense by rev0lt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Disclaimer: I'm a high-school dropout.

      Theoretically, hiring a PhD would give you some guarantee about what the programmer is capable of doing - you can expect him to know not only how 2nd degree equations work, but also the basics of transcendental functions and how to apply base concepts into real-life problems. Theoretically. In practice, shure, maybe most dropouts don't have the basis to understand a lot of stuff - but many PhDs don't understand it either. And some of them, while understanding it, are unable to put in in practice.

      I'm one of the few (only?) completely self-taught developers on the company I work for (>100 developers). For most tasks, no "special" knowledge is needed - a monkey could do it. Even so, some academic folks struggle with concepts. For non-trivial, conceptual tasks, I'm usually at the top of the list of the guys to ask stuff. I've done stuff ranging from math coprocessor emulation to signal processing, image processing, 3d programming, embedded systems, compression algorithms, data processing/mining, etc. I'm probably not better than a good PhD (or a guy like me with proper academic background), but I'm way better than *a lot* of median ones.
      I would recommend to anyone that wants to be serious either in programming or CS to get a degree - proper mathematics is something that is usually hard to learn without a teacher - but having expectations on a guy just because he has a degree is just stupid. As it is having great expectations regarding a high-school dropout.

    12. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference, while in practice there is.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    13. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dropout who is self taught can have about the same knowledge as that PhD.

      That is still extremely rare. If you hold a PhD you have a million times better toolkit to even begin understanding some of the more complex problems in engineering. In those kind of tasks it does make a difference.

    14. Re:By algorithm makes sense by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It says something about the posters who tell these stories

      Thanks to Tom Clancy and similar it went mainstream. The uneducated, untrained, inexperienced hero that "just knows" and is perfect at everything the experts fail it is something that people would like to be themselves, making the stories popular, but then they try to apply such expectations to reality.
      Tiger Woods may be a "born golfer" but it took him many years to do it :)

    15. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      This attitude is common in programming mostly because the field changes so quickly and schools still do a poor job among other things. However you DON'T see this attitude for hiring chemists, biologists, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers etc.

      It might be okay to be a self taught programmer and writing some software but a self taught bioengineer that will be creating custom bacteria in a multimillion dollar reactor to create some new drug is another matter entirely.

      You might trust a self taught programmer to write your webpage, would you trust a self taught aerospace engineer to design a plane?

      There is a large difference between real engineers and most programmers, a lot of that is the responsibility that goes with it.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    16. Re:By algorithm makes sense by gnapster · · Score: 1

      A little-known fact about Unity: Mark Shuttleworth stole the idea from a kid who dropped out of a bus-driving magnet school in Cape Town.

    17. Re: By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haleluja! I've been hiring talent at start ups and big companies in Silicon Valley for almost twenty years and can honestly say, degrees don't matter. I know that really sucks to hear, especially to those of you who spent a lot of money and time getting your degrees. But I hire people who can get shit done.

    18. Re:By algorithm makes sense by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      No.
      Apparently the time spent creating unfinished open source code and hanging out on social networks is.

      Also, TFA talks about a company named Entelo,

      which tries to figure out who might be looking for a job before they even start their exploration.

      . I'm sure that's not going to be abused by current employers.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    19. Re:By algorithm makes sense by xelah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Becoming a competent bioengineer or aero engineer is likely to require special equipment and a lot of practical experience that's hard to come by. Software developers don't generally need that. 'Self taught' doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the same books and papers, or learnt the same material, as someone might have done following an official course. Mostly what the course adds is third-party validation. Also, think about just how much of that knowledge is really retained by the typical graduate, and just how applicable what they've learnt really is. Personally, I wouldn't trust a graduate straight out of university to design a plane, either....I'd rather have someone well respected by their peers and with a history of good work.

    20. Re:By algorithm makes sense by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm really loving this attitude that PhDs are not any different from high school drop outs. This is perhaps true for menial tasks. It says something about the posters who tell these stories. Try assigning that high school dropout to do something non-trivial and highly conceptual, and you are mostly likely completely screwed.

      Someone with a PhDd in a particular specialised area will have an advantage if that job is in that particular specialised area, but otherwise, they're just people who have proved they can work hard for three years, exactly as if they had left college and started work straight afterwards.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:By algorithm makes sense by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You attitude is why we have abominations like Unity, Gnome3, and Windows8/Metro now.

      GUIs are the devil's work. All computer input should be in the form neon green of 0s and 1s on a black screen, like in the Mattrix, but without the two shitty sequels.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:By algorithm makes sense by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, hiring a PhD would give you some guarantee about what the programmer is capable of doing.

      They are capable of getting a PhD... That is about the only guarantee you have.

    23. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, hiring a PhD would give you some guarantee about what the programmer is capable of doing...

      Funny enough, a PhD is almost an automatic disqualification, as is "currently working on one". Why? Because in general someone that has gone through that amount of theoretical work generally has little interest in doing actual grunt work required to get a product out. And, as most developers will attest, 99% of programming is pretty much grunt work. There's very little "interesting" work going on, as that is usually in the frameworks you use, or attempting to work around some bug in a framework. So if your job is creating frameworks, graphics engines. OS kernels, or the like, then you might benefit from a PhD or two being on the team. Otherwise, unless they are a very special kind of person, not so much.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    24. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm out of points.. I have to agree with this one. Too many people under-value the ability to see the big picture and how each piece fits. When someone doesn't understand the whole, the pieces don't work together as well.

    25. Re:By algorithm makes sense by KramberryKoncerto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually most CS PhD's out there don't do too heavy theoretical work. They do, however, write more proof-of-concept level programs and systems, than actually producing engineering quality programs.

      Try to pick up a paper in non-theoretical journals or conference proceedings you'll see most of them describing a new concept or application of theory, and then its implementation. A lot PhD students come up with the concepts and write the code, which are sometimes referred to as "experiments". Many projects are even about making the programs themselves.

      On the other hand, I agree a lot of theoreticians don't like to code, but a lot of them were also once quite good at it. They maybe did so much coding since before school that they began to hate it, or simply have little interest in pure engineering. Then you'll find some who still retain an interest in coding, and I think they are quite easy to spot.

    26. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      I agree with all of that. I was trying to make a point that this considering a degree worth almost nothing is mostly only valid in fields where obtaining the knowledge and practical experience is not hard to come by. If something requires a lot of specialized equipment to learn and the act of learning can be dangerous without professional supervision then the degree matters more.

      I would put my knowledge of programming up against any CS degree. I am a self taught programmer. However I would not trust a self taught chemical engineer. I would absolutely not trust a self taught engineer doing bioengineering. The tools you need, experience etc are just not really available outside of a university for those. That is one reason I returned to a university to change my profession. I wanted to do something I am finding more interesting and that requires knowledge I can't just gain on my own. Over the summer I will be doing some actual creation of customized bacteria to create specific enzymes and proteins for a project. That is not really knowledge you can gain on your own and trying would be be expensive and dangerous.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    27. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PhD would give you some guarantee about what the programmer is capable of doing

      A PhD guarantees a minimum level of intelligence. However that level is unfortunately under the U.S. Average, therefore making a Ph.D. only an indicator of how long someone spent in college. ( I have a PhD )

    28. Re:By algorithm makes sense by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, hiring a PhD would give you some guarantee about what the programmer is capable of doing - you can expect him to know not only how 2nd degree equations work, but also the basics of transcendental functions and how to apply base concepts into real-life problems. Theoretically. In practice, shure, maybe most dropouts don't have the basis to understand a lot of stuff - but many PhDs don't understand it either. And some of them, while understanding it, are unable to put in in practice.

      PhD is a degree for showing you can create something new, not as an expertise indicator. The reason for getting a PhD is to get into research and not into the job market. If you have a PhD working the same thing as a non-PhD, then the PhD is wasted.

      I'm one of the few (only?) completely self-taught developers on the company I work for (>100 developers). For most tasks, no "special" knowledge is needed - a monkey could do it. Even so, some academic folks struggle with concepts. For non-trivial, conceptual tasks, I'm usually at the top of the list of the guys to ask stuff. I've done stuff ranging from math coprocessor emulation to signal processing, image processing, 3d programming, embedded systems, compression algorithms, data processing/mining, etc. I'm probably not better than a good PhD (or a guy like me with proper academic background), but I'm way better than *a lot* of median ones. I would recommend to anyone that wants to be serious either in programming or CS to get a degree - proper mathematics is something that is usually hard to learn without a teacher - but having expectations on a guy just because he has a degree is just stupid. As it is having great expectations regarding a high-school dropout.

      Someone who doesn't have formal academic degree will regret not having a degree; someone who has a degree will regret not having more industry experience. Academia isn't a magical place, it can be dull and inspiring as being a code monkey in a cubicle if you let it be.

      Graduate students doing research in mathematics are actually encouraged to learn mathematics on their own, in the direction they choose - some consider teachers to be a hindrance in exploring mathematics. Besides, there is no such thing as proper mathematics.

    29. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main reason to avoid high school dropouts is that graduating high school is so easy that failing to do so (or pass the GED) indicates deficiencies in at least one critical area. It could be one of the subjects taught in school, but much more likely it's in perseverance and ability to finish a task even if it's boring.

      Unless you dropped out to work full time on your now successful startup, you're going in the reject bin (dropping out to work on your unsuccessful startup indicates poor risk-assesment skills).

    30. Re:By algorithm makes sense by m00sh · · Score: 1

      99% of programming is pretty much grunt work

      So is 99% of the PhD.

      Funny enough, a PhD is almost an automatic disqualification, as is "currently working on one". Why? Because in general someone that has gone through that amount of theoretical work generally has little interest in doing actual grunt work required to get a product out.

      There is a branch of computer science PhDs who are called "systems" computer science. It's about writing lots of code and building/adding/testing large systems. There is very little pure theoretical science anymore - even the most theoretical ones now rely on software and creating software to test and validate their ideas.

      There's very little "interesting" work going on, as that is usually in the frameworks you use, or attempting to work around some bug in a framework. So if your job is creating frameworks, graphics engines. OS kernels, or the like, then you might benefit from a PhD or two being on the team. Otherwise, unless they are a very special kind of person, not so much.

      Depends on the product though. But as you said, there is very little interesting work but what if that little piece of interesting work turns out to be the most crucial part of the project? For example, 99% of Google could be made by anyone but the magic is in the PageRank which is probably 1% of it. In the end, what was the difference between Google and it's competitors like Yahoo, Altavista and other search engines? That 1% in PageRank.

    31. Re:By algorithm makes sense by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I've worked with phds and high school dropouts and I've never noticed any difference except that the dropouts are less entitled.

      Yes there are some excellent high school dropouts out there.

      But lets be fair, you said you are sampling from people you worked with. That means you are only looking at the subset of high school dropouts who got jobs.

      That's something of the cream of the crop with that bunch. :)

    32. Re:By algorithm makes sense by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      PhD is a degree for showing you can create something new, not as an expertise indicator.

      I would strongly disagree on that. A PhD is a degree showing that you dominate at least some base concepts needed for the specific field activity, to the point where you can apply them to something vaguely practical/usable. You don't need a PhD in the field, to create something new, and most PhDs I know are actually unable to create something new, "by design" - generically speaking, the education system promotes learning of concepts and (to a certain extent) dogmas instead of touting critical thinking and criativity. Or maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd.

      Someone who doesn't have formal academic degree will regret not having a degree

      I regret not having the experience of having a degree - the university, the slow-paced learning, the networking experience.

      Graduate students doing research in mathematics are actually encouraged to learn mathematics on their own, in the direction they choose

      Shure, pick a high-school dropout, give him a book about Calculus and see how it goes.

      some consider teachers to be a hindrance in exploring mathematics.

      Do tell, how many self-taught (other than algebra) modern-day matematicians you know of. I actually knew one, and I'd think he's the exception - by a long shot.

      Besides, there is no such thing as proper mathematics.

      You understood perfectly my point.

    33. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Depends on the product though. But as you said, there is very little interesting work but what if that little piece of interesting work turns out to be the most crucial part of the project? For example, 99% of Google could be made by anyone but the magic is in the PageRank which is probably 1% of it. In the end, what was the difference between Google and it's competitors like Yahoo, Altavista and other search engines? That 1% in PageRank.

      Seems like we agree on most aspects there. For page rank, I believe that is not even that interesting. It was merely one of several ways to rank results, and it started out very simplistically and was refined over a long period, as in years, before it began to be corrupted by SEO efforts and advertising drivers (the latter is just my opinion, but it seems valid)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    34. Re:By algorithm makes sense by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Blasphemy! There were NO sequels to The Matrix!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  2. If it's proprietary... by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Leaving a backdoor in this program would be the ultimate job security guarantee.

    1. Re:If it's proprietary... by firewrought · · Score: 1

      Leaving a backdoor in this program would be the ultimate job security guarantee.

      So if you ever encounter any of these, it's worth giving the Konami Code a try, just to see if it will boost your rank. :-)

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  3. recursion warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hiring algorithm will be developed by developers hired by an algorithm written by developers hired by an algorithm written by developers hired by an algorithm written by....

    1. Re:recursion warning! by gigaherz · · Score: 1

      No, no, no... you got it wrong. The managers will come up with a broken algorithm to choose candidates, then re-purpose it into a test: if a candidate manages to turn that piece of ---- into a working algorithm, he's hired.

    2. Re:recursion warning! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Which will be spammed/gamed by services where you buy +ve references just like you can buy likes and G+1's and possibly one cold negatively effect some ones ability to get a job buy doing black hat optimisation on them.

    3. Re:recursion warning! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, incremental development through 'testing' job applicants.

      Now, implement this requirement in C++, and we'll evaluate your result and get back to you as to whether we wish to hire you or not.
      Take as much time as you need.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:recursion warning! by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      Cruel, but effective.

  4. "can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hello, captain obvious. Yes, having a piece of paper doesn't mean you're good at what you do or that you even know what you're doing; plenty of college graduates are merely imbeciles.

    1. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, the stories I could tell...

      Yes, there are people with master's degrees in computer science who are worth less than the keyboard they sit in front of.

    2. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there are people who are tremendously productive, but never get a chance.

    3. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not just that, though. The interviews based around brain teasers or algorithms that very few people use in real life, which are supposedly used to see how the candidate thinks, are generally extremely biased towards people who either just got out of school or spent a lot of time studying for those sorts of questions. Neither of those things have much, if anything, to do with predicting job success.
       
      At my old job, we had a pretty revolutionary strategy for picking someone: We talked with them. You can see who's in over their head very quickly, and the interviews at least seems like a lot less pressure because we shot the shit about programming and past jobs. There was no requirement or bias towards you reading otherwise useless brain teaser books, no requirement that you have to memorize all the terms from gang of four, etc. We had a great track record with our hiring. It amazes me more companies haven't tried of this method.

    4. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My dad told me a good one the other day:

      A PhD EE had a broken 15k board doing development work at a major electronics company.

      He takes the board to his lab tech, who jokingly tells him 'All the resistors are in backwards!'

      Said lab tech has a departmental meeting to go to.

      When he gets back he finds the PhD sitting there, iron in hand, with a pile of resistors next to the board.

      Exclaiming to the EE, 'What do you think you're doing, that's a brand new 15k dollar board!'

      The EE replies: 'You said all the resistors are in backwards, so I'm putting them in the right way.'

      Never attribute to malice what can be explained by too much conceptual and not enough practical experience.

    5. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by ttucker · · Score: 2

      In the CS program where I was studying, having a degree could just mean that you are good at freeloading on group work.

    6. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Sounds like management material.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had a housemate years ago with an MSCS from somewhere in flyover country. He was completely baffled by basic electricity. He couldn't even figure out how to replace a three-way switch for the overhead light in his kitchen.

    8. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At my old job, we had a pretty revolutionary strategy for picking someone: We talked with them.

      I've always done that too. Just get the interviewee to talk about their work, what was interesting about, the problems they encountered, etc. If a person doesn't know their stuff they won't be able to talk about it intelligently. Some people you have to coax out of their shell a bit, but that's it. If a person is reluctant I'll even ask them to pick something out of their resume to talk about instead of me suggesting a topic. I accept that most resumes have some exaggerations in them, so just let them pick something that isn't exaggerated. Also talk to them about the project they're being hired for, see what kind of questions or suggestions they have, etc.

      It's purposely a low pressure technique. Some very good technical people don't do well being drilled about nonsense or brainteasers, or clam up if the interviewer starts playing Mr. Tough Guy and tries to trip them up on everything. Remember, you're trying to hire good technical people, not good interviewees. For other type of work this technique might suck.

      It amazes me more companies haven't tried of this method.

      Too simple and obvious - takes away the mystique of being a great interviewer. Also you've got to know your stuff to use the technique.

    9. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days, when I hire a software developer he's usually someone I've known for several years already, or recommended to me by someone else I've known for a long time.

      Back in the days when I did need to talk to strangers to try to fill a job, I would ask them to tell me about problems they'd solved that they were particularly proud of, and discuss things we were working on and ask them to describe how they'd go about tackling them. Whether they could solve the brain teasers that Google and Microsoft love so much was completely irrelevant.

    10. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's purposely a low pressure technique. Some very good technical people don't do well being drilled about nonsense or brainteasers, or clam up if the interviewer starts playing Mr. Tough Guy and tries to trip them up on everything. Remember, you're trying to hire good technical people, not good interviewees. For other type of work this technique might suck.

      Yeah, that's something I forgot to mention. There was never a case where someone clammed up, and whatever nervousness dropped away quickly. Sometimes things would start out a little awkward but then there'd be a joke or something to lighten the mood. So long as you keep things from crossing from casual on-topic conversation to schmoozing, you won't be particularly biased towards people who are more charismatic or socially adept.

    11. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Funny

      At my old job, we had a pretty revolutionary strategy for picking someone: We talked with them.

      The beauty of hiring people based upon a program is that it's not the hiring manager's fault when the new hires are terrible. It's the computer's fault.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    12. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by icebike · · Score: 2

      Too simple and obvious - takes away the mystique of being a great interviewer. Also you've got to know your stuff to use the technique.

      Nail hit squarely on head here.....

      Many companies try to centralize hiring into HR departments who pretend they can evaluate any other field. These guys are easily bluffed and bafflegabbed and overly impressed with silly pieces of paper and training certificates.

      Even when the HR department refers someone for a departmental interview, it is commonly done by some middle management type, rather than the actual programming team the recruit would have to work with.

      Both HR and Manager types tend to think of people as interchangeable parts.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    13. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what I call taking the initiative.

      He wasn't afraid of a 15k board or some silly resistors. No, that man took the bull by the horns and set out to fix those mistakes by the lab monkeys.

      Now, looks like there might be further issue as someone used polarized diodes. Yep, that will need to come out too.

    14. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Grishnakh · · Score: 3

      If that joke is actually based on reality (which I seriously doubt), that EE should have his degree revoked. You don't need any practical experience to know that resistors are not polarized circuit elements; they teach this in Circuits 201, the first EE course taught (the freshman year is all general engineering courses).

      The usual joke about EEs used to be about a fresh EE going to work and being sent to the parts department of his company by his coworkers to retrieve a 1 farad capacitor, since supposedly EE grads didn't have any practical experience and wouldn't know that capacitors don't come in sizes that large, even though many of his sophomore-year problems dealt with sizes in that range for convenience. Of course, the joke is now obsolete since they really do have such capacitors now, called "supercapacitors", normally used for unpowered memory retention in digital devices. But even before the supercapacitors hit the market, it'd have to be a pretty poor EE to not know about this, because any decent college has EEs building real circuits and working with real components in classes long before graduating.

    15. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They don't teach anything about electricity in Computer Science classes. Would you expect a Theater or Mathematics or Business major to know better?

    16. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Having HR do any kind of interviewing is a waste of time. I had to participate in some hiring of contractors at one job, where a group of us full-timers would together interview the candidate over the phone and then vote on him/her. The candidates were all pre-screened by HR, who assured us they were good candidates. Many of them, we found, had completely lied on their resumes and didn't know the basic things they claimed to know (like C++).

      HR just looks at resumes, compares to some buzzwords, and thinks that's that.

    17. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if this is a joke or a real-life incident. However, it is not a case of book knowledge versus real-life knowledge. The Ph.D. EE is a damned idiot and the universities that conferred degrees to such a moron should have their accreditation revoked. No electrical engineer who manages to get a degree, no matter how low his GPA and how lousy the college, should not know that resistors do not have polarities.

    18. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      These days, when I hire a software developer he's usually someone I've known for several years already, or recommended to me by someone else I've known for a long time.

      On the other side of this, I have not had a job that I did not get through a friend or colleague in over 10 years. I have not seen the inside of an HR office in longer than that. If it is a hiring requirement, that is a good clue as to how the company works.

    19. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When a company gets to the size where covering your ass is more important than success, it is time to start looking for a new job.

    20. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Idiot. Let me land you down in the real world:
      1. It is natural for human beings to surround themselves with the same way behaving human beings. Translated for you, you, would, NEVER, ever, would hire, anyone, who is better than you, if he, just for example, hates your favorite baseball team.
      2.You assume, wrongly, that you and your mates are genius, and that's why you hire genius, because you are able to recognize them. I will say only one thing. You are an idiot.
      3.People, for some strange reason tend to like (translated for you: hire) their friends. Again, if you really think that all of your friends are genius....(look at 2 for the proper translation).
      4.Again, i have to tell you, look at 2.

    21. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      There is whole country, already fracked because of this kind of thinking (networking). Let me help you: CANADA.

    22. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      We talked with them. You can see who's in over their head very quickly,

      Yep, it's easy. If you know what your talking about you can spot a wannabe/bullshitter in the first 2 minutes. I don't know where all this fuss about hiring "rock star" programmers comes from, is it an American thing? What most employers in Oz want is a good solid worker who can turn unfamiliar and vague ideas into working code (I've hired at least 50 of these people since 1990, and done a few hundred interviews to find them). Sure, if they happen to be a genius it's a bonus, but it's not a requirement. Of course we didn't read every resume, we gave HR a set of skills and they picked the top ten resumes from which we selected and interviewed five. In the rare case that none were suitable we started all over again.

      Having said that, what the people in TFA are really looking for is a talented business analyst, someone who can turn a business problem into a gold mine, doesn't make much difference who codes it. If I personally had such a talent I would not have been hiring programmers for giant corporations, I would have been hiring them for myself.

      we shot the shit about programming and past jobs

      Precisely, the dreaded "people skills" win jobs at the interview stage, make em laugh with you not at you.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've been in the game for 23yrs, I have a fair bit of (Australian) experience on both sides of the interview, I have never seen the situation you describe occur in real life, no developer I have ever worked with was hired by HR, they were hired by the project manager.. HR simply "thin" the resumes based on what the project manager tells them and normally the senior techs/team leaders are part of the interview. HR also do background checks, questions such as - Does the person have a clean record? - Is that bit of paper he's waving about genuine? - Do his last 3 bosses have a meltdown and start sobbing when asked for a reference?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    24. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an impressive amount of assumptions and assertions you make without having any basis. To knock out a couple of easily provable things: none of the hiring had anything to do with anyone's friend. No one we ever interviewed knew anyone at all on the team. For another thing, we all had very little in common, and what few things that were close to team-wide -- most of the team enjoyed beer (such a specific, biasing trait!), and maybe half the team liked poker -- weren't discussed during interviews.
       
      Anyway, I get the sense you're trolling. If not, you sound like a very sad and lonely person.

    25. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Is a digikey gold capacitor really called a supercapacitor? I thought I saw those for sale back in 1992, wh'n there were dinosaurs roaming around, like the Windows 3.1asaurus.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    26. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by seebs · · Score: 2

      All but about a dozen?

      How the hell would you measure that? The most extreme testing stuff I've ever heard of can't get you anywhere near that much information. If you could get definite information that you were at the 1-in-1,000,000 level, that'd get you into the top seven thousand and change. And the thing is, we can't get accurate measurements even that far out.

      Once you're to "the test can't produce meaningful results anymore", you're done. You might be way smarter than other people with that trait, you might be on the stupid end of the pool, we don't know, we can't tell, we have no way to measure it.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    27. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 Farad capacitors have been around forever, and weren't all that uncommon even before modern tech and applications. So, going to fetch the 1 F capacitor could mean blissful ignorance, or atypical awareness! It's the *average* EE who might have doubts of the existence or practicality of such capacitors.

    28. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      And you are actually making THE assumption that your model is working? That your company is the best? And that, coincidentally, you are the BEST?
      LOL. Man, for people like you, there is special section, it starts with psycho, and ends with analyze.

    29. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did I say that my company was the best? I'm not kidding about this: you are either a major troll or have severe emotional problems.

    30. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Well, at least the replacement coder will be in charge of fixing the hiring program. It can't possibly get any worse. See that man down the hall waiting jump aboard? Ya, his last job title was "Ice cream man". Perhaps he still has a few Pink Panther ice cream bars left...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    31. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Look past anything you see as insulting and you'll see it nails it in a lot of cases - which is why hiring is best done with more than one person involved. I've seen a few people hired that are useless at their work but are good at being friendly, which is a bit harder to do and more obvious if it's not a one on one interview.

    32. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      LOL, man, read my lips:.......THE assumption........
      Now go back to first grade, and try, this time harder.

    33. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I point out you made yet another incorrect assumption you respond with more insults. I'm glad to know you're just a troll and not as mentally disturbed as you seemed.

    34. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These generally weren't one-on-one, but usually two or occasionally three people. I can't say the reason why they were done that way, but I found they kept things easy-going (e.g., little dead air) while usually each of us interviewers would keep the others from focusing too much on something and would fill in holes in the types of questions asked. They were usually a couple of groups interviewing each person, but we kept pretty strict time limits so it didn't turn into an interview process of attrition.
       
      I don't think friendliness played significantly into the decision making process. The closest thing was we would ask things like what sort of conflicts they've had with co-workers and how they resolved them, and if they gave an answer that sounded "off" it'd definitely be discussed (assuming they seemed otherwise qualified). There's only one person I can think of where we didn't hire them because of their attitude, as he acted like he was incapable of making mistakes and any conflict would have to be due to his co-workers' stupidity. And like I said, most of us had very little in common. This thread has made me realize how little I know about the guy who was in the cubicle across from me; I'm not even sure if he had kids, much less any personal interests. I'm not even 100% certain of his last name. But he was really good with databases and writing scripts that made builds easier.

    35. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You nailed it.

      I have excelled at every interview i've ever had, except one.
      "The one" is when the company's 3 founders gave me a challenging pop quiz and I had to write out code on a markerboard.

      I am not presently looking for a job, but I have often found it hard to "stand out" just get to the interview stage.
      My school is nothing special and recruiters have accused me of lying on my resume, even during the dotcom boom.
      My resume is not only true but it actually omits many skills I have that are not my core competencies.

      It probably doesn't help either that I completely avoid social media/github/etc.

      Most people who know me or have given me a chance know that I am completely capable and wonder why I haven't been madly successful yet.

    36. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once worked with a guy who loved writing low-level algorithms, but was at a complete loss when it came to working at a higher level and writing code that would fulfill a business requirement. Yet I'm sure he "interviewed well."

      Most of the important decisions I've had to make have been at the architectural level, and yet every coding interview I've had has concentrated on low-level algorithmic code twiddling, which makes up a tiny, tiny portion of the coding in most programming jobs.

    37. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by the groupthink here and other places, having "a piece of paper" is a sign that the person is profoundly incompetent, which leads me to question why young people seek education at all anymore.

      Then again, I frequently note how it is always the people without any formal education who are the first to undervalue the need for one.

    38. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes and no.

      "A" level managers tend to recognise and hire "A" level people.
      "B" level managers tend to hire "C" and "D" level people or they hire "A" and "B" people and dumb them down (as in their assigned tasks) to nullify them.

      Your experience seems to be in the latter group. I've had the fortune to be in both though, admittedly, more the latter than the former.

    39. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Having HR do any kind of interviewing is a waste of time." - Not entirely true, if we view HR as eliminating complete timewasters from hitting the development team. For example:
      - Working out if the candidate is capable of speaking fluent English (or whatever language is needed)
      - Working out if the candidate has the right visas, etc. to work in the country or is trying to blag sponsorship.
      - Vetting for security clearance if needed.
      - Asking preset questions with well-defined answers. e.g. "Please name the primitive types in Java", "What is the cube root of 64?"

      It's surprising how many people you can eliminate with this stuff and it definitely doesn't warrant distracting the development team to do it.

    40. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      The EE replies: 'You said all the resistors are in backwards, so I'm putting them in the right way.'

      But surely even an idiot would have known that if all the resistors were backwards all he had to do was put the battery in the other way round.

    41. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know just as well as I do that he took some allegedly-Mensa test that might once have been calibrated for IQ up to about 140 or so (but due to the Flynn effect, probably isn't any more), and has since been plagiarized by some adware-ridden site that linearly extrapolates ridiculously high scores.

      I've certainly noted a distinct inverse correlation between people with a self-reported IQ upward of 160 or so, and people who understand how IQ scales are actually calibrated.

    42. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no.

      "A" level managers tend to recognise and hire "A" level people. "B" level managers tend to hire "C" and "D" level people or they hire "A" and "B" people and dumb them down (as in their assigned tasks) to nullify them.

      But I'm a D level manager you insensitive clod!

    43. Re: "can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://pdx-i.net/2013/02/10/skills-match/

    44. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit: the PhD wouldn't even know how to use a soldering iron.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They don't teach anything about electricity in Computer Science classes. Would you expect a Theater or Mathematics or Business major to know better?

      But the CS graduate will probably expect people to listen to him when he talks about electricity or actual computers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    46. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      At my old job, we had a pretty revolutionary strategy for picking someone: We talked with them.

      I may be missing something, but isn't this just what I call an interview?

      Any job selection process that just involves solving a few problems is close to worthless. As with IQ tests, or any sort of exam, it mainly just shows how good you are at IQ tests or exams.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      These days, when I hire a software developer he's usually someone I've known for several years already, or recommended to me by someone else I've known for a long time.

      On the other side of this, I have not had a job that I did not get through a friend or colleague in over 10 years. I have not seen the inside of an HR office in longer than that. If it is a hiring requirement, that is a good clue as to how the company works.

      And then you will moan about managers and CEOs just getting jobs through their networking skills.

      I have only ever once gone for a job where I knew the person from a previous job, and it didn't help at all.

      If you employ people through an old boys' network, you're going to end up with a company full of old boys.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When a company gets to the size where covering your ass is more important than success, it is time to start looking for a new job.

      That size is somewhere between 20 and 50 people.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Xugumad · · Score: 2

      I don't know, an EE PhD might...

      As a (candidate for) PhD CS, though, I'm fairly certain if I turned up with a screwdriver one day, people would panic and/or probably tackle me to the ground.

    50. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I am more intelligent than all but about a dozen people in the world.

      The best thing of all is that you're so modest about it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In the CS program where I was studying, having a degree could just mean that you are good at freeloading on group work.

      That is by far the best way to get on in business anyway.

      Anyone who believes that the key to success in the real world is (a) being clever and (b) working hard has never had a proper job.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    52. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You have a good point here with all the non-programming questions (visas, language, security clearance, etc.). Not so sure about the preset questions though. Someone will probably complain that a Java programmer doesn't need to know the primitive types, and that's an unfair question.

      In my interview example above, one of my questions was to ask them (people who claimed to be C++ experts) what a "class" was. Most couldn't tell me. In previous posts on Slashdot, I was told that's an unfair question.

    53. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Why would a CS graduate talk about electricity, except maybe that the computer needs to be plugged in. You don't need to know anything about electricity to use a computer, except how to plug it in, which anyone knows these days.

      You wouldn't expect auto mechanics to be experts in tribology (the study of oil) or suspension design or ECU programming or the manufacture of auto glass, so why would you expect a CS graduate to know any more about electricity than an average layman?

    54. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      Back at (insert aerospace company), we regularly went around HR to hire good folks in the early days. Eventually, we got a real Help Desk and used that to grow talent. That worked even better. Folks who wanted to excel and move up could. Folks that wanted to hang out and stay at their current level did. Only person unhappy was the Help Desk manager, because we poached his best people.

      And yep. Talking to folks was the best way of hiring folks. Blew the interrogation atmosphere out of the window and just talked. We passed on folks we would have hired based on resume alone, and hired folks unqualified on paper. We ended up with an awesome team. Most of the folks that left the team went on to very decent high skilled positions.

    55. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had a great track record with our hiring. It amazes me more companies haven't tried of this method.

      It not really that amazing. The real question isn't whether or not you're missing out on a couple possible candidates, it's whether or not you're still getting good candidates using the "brain teasers" methods. Most companies get plenty of perfectly qualified applicants using that method, so there's not really any reason to change to a system where you might get a handful more at the cost of also dealing with a lot of extra "noise" applicants.
      So what if you miss out on that one "genius" programmer? You ended up with people who do a good job, and that's what matters, and that's what this guy is missing.

      I know plenty of places who drug test their employees, and by doing so they're missing out on a handful of people who are excellent workers. But as long as they still get enough qualified applicants, they aren't going to change those policies. Same with credit checks- there are good workers with horrible credit who get passed over for jobs in the same fashion. Same with background checks- there are good people with stuff in their past which may disqualify them even though they'd be great employees.

    56. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a genius (according to Mensa.) I am more intelligent than all but about a dozen people in the world

      No, actually you're not. If you were, you'd know what the phrase "margin of error" means, and you'd understand that the Mensa tests don't provide the kind of measurement which would allow you to make that claim.

    57. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a summer job interview once. I did poorly on the puzzle questions, but on the skills section I got 100%. The interviewer just could not understand this. I didn't get the job. I guess the guy liked people that do work puzzles more than people with programming skill.

    58. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by pscottdv · · Score: 2

      All but about a dozen?

      How the hell would you measure that? The most extreme testing stuff I've ever heard of can't get you anywhere near that much information. If you could get definite information that you were at the 1-in-1,000,000 level, that'd get you into the top seven thousand and change. And the thing is, we can't get accurate measurements even that far out.

      Once you're to "the test can't produce meaningful results anymore", you're done. You might be way smarter than other people with that trait, you might be on the stupid end of the pool, we don't know, we can't tell, we have no way to measure it.

      We don't know. He does. He's a genius.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    59. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to un-polarized diodes?

    60. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the old 'hire them becuase they know stuff and we like them' approach. This is a good way to end up with a uniformly thinking team that doesn't value diversity.

    61. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had real 1 farad caps back then. They were the size of telephone booths.

    62. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, an EE PhD might...

      As a (candidate for) PhD CS, though, I'm fairly certain if I turned up with a screwdriver one day, people would panic and/or probably tackle me to the ground.

      You'll have time to get away while they construct the flowchart.

    63. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      And then you will moan about managers and CEOs just getting jobs through their networking skills.

      I have only ever once gone for a job where I knew the person from a previous job, and it didn't help at all.

      If you employ people through an old boys' network, you're going to end up with a company full of old boys.

      I am too busy working to moan about anything. I have fixed enough messed up networks that I have a lot of people who think of me when the network goes sideways...

      As to the "old boys" comment, don't knock the old guys. We are usually the ones called in to fix the young guys not planning ahead...

    64. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They weren't something a typical engineering company's parts department would have in stock to be used in prototyping.

    65. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most CS majors -- at least those coming from a program with good instructors -- get at least a little bit of exposure to basic electricity in either a "digital logic design" course, or a "computer architecture" course (either one or the other is typically required, or at least strongly encouraged). Many others get some exposure to it in a "real time systems" or "robotics" course.

      You don't need this stuff for many programming jobs, but some folks like to know "why" things work the way they do, and good teachers will teach the "why" as well as the "what". It's kind of like learning geometry: for the most part, only the computer graphics or CAD tool programmers actually use it in their day jobs, but a lot of other people benefit from being exposed to it. There's a high correlation between people who understand the "why" of things and doing well in jobs that require intelligence.

      You'll also find this approach to teaching in a typical auto-mechanics course at the community college level: they don't go quite as far down as the stuff you mention, but they do cover a lot of conceptual stuff that isn't actually needed for most mechanics in their day jobs. Take a look at the textbooks sometime (and talk with the mechanics who've actually gotten certified) to really get a feel for this. I took some of these classes for fun, and many of the less experienced mechanics complained about a lot of the stuff they had to learn, but I noticed the experienced folks were delighted to be learning at that level ...

      It's usually the CS folks coming from university programs where "publish or perish" dominates that don't know anything about basic electricity. In these programs, as education is not a priority, all bets are off with respect to what people actually learn.

      There's actually quite a bit of overlap with electrical engineering in some of the specializations within computer science. Consider, for example, numerical methods (simulation,advanced mathematics), algorithms (CAD tools,simulation), graphics (CAD tools), digital image processing (signal processing), computer music and sound (signal processing), computer architecture (hard to say whether this really belongs in CS or EE, most departments put it in both), ...

    66. Re:"can be wrong, profoundly wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what computer science is, do you? Computer science is in essence the study of problem solving. It is the study of what is computable, what problems may be mechanically, algorithmically solved. Beyond that, it is a study of the solutions and their efficiency in terms of resource usage. Knowledge of electrical circuits is tangential to computer science and is most closely related to computer architecture (a subfield of CS), which mostly deals with logical circuits (that can be implemented with electrical circuits). A computer scientist doesn't necessarily even need a computer in order to do true "computer science."

  5. So it analyzes former projects by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Hiring based on previous references isn't really a new thing.

    1. Re:So it analyzes former projects by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      ... and sadly neither is not getting a job because of lack of experience.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
  6. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the cure to all the problems firms have finding good talent is to recruit inexperienced and naive, rebellious, arrogant rock stars who are unwilling or able to follow rules or do work they find "boring."

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah.. or employers could hire dull minds, who were selected precisely because they willingly conform to every little managerial passive aggressive manipulation. Of course, these people are useless for anything but the most basic office work, but that's of secondary importance. The state set up our school system to produce these drones after all, and now even colleges are dumbing their programs down so these drones can get pieces of paper saying they're qualified computer scientists/programmers/engineers. These little drones are even encouraged to split themselves up into identity groups based on irrelevancies like race and gender! Now they have something else to bluster over when someone points out their mediocrity! Today's culture obviously values mindless obedience and adherence to every minor social convention over creative, adaptive, critically thinking minds. Too bad.

  7. Sadly quite true by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been programming professionally since 1994. I'm sure I'll get around to taking a computer course one of these days. My first task with any new job is "Get past the HR moron" followed by "Find someone who actually knows something." If you're lucky, this is a manager. Frequently, however, describing the code abstraction structure in your overall application design often whizzes right over a manager's head.

    My suggestion? Keep it simple. Have some apps to show them, or a a web site with your latest web apps. Talk about how it solved a problem. Don't worry about the details until you get to another developer.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Sadly quite true by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Whether or not you need the degree really depends a great deal on the specifics. If the company isn't paying for properly engineered code, then it probably doesn't matter at all.

      If they do require properly engineered code, then it probably doesn't matter, provided you've bothered to learn the necessary engineering outside of school and can convince them of that fact.

      The big problem is that HR morons are being used to make the hiring decisions. That's a pretty huge red flag and I never take such a job when I can help it.

    2. Re:Sadly quite true by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

      The real problem is software that is being used to automate so much of HR task. Writing a resume to get past an HR drone is easy. "Check all that apply" then "penalty of perjury", that's harder.

    3. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure I'll get around to taking a computer course one of these days.

      Amen.

      Of the people I have interviewed for a job, and of all the good software people I have known,
      I've seen a strong correlation between music skills and their ability to solve a software problem. If they learned,
      at some point in their life, to read music/play an instrument, their brain is more predisposed to software.

      I don't know if anyone has ever done a study on this, or why it doesn't come up more often in discussions, though...

    4. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "engineer" has a specific meaning that shouldn't be diluted. There are electrical, mechanical, civil, etc. engineers (of which the study and practice relies on physics and rigorous training). Software is no more of an engineering discipline than the guy who guides a train down the tracks, or the "sanitation engineer" who picks up your garbage every Friday. It's much more of an art than science.

      Comparing a true electrical or mechanical engineer to a "software engineer" is not even in the same ballpark.

    5. Re:Sadly quite true by russotto · · Score: 1

      The word "engineer" has a specific meaning that shouldn't be diluted. There are electrical, mechanical, civil, etc. engineers (of which the study and practice relies on physics and rigorous training). Software is no more of an engineering discipline than the guy who guides a train down the tracks

      You angry P.E.s really need to watch who you're picking on. You can beat up on software engineers all you like, because let's face it, we're in general neither physically tough nor politically connected. But messing with the guys who drive the trains (railroad engineers), and their operating engineer bretheren (as in union bretheren) in the construction industry is a different matter entirely.

    6. Re:Sadly quite true by seebs · · Score: 1

      I see this assertion made a lot, but I've never seen anyone back it up with an explanation of why it is not conceptually possible for engineering to be applied to software.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    7. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting observation. When I was younger, I taught myself to kinda play keyboards, arrange and record my own music. This interest pulled me into computers, which seemed to follow similar ideas in some aspects. A few years later, I found myself learning Python, XHTML & CSS, and PHP. I too have found that my abilities to mentally visualize music and arrangements uses the same faculties as does visualizing the problem I'm solving in my script.

    8. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no meaningful difference here. It's the same basic thought process and skills that are applied. Yes, the use of physics isn't involved, but this isn't really that much different from chemical engineers that engineers used to sneer at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_engineering#History

      And BTW, you do know why the guys that drive the trains are called engineers, right?

    9. Re:Sadly quite true by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I see this assertion made a lot, but I've never seen anyone back it up with an explanation of why it is not conceptually possible for engineering to be applied to software.

      It is entirely possible, but you would need to have a properly constructed professional engineering education route, ending up in an actual certificate allowing you to practise.

      I somehow doubt that all the "I dropped out of high school because I was already earning over $100K a year programming at 17" types would be interested in going back to school/training for 5+ years just to get some letters after their name.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certification just ensures standards, it doesn't make something any more or less engineering. That's like saying you need a PhD in order to engage in science. You don't need a PhD, but the likelihood of getting to use the scientific method on anything new or innovative is between slim and none. The use of the scientific method to answer questions is what makes one a scientist ultimately.

    11. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people have a hard time with the concept that software "exists". It's easy to point to a big hunk of iron and say "that machine exists", or a small hunk of silicon and say "those electronics exist", but when you start pointing to math on a chalkboard and say that the behavior described by that mathematics exists, you loose a large portion of the population.

      There's probably also some philosophical issues to relating to souls and the implications for free will if the brain can be reprogramed, that causes some cognitive dissonance when thinking of software as anything other than voodoo.

    12. Re:Sadly quite true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a person with dual master's degrees in both computer science and electrical engineering, who has held both software and electrical engineering jobs, I can say that you are very much mistaken!

      Your assumption that "engineering" relies on physics is true for some areas of engineering, but many areas are far more a matter of applied mathematics. To see this, take a textbook on control theory, or information theory, or digital signal processing, or communications theory, or "stochastic processes", or "detection and estimation", for just a few examples from electrical engineering, and count how many equations in that book are based on applying physics laws versus being applied math (the answer will be: very few) ...

      Many electrical engineers consider themselves to be more involved in doing "applied math" then "applied physics". Not all that different from what a software engineer does. Some of my graduate level Computer Science textbooks were math textbooks in all but name!

      Good software engineers have very much the same skills and mindset as good digital ASIC designers (these are engineers doing some of the most difficult engineering in the world), if we neglect the back end stuff (only a small percentage of ASIC designers are working on that side of projects). Both groups know how to successfully build large systems. Software engineers generally write FAR better software than the electrical engineers (on average), and they also tend to be much better at developing efficient algorithms (or anything else requiring discrete math skills). A good software engineer on an engineering team that is doing things like digital verification, numerical methods, or CAD tools design, will be worth his or her weight in gold!

      (Assuming the electrical engineers don't shoot him first for expecting them to document their systems before, or at least while, they build them!).

  8. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hiring somebody for a job that has proven they have the skills to do the job. What a concept!

  9. So this doctor goes from male to female by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And wonders why male colleagues don't invite her to baseball games? Really? Do some women love baseball? Sure. But do most women? No. Do some men love shopping? Sure. But do most men? No. Odds are people are simply asking people they think might be interested, and gender does tend to play a significant part in that, at least for setting defaults. I'm a guy, but don't really care for baseball. Now that my co-workers know that, they don't ask me anymore. Perhaps if she made it known she liked baseball, she'd get invited.

    1. Re:So this doctor goes from male to female by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do men love women that used to be men?

    2. Re:So this doctor goes from male to female by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, unless they're gay.

    3. Re:So this doctor goes from male to female by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      translation: freakishly modifying your body creates ostracization. More at 11. Trannies need to realize that they're fooling no one, and they put off ambiguous vibes that most people, regardless of gender, have trouble with.

    4. Re:So this doctor goes from male to female by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The phrase you are looking for is 'uncanny valley'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:So this doctor goes from male to female by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, bigotry creates ostracization. Modifying your body doesn't intrinsically do that. These days, most people deal with trans folks just fine; the few Archie Bunker wannabes running around calling them names are still a problem, but are rapidly becoming a small problem.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    6. Re:So this doctor goes from male to female by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that after 250 comments, this is the only one that even mentions the transgender aspect to the article - and it's a positive comment. Attitudes are a-changing!

  10. No enough keywords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, this article did not make it past my keyword scanning filters. Moreover, it does not have 7 years of experience to back up it's introductory claims. Since I cannot find a suitable article, I will have to source one from India.

  11. A "Gilded" boost for Open Source Software by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like one more boost that will give impetus for more people to become involved in open source projects.

  12. What a nick name! by 32771 · · Score: 1

    I'm now trying to envision a Strudelkugel - man, it's a doughnut!
    First its a ball shaped object like a Kugel, and then a vortex appears in it, i.e. a Strudel. This creates a hole, ideally a in the midst of it. The result is a torus.

    --
    Je me souviens.
  13. So the founder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    of gild.com which rates programmers regardless of whether they have qualifications is thriving and has no qualifications. That's about right..

    I'm a bit bitter becuase I have no job and while I have to work away at other jobs and waste my time sending off my resume into bottomless pits, this guy jost learns the stuff I was newver really taught (or at east ever acknowledged) by employers. I'm thankful that the best students in my course are thriving, but plenty of other capable employess are left by the roadside becasue there's no regulation in IT. You don't really need a degree/diploma. I was never asked for one when I had a job. I only got the job in th last place I worked because of the mickey mouse experience I gained in a job in a place before I started college. I delivered the resume by hand and was seen waking out the door. My former boss told me that's why he hired me - some simple hardware config experience.

    Most CS programs DO NOT prepare you for the real world. They prepare you for postgrad and research. A note of advice to people who want to work in the industry:

    The best programmers in my course agree that its mainly mickey mouse out there - crap like gild.com You do either of 2 things:

    1) Learn it yourself and develop your own stuff at home and make a guild out of it because that's how it s in most jobs.

    2) You go all the way - top level PhD and research jobs.

    An actual vanilla degree in CS is worse (not joking) than a liberal arts degree. I know of a load of people that have jobs in IT and only had arts degrees because they did a 1- year top up higher diploma. And if you have a degree in liberal arts you can be a teacher.

    There are no jobs in education for teaching in schools in second level. IT is not about empowering people, it's about dis-empowering people and pushing guild workers. Hello cloud and openstack, azure thin client etc. Goodbye Hadoop, bit torrent, and client side.

    1. Re:So the founder by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      This doesn't match my experience.

      Degrees, and the school that granted them, do matter with respect to getting hired. Clearly you still have to interview well, but your educational credentials count too. Even past the point when they no longer should, i.e. when you've accumulated enough work experience that employers should be looking at that instead of where you went to school. Computer Science degree from MIT says "whatever other flaws he may have, this guy is pretty intelligent". 2-year degree from ITT Tech. says "what's wrong with this guy that he couldn't manage a four year degree?"

      Since you mention teaching it's worth noting that in the U.S. teachers in STEM fields are in much higher demand than the liberal arts. If you get a CS or math degree and a teaching certificate you're in much better shape than the guy with an English or History degree and a teaching certificate.

      After undergraduate I went ahead and got a M.S. from a top 10-15 graduate program. My work experience since having left school is not especially impressive. For the most part, I haven't had any trouble getting jobs. I suspect that the level of interest recruiters have shown in me is due to my degree.

      I will agree with you, though, that most C.S. programs don't do a great job preparing one for real-world software development. At least, not automatically. Depending on the program one might be able choose specific classes that would provide adequate preparation, but without having actually done real-world software development it's hard for most undergraduates to choose wisely.

      My advice to someone graduating high school who wanted to eventually do software development would be this: go to the most respected 4-year university you can, but don't bankrupt yourself with huge loans. It's a balancing act. While there, figure out what skills employers need/want and make sure you get them. If you can do this through classes offered at your university then great. If not, then it's incumbent upon you to make up for what your degree lacks. Strongly consider stretching your degree out to six years if necessary in order to accumulate some "real-world" work experience before graduating. Don't put yourself in the position as a recent graduate of having to rely entirely on your educational background to score a job.

  14. Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have taught plenty of great programmers who:

    -Lack social skills.
    -Discovered alcohol / drugs and self-destructed.
    -Could not meet a deadline if their life depended on it.

    Just because someone can program, does not mean that they can produce. Just because somebody has a degree or certification doesn't mean that they understand and can apply that knowledge. A proven track record, through projects and employers is still an employer's best bet.

    1. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and how is an employee supposed to get experience without having employment? Spare time projects aren't enough anymore. You've got a chicken-egg problem there.

    2. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and how is an employee supposed to get experience without having employment? Spare time projects aren't enough anymore. You've got a chicken-egg problem there.

      It's more like a dinosaur-egg problem, now. How can I get training on the complicated and cloud-based systems that drive industry now when they by design cannot be scaled up from a single machine that I might actually have?

      The disconnect between my college education and the field is about the distance of a moon shot.

  15. Genius is as Genius does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    “He’s a symbol of someone who is smart, highly motivated and yet, for whatever reason, wasn’t motivated in high school and didn’t see value in college,” Mr. Desai said.

    Sounds like a goddamn genius to me!

    1. Re:Genius is as Genius does. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Many genius level IQ people find highschool an absolutely boring, dreary, mindless, and lonely existence.

    2. Re:Genius is as Genius does. by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Many genius level IQ people find highschool an absolutely boring, dreary, mindless, and lonely existence.

      You went to Scumbag High with me, obviously...

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Genius is as Genius does. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      , wasnâ(TM)t motivated in high school and didnâ(TM)t see value in college,

      and no doubt will not see the value in work either - especially if he's hired by a company that values sensible, maintainable, serious engineering-style coding rather than playing with fun puzzles.

      Oh, he joined a startup... guess he'll be fine then.

    4. Re:Genius is as Genius does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Scumbag High

      Go Asshats!

    5. Re:Genius is as Genius does. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Many genius level IQ people find highschool an absolutely boring, dreary, mindless, and lonely existence.

      Maybe, but finding highschool an absolutely boring, dreary, mindless, and lonely existence doesn't make you a genius.

      I've never understood this slashdot meme. If you're that fucking brilliant you'll be learning/researching in the evenings, weekends, holidays anyway. A bit of enforced socialising with the normal kids, and some studying of subjects that aren't your main interest are both good preparation for real life anyway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Coin Toss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much more economical and more effective.

    Hiring by interview always results in error because the person or committee doing the interview, especially a committee where group-think reigns supreme, is hopelessly biased.

  17. Social Media Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The very best programmers that I know don't go anywhere near social media sites.

    1. Re:Social Media Sites by seebs · · Score: 1

      May be some variance. I know a fair number of pretty decent programmers, and many of them use at least one or two social media sites.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    2. Re:Social Media Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It varies. I personally do not use them as I learned long ago 'the internet is forever'. I do not blather whatever stupid thing that comes to mind anymore using my real name ;)

      It is almost a perfect line of age differentiation tough. The older ones rarely use it (they learned the same lesson I did). The younger ones are all over it and think it will 'make their career'. I find the ones who use it the most to be fairly high on the self promotion. They may or may not be smart but self promoting they are.

  18. He is the only one by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He is the only one who reacted to the spam?

    I get tons of job offers and the only algorithm they seem to be using is that I at some point in the past was looking for a job. By pure chance one will fit me, I am sure.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:He is the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how it works (pseudocode):

      victims = dice.generateSpamList("software engineer");
      victims.foreach ((victim) => hr.sendSpamTo(victim));
      hr.getEmailServer().addReceiveFilter( (mail) => {
        if (victims.contains(mail.from))
            hr.scheduleInterviewWith (victim);
      });

  19. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow......just wow!!

  20. If I have a day job? by poached · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am beginning to worry about this trend to have an online coding portfolio.

    I think open source is great, but once I got done with my day job coding, I never want to touch another line of code until work the next day. Adding to that, what about the basic need to socialize, spend time with the family, and spend time on hobbies?

    I have definitely seen SF job postings for people with extensive open-source commits. Those posts are biased towards a few people who are lucky enough that their company pays them to work on open-source products, are unemployed and doing open-source thing until hired, or the very few people who code for 16 hours a day. Personally, I wouldn't hire the person that codes for 16 hours a day, but that is who I need to be to get noticed these days?

    1. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I never want to touch another line of code until work the next day.

      That is just the thing. You want to do something else. I just want to touch the code. My hobby is programming. Guess which one of us is probably better at programming? But don't be offended, you probably have some related skill where you are far more better than I am. E.g. you might be better at understanding the business needs (which I could not care less).

      > Personally, I wouldn't hire the person that codes for 16 hours a day

      A person who codes 16 hours a day is most likely pretty good at it. You most likely want to have at least one of these people in your team simply because they can solve problems that no-one else can, they probably know tools that no-one else does. But you probably don't want to have a full team of these people. Instead, try to gather a group of people who think differently. Then you have those who know what to do, those who know what not to do, those who know how to do it, those who know how to make the team work together, those who know how to keep the quality in shape etc.

      Btw. you don't need 16 hours a day. Just spending e.g. 5 hours / week is more than enough to gain some reputation in open source.

    2. Re:If I have a day job? by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Having some sort of portfolio of previous work (that you can share, of course) isn't that crazy of an idea in any field.

      What is crazy -- and sort of sick -- is the idea of hiring people based on what they do in their off hours. The private life of a potential employee should be off limits as far as hiring is concerned.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:If I have a day job? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't you? Especially if he likes doing that?

    4. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope you have a very strong plan for early retirement. There is no way in hell you will stay in this industry just being a 9-5er.

      I have hired a large number of engineers over the years. I would *never* hire a 9-5er. I don't want someone who codes 16 hours a day, but I want someone who is continuing their education without expect me to provide it for them. I also want someone who is excited about what they do. Not someone who will do only what it takes to get the job done and go home.

      When I get home, I spend 2 - 3 days a week coding at night. Side projects, open source projects, etc.

      Even at my age, I get a very high number of interview requests. Every week I get at least 6 recruiters hitting me up on LinkedIn. Why ? Because my skill set is current and always growing.

      Good luck, you are going to need it.

    5. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are in the wrong field. I code all day for work. When I get home the first thing I do is continue coding on my personal projects.

      I love coding and computer science in general. That's why I'm in that field.

      Find something you don't hate and you will be a much happier person. You sound very bitter.

    6. Re:If I have a day job? by sam_paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, at my previous job (at a games company) I regularly worked 8.30 till 8 or 9pm. I'd get home at 10, eat, workout a little, then go to bed. I often worked full weekends (crunch time) and there was no way I could ever code outside of work, I was simply too burned out. In fact, I barely had time to do much else other than eat, sleep, and do chores. As such, if someone tried to find any open source work done by me, well, there is none, but that doesn't mean I can't program.

      I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.

    7. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See that's unrealistic. Pro athletes spent much of their time practicing. Artists and writers will spend their free time improving their craft. Doctors spend their twenties being trained and studying.

      It's so unfortunate that to be considered a good programmer you need to spend a lot of time outside of work educating yourself and keeping of with new technologies. What happened to knowing the basics and foundations and being easily trainable? What happened to sticking with proven stuff and not latching on to the newest fad or not learning technologies that will be outdated very soon?

      I guess the industry will be filled with expert developers, but I wonder if they will be paid what they're really worth? How can you justify a high salary when you have 3 years of experience in a certain skill they want when you've had 15 years of relevant working experience? It seems like software development isn't an attractive industry if you have technical skills. Engineering seems like a better choice.

      Maybe software development will be identified as a job you do because you love it.

    8. Re:If I have a day job? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      Because he is jealous of people who love their work.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    9. Re:If I have a day job? by seebs · · Score: 1

      If programming is not one of your hobbies, you are going to be worse at it than most of the people for whom it is also a hobby.

      Passion matters. So does experience. People who enjoy programming will have more of both.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    10. Re:If I have a day job? by seebs · · Score: 0

      There's no such assumption. It's just that, usually, people who visibly contribute to open source projects in their spare time are likely to be better on average, as a pool, than people who don't. Statistics. Not claims about individual people...

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    11. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this actually true? Do these statistics exist? In other words, [citation needed], please.

    12. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself, retard.

    13. Re:If I have a day job? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.

      That's the thing about metrics. "If you cannot measure it, it means it doesn't exist." Consequently, the only things that exist are the ones that you can measure.

      They can measure your contributions to GitHub. They can't measure your contributions at your job.

      It sucks, but any improvement is welcome. After all, according to another maxim, "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    14. Re:If I have a day job? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.

      Thanks for the tip. I am now going to add github to my resume. And I will remember to commit frequently to game that system.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:If I have a day job? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      This site pretty well grew out of Rob Malda's online coding portfolio. He had this cute little monitor app called ePlus, in some ways like gkrellm is now, and a few other bits and pieces.

    16. Re:If I have a day job? by deodiaus2 · · Score: 2

      What if you have interests and talents completely outside of programming? What if you read philosophy and quantum mechanics, practice piano, tutor young kids English and History instead of developing a dumb ass web gizmos which are already out there if someone spends enough time digging.

    17. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I wouldn't hire the person that codes for 16 hours a day

      Why not? I don't code on the same stuff for 16 hours a day. I code on my employer's stuff half the time, and on fun stuff for me (not OSS) the other half. What's wrong with that?

    18. Re:If I have a day job? by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      You won't impress anyone just by committing code to github. What rightfully does impress people is when others use your code in some way. That's what the example in TFA talked about. The simplest useful metrics for github are how many people have forked your code, have "starred" your repos, or how much of your code has been merged by other people into their repos. You might game those by making a bunch of dummy accounts to grab your code. You'd have to adopt spammer style tactics against github to do it though. And it would likely be obvious to any real person who double-checked you out; at a minimum you'd have to spread the fake adoption over a long period of time to be non-obvious. It's not as if the ranking system is the only thing going into a hiring decision.

    19. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of retard codes all day. use your brain for something more demanding for fucks sake.

    20. Re:If I have a day job? by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      It's so unfortunate that to be considered a good programmer you need to spend a lot of time outside of work educating yourself and keeping of with new technologies. What happened to knowing the basics and foundations and being easily trainable? What happened to sticking with proven stuff and not latching on to the newest fad or not learning technologies that will be outdated very soon?

      You're misinterpreting me.

      Spending your spare time learning your craft is all well and good, necessary even in the software world. I have no problems with a meritocracy.

      Ultimately you can't grade job effectiveness automatically based on public data. Not all software is public, so it's not fair to grade based on Ohloh.net, etc.

      If you want a meritocracy, fine -- show me your test! Let's see if I'm the right person for the job. But please don't grade me based on how I spend my time, money, etc. in private, or on the availability of code I've written. Those are not metrics that should factor into hiring decisions.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    21. Re:If I have a day job? by Xest · · Score: 2

      I think you're conflating two issues such that I think what you say is misleading.

      I agree that someone who is passionate about what they do and does it in their spare time is on average going to be better than someone who just does it for a day job and then goes home and doesn't touch it. I don't think there's much room to argue that.

      But the problem with you comment is with your implication that open source is the only way of doing this- that's complete bollocks. There are many things you can do that are programming related from reading CS theory to doing contract work, to just dicking around with code and not producing anything fit for public consumption that will similarly boost your experience but wont do anything for your github profile.

      I'd take the person doing postgrad study in their spare time of maths/cs and has produced some rough code to do something new and unique any day over someone who has padded their github profile with a bunch of menial fixes/changes that a school dropout who hasn't even started their undergrad studies could do just as well for example.

      I suspect there's nothing statistically better about publicly open source developers than non-open source developers quite frankly or if you believe there is, I'd love to see some genuine evidence of that.

    22. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.

      Geniuses? Not necessarily, but capable at least. Someone who love open-source (for the ideology or whatever) but cannot program - he won' get anywhere. He'll have no major contributions or projects of his own that other people want to use too.

      Therefore, open-source programmers are useable programmers. Plenty of other ones too of course - but open-source stuff is one way to immediately see they aren't a total loss.

    23. Re:If I have a day job? by sam_paris · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, the sad things is that I have a ton of interests outside of programming, I read a lot of literature and philosophy, I play the piano, I like to hike, sail, get outdoors when I can. It seems that in the current economic climate, as a programmer one needs to forgo all these activities and spent 100% of one's time at work programming or at home programming, if one want's to get a good job.

      I'm actually a strong believer that varied "extracurricular" activities make a better employee. I.e. I'd rather employ an engineer who had varied interests outside of just programming, especially because having lots and varied interests usually indicates that the person is better socially adapted. I've worked with excellent developers before, but who were socially inept, would make female employees uncomfortable, reduce morale because they weren't fun to work with, and so on.

    24. Re:If I have a day job? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A person who codes 16 hours a day is most likely pretty good at it.

      No, a person who codes 16 hours a day might just be someone who takes twice as long as someone who codes 8 hours a day or four times as long as someone who codes 4 hours a day.

      People in the US are far too easily impressed with the number of hours you work. Along with the "I don't take holidays" attitude, I assume it's a hangover from the protestant work ethic.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such assumption. It's just that, usually, people who visibly contribute to open source projects in their spare time are likely to be better on average, as a pool, than people who don't. Statistics. Not claims about individual people...

      Oh, so there's a different assumption. Glad you cleared that up. Is there any data on this? Because judging from the code I've seen on github the opposite is probably true.

    26. Re:If I have a day job? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I agree that someone who is passionate about what they do and does it in their spare time is on average going to be better than someone who just does it for a day job and then goes home and doesn't touch it. I don't think there's much room to argue that.

      There is nothing wrong (except in the minds of chronic workaholics and fuckberries generally) with going home after your day at work and relaxing and/or engaging in some different hobby or intellectual, sporting or cultural activities.

      A great doctor or engineer doesn't have to spend their non-working lives purely engaged in reading medical or engineering journals.

      There is nothing magical about computer programming as a career.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:If I have a day job? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I agree there's nothing wrong with it, but to some people learning more about the subject is in itself what they enjoy and is relaxing for them. Those people are always going to learn more and be better workers in a subject area as a result.

    28. Re:If I have a day job? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      No, what matters more than "passion" (which is just another cheerleading buzzword) is professionalism. You can either do a job well or you can't. I don't care whether you enjoy it or not. Personally, I don't give a toss if my doctor or architect or car mechanic has a huge passion for his work, as long as he does it right.

      You people need to get some balance into your life. Coding for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week does not make you a better person. It doesn't even make you a better coder.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:If I have a day job? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well, I put it on Linked-in anyway, just to see if I get any increase in recruiters. I like to experiment with that kind of thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:If I have a day job? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      So, at my previous job (at a games company) I regularly worked 8.30 till 8 or 9pm. I'd get home at 10, eat, workout a little, then go to bed. I often worked full weekends (crunch time) and there was no way I could ever code outside of work, I was simply too burned out. In fact, I barely had time to do much else other than eat, sleep, and do chores. As such, if someone tried to find any open source work done by me, well, there is none, but that doesn't mean I can't program.

      I kind of hate this recent assumption that all open-source programmers with work on github must be programming geniuses.

      well then you could use a real portfolio. or resume of where you worked.

      thing is.. when you're going to be looking for a job you can spend a weekend coding to take something with you to the interview. the employers generally care that you can produce at least something, because they'll have guys lining up for work who can't install even eclipse.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    31. Re:If I have a day job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't been all that impressed with the code I've seen on the open source projects I've looked at, and even less impressed with the documentation. Interface quality also tends to be a problem. This probably is just a case of having a limited sample, though, since clearly a few open source projects are quite successful -- I suppose I've just been reading the code for the wrong projects. Also, many (perhaps most) non-open source projects have problems in these same areas, so perhaps I'm being too critical. I'm certainly happy the open source movement exists, even if a lot of the projects aren't worth much, because some of them are extremely beneficial to humanity.

      Many of the best programmers I've ever worked with have never been part of an open source project. Working well with otherwise competent people has a lot more to do with personality and "people skills" than what they do in their spare time.

      What the uninformed describe as "genius" is often simply a reflection of an individual having worked out good approachs to doing things, generally the result of good training, good background knowledge, and lots of experience (particularly experience learning from their mistakes). None of these things is dependent upon open source experience.

      Having a good mentor and a good team environment helps immensely to get people to this level, assuming an individual is motivated. Assessing whether that motivation is present is a large part of what should be happening in the interview.

      The people I've known that did work on open source seemed to mostly be doing it as a school project, as a status thing, or to have it on their resume.

      If anything, spending too much time programming limits the long term potential of the individual: for one thing, people burn out. For another, there are a lot of programs that need to be written that require large amounts of specialized domain knowledge, often knowledge from multiple domains, and that's something that can't be obtained if one spends all their time just programming. Few people, for example, make a habit of reading math or science books on a regular basis (which means working problems or proofs, as well as just "reading") . I do that. It's a skill that one can learn, much like any other, if you're willing to make time to do it (and reduce the hours spent in front of the TV). The folks who eat, sleep, and breathe programming will be unlikely to find the time to do stuff like this, which means they can't write the programs that call upon this knowledge. It's over-specialization.

      I suspect that, as is the case so often in life, a few well-known success stories in the one domain, and a few well-known failures in the other, shape the perceptions of many people, causing them to assume things that simply aren't valid about the majority of cases.

    32. Re:If I have a day job? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Programming when you get home doesn't make you a good programmer in the same way not programming at all makes you a good programmer.

      One's abilities is typically highly correlated with amount time spent honing their skills.

  21. Synopsis by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    Algorithm's can do what you create them to do:
    They can measure specific data points, such as would constitute "technical merit".
    They can not measure 'human undefinable's', things such as human co-interaction, gut instinct, charisma.

    (I would think once we have enough data points to define how, for example, 'gut instinct' is actually determined by out brain, we could put that in an algorithm as well)
    I think society would really be shocked if things were actually merit based.

    1. Re:Synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a study where mathematical formula was able to predict cancer recovery about 70-80% correctly, while doctors could do it only about 50% correctly (a little better than just guessing). Don't aim to be as good as humans, we can already do better than that.

    2. Re:Synopsis by seebs · · Score: 1

      True, but the neat thing is: For stuff like "evaluating the prospective success of employees", they utterly stomp the best humans can do with instinct or expertise right now. Want to measure likely future success? Even half-assed use of data and metrics will beat the best human evaluations available right now. See also Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow for lots of explanations and evidence.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  22. We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... you've bothered to learn the necessary engineering outside of school and can convince them of that fact.

    We're talking about programming here and software design. By 'Software Engineering" are you referring to this? I have never seen anyone with that cert or anyone who really cares. Has anyone actually seen it asa requirement for a job?

    Actual "Software engineering" is something that I have never seen in practice - ever.

    Every company that I've been at and every project that I've seen everywhere including all over the internet, designs and develops software the same way: hand over vague specs, figure it out and pound out that code. That's how developers/"Software engineers"/programmers (they are just titles referring to the same skill sets - get over yourselves) are hired - someone or a group (only the a genius superstar) can come in and knock it or their section out.

    We're Artisans - not engineers.

    1. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm talking about is designing code to be a bit more sane to maintain and extend. Theoretically that's the way code should be written, but reality often time doesn't correspond to best practices.

      The reason why it doesn't typically happen is because the projects are being designed by inept morons with no particular vision for the future. Yes, it is hard to evaluate how much time you need to spend on the engineering aspect, but if you do it right, then the cost later on are much more manageable. Versus someplace like MS where they're having to regularly throw out large amounts of code and have tons of unnecessary surface area to track for security problems.

    2. Re:We're artisans by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We're Artisans - not engineers.

      As an electrical engineer I can assure you that engineers largely work the same way. And the job titles that they're always playing with are ridiculous. Programmer, system analyst, software engineer, computer scientist, blah, blah, blah. Please, nobody try to educate me on the fine distinctions. I know them, I don't care, and I think anybody who really does care is either a stuck-up ass or so insecure about their abilities that they cling to buzzwords. At least EE's just call themselves EE's (and I've never met anybody who bothered to distinguish between electrical engineer and electronic engineer). The best programmer I ever knew (who also had a Ph.D. in CS from a fancy school) simply called himself a programmer.

    3. Re:We're artisans by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Except there is actually an engineering organisation that actually owns the word Engineering, and if you take an actual software engineering course instead of computer science you are learning quite a lot of difference skills.

      I was in one for a few years. If I had graduated I would, for example, been able to OK the blue prints of a bridge, I was told. When you are an engineer you are considered, legally, to know what you are doing, and can practice in any engineering field (because if you say you know enough to do something, that is supposed to be considered enough). Similarly, if you are an actual engineer, doing actual engineering work, you are held far more accountable for any damage work that you OK does. If some company builds a pacemaker, at some place in the project there will be an software engineer, and he will do a job and be held responsible in a far different way than the code monkeys.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:We're artisans by greenbird · · Score: 1

      developers/"Software engineers"/programmers (they are just titles referring to the same skill sets - get over yourselves)

      I hope you get over yourself one day because in my opinion you know far less than you think you do. There's a big difference between what I would refer to as a programmer and a software engineer. A programmer is told to write a program to do X. They write the minimum code to accomplish exactly and only X. A software engineer will look at what X is being used for in the context of the overall system. They will likely get an understanding of the current and future scope of X and write a program that provides X functionality in a manner that's supportable and adaptable to other current and potential future uses.

      The reason most software sucks is because people don't know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. They think programmers are interchangeable entities that can be added and removed with impunity and end up with a bunch of rigid unsupportable code.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    5. Re:We're artisans by russotto · · Score: 1

      Except there is actually an engineering organisation that actually owns the word Engineering

      No, they have managed to hold "Professional Engineering". They claim "engineering" but outside of Canada they've been unable to hold it. Which is why I, without any engineering degree at all, and without any lengthy supervised apprenticeship or comprehensive exam, can call myself a Software Engineer.

      In the US, Texas is one of the few states which has a "Professional Engineering" license for software. Between 1998 and 2006, if you had only a CS degree (not an approved engineering degree), you needed 16 years "creditable experience" (meaning experience under the supervision of a P.E.) plus 9 references, 5 of which had to be P.E.s, plus a few other requirements, to qualify as a P.E. in software. From 2006 to 2013, it was not possible to qualify as a P.E. in software in Texas. It's just a guild thing, an attempt to make sure you "pay your dues" before you can actually do the job.

    6. Re:We're artisans by phantomfive · · Score: 3

      Please, nobody try to educate me on the fine distinctions

      There aren't any. I routinely call myself by all of them depending on which will help me most in a given situation. But in situations where I go based on my own preference, I call myself programmer. It is a noble title and quite accurately describes what I do.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:We're artisans by dbIII · · Score: 1

      learning quite a lot of difference skills

      Including finite difference skills :)
      For some tasks it's a huge stumbling block if the people doing the code don't know much more mathematics than addition. That's why a lot of places are still using VB crap by people that didn't know how to code but knew what had to be done to the data.

    8. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're Artisans - not engineers.

      The kind of artisans that makes art-by-the-pound to hang on walls of a nondescript building in an office park.

    9. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are the distinctions not important when each title conveys a different focus in application? It's like saying material engineer and aeronautics engineer are the same same thing: they may both be engineering but they both have different focuses.

    10. Re:We're artisans by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      IT titles are indeed screwed up and don't mean a whole lot. They may hint at the proportion one spends on a given type of task, but little more.

    11. Re:We're artisans by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      True, but the ratios often vary widely. Further, in a smaller company or department, one may wear multiple hats, where-as in a big "software shop" or dedicated software production team, you're task is more specific, although you may be quite skilled in that specific task. More accurate titles would have percents in them, be long, and be very confusing to those on the outside.

    12. Re:We're artisans by dkf · · Score: 1

      IT titles are indeed screwed up and don't mean a whole lot. They may hint at the proportion one spends on a given type of task, but little more.

      They hint at responsibilities and therefore salary level. Someone who describes himself as a programmer to his management is likely to be paid a lot less than someone who describes himself as a computer system architect. It's mostly BS, of course. But only mostly; the additional responsibilities (and hence additional opportunity to screw things up big-time) really are there. (Between themselves, those who program computers are much less hierarchic, at least in my experience: what is right is right, whoever says it.)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    13. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some years ago it was the "standard" that people would follow this promotion path:

      1.- Programmer. meaning you would code as instructed following the specs handed down from the next ranks. These guys (and girls) handled what was called then the "carpentry" work.
      2.- Analyst. meaning you did, in fact, analyse the problem at hand and did some design on how things should be programmed. These guys handled "higher level" code and stuff that was of higher difficulty than the programmer stuff
      3.- Engineer. meaning that you would sit down and get a Big Picture kind of idea, understand the relations between the new SW to be written and existing stuff and work with the analyst to split the work in manageable chunks.

      This was the easiest job "distinction" we could find. It was mostly to have a clear understanding of level of experience and responsibility each person had (not to mention pay), and it was easier for HR and other manager types to understand.

      People would normally follow a 1,2,3 path, but there was no clear definition of when you moved to the next level.

      On a personal note, we had the good fortune of having a manager that recognised individual talents and never held a person back and always sought to keep the team productive and happy. It never meant that engineers or analysts didn't write code that was "beneath them", there was no such thing, we all did what had to be done and the work load was distributed fairly, and we had a work environment that kept people wanting to learn and challenge themselves; and we never put in more hours than we had to and "crunch time" was never, ever, unplanned. This guy was the most honest manager I've had in my 20+ years in the IT business, really appreciated that, still do.

      It all went to sh!t when his boss' boss was replaced and he started an internal fight that took most of his time, as he was trying to keep things sane for us, but it tooks its toll, he was practically forced out of the company. I left a few years after that and he moved to Canada.

    14. Re:We're artisans by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      We're Artisans - not engineers.

      I've met too many who were not artisans, but children playing with finger paints. Or adults painting by numbers.

    15. Re:We're artisans by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I tend to call myself an Electronics Engineer (rather than an Electrical one) because I'd rather fix the neighbour's TV than I would put in some new power sockets or fix their kitchen lights for them. If I'm trying to avoid their TV, then I call myself a Digital Systems Engineer, which seems to qualify me to fix broadband and Windows PCs.

      At work though, I call myself a sysadmin so I get to work on Linux machines and write some Perl ;-)

    16. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in other places people who call themselves "Software Engineer" are understood to to be programmers with a giant chip on their shoulder. If you don't have an engineering degree (hint, it's got to have Eng in the degree classification) then you are not an engineer, no-matter how that deflates your ego.

      The reason most software sucks is because people don't know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer.

      There isn't any. They are just meaningless job titles. The actual difference is between a competent professional and a code monkey who just bangs out code with no understanding of design or how their software is working. The two both get hired to build software, which is why software sucks. They also both get to be called software engineer, programmer and a multitude of other titles, hence the reason it doesn't matter. Anyone can call themselves a software engineer, they really don't care about your personal distinctions.

      I've yet to meet a software professional (someone you would refer to as a "Software Engineer") who gave a crap about basic job title. If you have the talent, experience and competence you really don't need to use a title as a crutch.

    17. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US you're thinking of Professional Engineer, not "Engineer". And it's a state license, NOT some private organization. It's generally only needed for construction projects. Very few states care if you call yourself and engineer without having a PE as long as you are not working in construction or utilities.

    18. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently asked what my job description was officially. The response I got was 'engineer 2'. I thought, well, it wouldn't look great on a CV, but at least they didn't waste time on prettying up the name for someone that actually had to ask his boss what it was.

    19. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total and absolute bullshit. If you know how to engineer software you don't have to make it up and call it art. There is a science behind it no matter how abstracted away from your understanding it may be.

    20. Re:We're artisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual "Software engineering" is something that I have never seen in practice - ever.

      Have you worked on large teams (say, for example, 70 people)?

      Have you had to develop numerical or scientific software?

      While designing some types of software, such as web applications, works quite well by just "pounding code" from "vague specs", that approach breaks down in large teams, or when you have to implement complex mathematics.

    21. Re:We're artisans by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the joke about the janitor who calls himself a "sanitation engineer".

    22. Re:We're artisans by greenbird · · Score: 1

      If you don't have an engineering degree (hint, it's got to have Eng in the degree classification) then you are not an engineer, no-matter how that deflates your ego.

      I hope you realize you're actually helping support my argument. The word engineer when applied to a profession generally denotes (or should at least) a level a professionalism and expertise in that particular field above the norm. A piece of paper from a university doesn't make you particularly skilled in a profession much less an expert as much as that may deflate your ego. The title engineer should only be granted after proven practical expertise in the field. Otherwise it becomes as meaningless there as it does when applied to software development.

      The actual difference is between a competent professional and a code monkey who just bangs out code with no understanding of design or how their software is working. They also both get to be called software engineer, programmer and a multitude of other titles, hence the reason it doesn't matter. Anyone can call themselves a software engineer, they really don't care about your personal distinctions.

      And once again you're reiterating the problem rather than seeing the point I was trying to make. "competent professional" vs. "code monkey". It's all just semantics. I was actually trying to define the terms: Software Engineer = "competent professional", programmer = "code monkey". The problem is making people who aren't in the field see that there is a massive difference there. Thus the usage of the work "engineer" to denote the competent professional software developer. If these terms were used consistently it might actually help distinguish between the 2 rather than having an attitude like yours that does nothing but perpetuate the confusion.

      I've yet to meet a software professional (someone you would refer to as a "Software Engineer") who gave a crap about basic job title. If you have the talent, experience and competence you really don't need to use a title as a crutch.

      It isn't about the person with the title. It's about trying to help people who don't know the field differentiate between the competent professional and the code monkey.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
  23. Re: Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, what a dumb fucking troll you are. Spoken like someone who has never hitrock bottom in their life. Hopefully reality hits you one day and you have an experience that's out of your control, that doesn't run like some fucking computer program. The real world doesn't run like you think, you piece of shit. People that think like you do usually end up killing themselves when the shit really hits the fan for them, because they couldn't imagine that bad shit could happen if they just did everything right. Just you wait, that time will come. How's this for perspective: there are people that think you are a fucking loser because you earn an income instead of being a business owner. Get off these forums you fucking sheep.

  24. Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet 100 BILLION dollars and a pool of sharks with LASER beams that this algorithm can approximate the age of a candidate.

    Just say'in.

    1. Re:Age by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I bet 100 BILLION dollars and a pool of sharks with LASER beams that this algorithm can approximate the age of a candidate.

      No takers on that bet. Yeah, there is that sort of potential for bias. Depends on how you use it. However you don't need fancy software for age discrimination. You can roughly figure someone's age just by looking at them. You can guess it before you meet them by looking at their resume.

      This also has the potential to eliminate some biases though. Going to a fancy school is not a great proxy for how someone will do. I wouldn't discount it, but there are other things that indicate you're qualified. Also, how many people can afford the tuition for MIT, Stanford, CMU, etc. these days. So "good school" is also a proxy for socio-economic background. Probably always was, but it's probably worse now.

    2. Re:Age by jythie · · Score: 1

      All it is really does is exchange one bais for another. It wraps up whatever the metric writer thinks makes 'good' programmers according to their own world view, then puts it in a little black box they hope people will by and trust.

    3. Re:Age by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Not if they do it right. They should be searching for patterns that are associated with good programmers (or whatever type of person they're looking for), rather than following their preconceived notions as most interviewers do.

      The more I think about it the more I realize that the basic problems w/ the software approach are not all that different than the problems w/ human interviewers. For example, there is always the self-reinforcing prejudice. If an employer looks for a set of qualities, and some of their hires are good, then they'll figure that, while not perfect (no hiring system is), they're right to look for those qualities. They'll never try to look for a different set of qualities. The same can happen w/ the software. They find some magic set of correlations that identifies some good programmers. Success! But they don't know if a different magic set would work. Probably the only way around this is to have people hire for their own team or department, and not go too far with the corporate wide approach.

      There is also gaming the system, but that can be a problem w/ both humans and software.

    4. Re:Age by jythie · · Score: 1

      The problem is 'doing it right'. Looking for patterns associated with good programmers is exactly what human interviewers are trying to do. From reading the piece it sounds like the author has taken a set of qualities that they think are important to a programmer (most of which sounded very social in nature) and built a search around that. It is little more then klout for engineerings, which means it is an even poorer fit then the domains klout is actually used elsewhere.

  25. Of course talent is being missed by SEE · · Score: 1

    The question is, do you have something that works better at finding talent, can be administered for a cost reasonable relative to the additional productivity it identifies, and will stand up to scrutiny by the EEOC?

  26. Hmm... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase TFA:

    Dr. Ming, who *now* has an undergraduate degree in cognitive neuroscience from the University of California, San Diego, a Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon in psychology and computational neuroscience and completed a fellowship at Stanford -- *after* flopping at college, kicking around at various jobs, contemplating suicide, and hitting the proverbial bottom -- is working to identify talented non-traditionally trained/skilled potential employees. Interesting.

    More interesting, from both an individual and societal standpoint, is that she only noticed this after completing gender transformation from male to female (props to her) and started being treated differently than when she was male.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Hmm... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Well there's noticing and then there's having it shoved in your face. For instance, I've noticed that despite there being more than 50% women in the few CS classes I did way back in the 1980s that I've seen less women in IT than at mine sites, power stations, foundries and oil refineries, and that many of the women I've met in IT had completely different careers earlier so were not in those CS classes. Those women applying for IT jobs and getting knocked back would have not just casually noticed a trend like I did but experienced it.

  27. Re:Dumb idea by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    Damn straight - kick the poor!

  28. Re:Dumb idea by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    1. One of the benefits of this country is the lack of an official caste system. Unfortunately, an unofficial one is solidifying out of the economic downward spiral the country's going through. Why would you support either? It's likely that you would be in that lower caste and not able to work in technical fields even if you have the ability...and if you were born into an upper caste family and still had the time to post on slashdot, you'd be one of those dead-end children, like paris hilton.

    2. What's a real company? You mean the ones with the 10000 office drones? Doesn't sound very motivating to me. Ones who bootstrap themselves are more likely to create their own companies rather than work for schlep, overprivileged, highschool/college football jocks who now run companies whose culture cares more about enforcing dress codes than getting any real work done...you know, those too big to fail companies that routinely take bailout money from the taxpayer? Yeah, what were you saying about lazy twats?

    3. The funny thing is, it takes a minimum of two to get a job: the candidate must apply, and the employer must accept. There are more people than jobs these days, and that ratio is increasing over time. This fact makes your simplistic blame game an ad hominem attack. Wake up. If you're working for one of those 'real companies', guess what? You're just as replaceable as that beggar on the street probably was. Your employment status is not proof of your superiority. Get over yourself.

  29. Not all programmers are suitable for all projects by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No one is good at everything

    I've worked with legendary programmers throughout my career and I can tell you this --- you must understand the strong points of a particular programmer (even the legendary ones) so that you can tap into his potential and let him/her perform

    That "hiring by algorithm" is indeed a new way of looking at things, but it does take experience - excellent programmers all comes with their own particular quirks - and you need to provide them the room to stretch, the freedom that they need, in order to get them to do whatever they are good at

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  30. Come on by Wovel · · Score: 1

    The summary was a POS full of qualifiers and gave no idea what the story was actually about. Try harder.

  31. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mom and Dad are so proud of little bitch up there ^ It takes a lot of hard work to be born into it!

  32. Re:Dumb idea by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    1. One of the benefits of this country is the lack of an official caste system. Unfortunately, an unofficial one is solidifying out of the economic downward spiral the country's going through. Why would you support either? It's likely that you would be in that lower caste and not able to work in technical fields even if you have the ability...and if you were born into an upper caste family and still had the time to post on slashdot, you'd be one of those dead-end children, like paris hilton.

    The caste system in the US is unofficial and more rigid than places with a formal caste system. You are more likely to better your situation in India than the US.

    That and rich rarely fall. Paris Hilton isn't that smart. She isn't as dumb as she looks, but she isn't smart. But, with the rules out there, she has a massive advantage over millions of smarter people born to the wrong parents.

  33. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are more likely to better your situation in India than the US...

    Never been there, I can see. India has a very strong caste system - like the "wrong" boy/girl?
    You could suffer death under their law. India still practices female infanticide (though it doesn't make the news too often).
    In a lower caste - don't you dare drink their water. The U.S. went through that in their history, but this is still the norm in India.

  34. Re:Dumb idea by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Yet she routinely engages in imbecilic behavior and shows a lack of aptitude in everything she does. I think this is due to a mix of (below) average intellect and spoiled brat syndrome. She was never encouraged to be independent because she never had to be.

  35. There are lies, damned lies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and then there is Guild. Or, if you prefer, more abstractly, there is the idea that metrics, data (even poor ones) are the cure to what ails us.

    We realize how horrid code metrics are, yet we are desperate enough to hire by them. Let's be entirely honest here, this isn't about finding the best talent, it's about finding a body for a space with a minimum of effort. Resume scanning tools had the same lofty goal; we all know where that ended up, right? Meet version 2.0 - Idiocracy in hiring.

    Let's understand what goes into the Guild algorithm...accepted forum answers and contributions (which may not be right at all, just that they were accepted), publicly available code (oh, that can never be gamed, right?). That's it. From that, we get a score that shows the "stronger developer". I didn't realize it was so simple. We have now limited the market to: those who have spare time to contribute to open source, create their own projects (oh, and who cares if no one actually uses it, the code just has to exists), and entry level kids just starting out trying to help on Q&A forums.

    What does this help you find? A code monkey. An intern. An entry level lackey at most. It may give a boost to "non-traditional" folks, but if you were an employer, why the hell would you limit yourself to that market?

    Take a step back and consider this from another perspective: With this ideology, we are now hiring people for a job not based upon what they actually do for a living, but what they do in their off hours. Yes, your hobby is now more important than your 9-5 job and the experience therein. What other occupation pretends that this is a good way to hire? What other workforce puts up with that shit?

  36. Algorithm to evaluate employer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


    boolean work_here(corporation):
       CLF = 0   /* Initialize Corporate behemoth Lethargy Factor  (CLF) */
       Ask manager to print extra copy of your CV.
       while (not exists(CV_hard_copy)):
           sleep(120)
           CLF ++

       Ask to see employee handbook
       for page in employee_handbook:
          CLF ++

       Ask for access to a unix shell
       if exists(unix_shell):
         traceroute slashdot.org
         for each hop:
            CLF ++
       else:  /* Employer asks what's a unix shell? */
         CLF = CLF ^ 2

       Ask to see procedure for using open source software
        for page in open source software utilization procedure:
          CLF = CLF ^ 4

       Ask what the ratio is between the CEO's salary and your salary
       CLF = CLF * (CEO_SALARY/MY_SALARY) ^ 8

       Ask how many management levels are between the advertised position and the CEO.
       for each level:
          CLF = CLF ^ 16

      if CLF < 1:
         return (true)
      else:
        return (false)
    }

    1. Re:Algorithm to evaluate employer by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      It's a pity you posted this anonymously. Else, that snippet of code might have done this for you: Ranking = ranking ^ 10. (Where '^' is exponentiation, not an XOR operation.)

      Okay algorithms, bump up my ranking!

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  37. More likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or simply fork an existing repo and do nothing more to get a "higher BS score" on the BS meter.

  38. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Depending somewhat on the kind of company doing the hiring, the prospective new hire shouldn't just be evaluated for the job at hand, but also for how well they'd do at other jobs, both at and above their current level. This means testing for adaptability, versatility and future potential. This, by the way, is where I find that people with college degrees far outperform self taught high school dropout programmers.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  39. Big Data - When you look Deeply into the Search.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. it looks back Deeply into You

  40. technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As many of us are computer geeks, I'm sure many readers realize that hiring is already an algorithm. It may be good or bad, and the particular algorithm may change with company/hr person/hiring manager/mood of the interviewer, but an algorithm is just a process for doing something, and most places have process for hiring.

    So, file this under "duh."

    1. Re:technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiring tends to be heuristic rather than algorithmic.

  41. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough I've had opposite results(unless you talk about people that got their degrees while they were working because of one reason or another[required to advance, just wanted to, whatever], who are largely the most adaptable I've seen). The problem with self-learning is habits, structure, etc, not adaptability and potential.

  42. Low bar by russotto · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to be a better filter than the typical HR department, it's not hard. An algorithm based mostly on a random number generator would likely work. Including the xkcd RNG.

  43. Re: Dumb idea by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    They're a significant part of American society. They even have churches telling people that poor people are poor because God doesn't like them as much as rich people.

  44. wow, what an amazing technology! by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    the first step in getting people to accept algorithmic excuses for mass firings, hiring discrimination, and mandatory career planning is to propagandise the rare, unlikely (faked?) positive flukes.

    you thought you trained to be a computer programmer, but our magic computer says you're better suited to order fulfilment in an amazon warehouse with crap conditions and crap pay.

    1. Re:wow, what an amazing technology! by jythie · · Score: 1

      I also wonder what kind of bais might get built in.. I know a lot of programmers who, for instance, feel women simply are not suited to programming and will generally be inferior or will just spend all their time sexing up their male coworkers to get them to do their work for them.. I could easily see assumptions like that seeping in to the metrics.

    2. Re:wow, what an amazing technology! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of programmers who, for instance, feel women simply are not suited to programming and will generally be inferior or will just spend all their time sexing up their male coworkers to get them to do their work for them

      And THAT is why you have HR and "managerment" doing interviews.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  45. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know many will downvote you but you are right. You just need a little less emotions to express it. There are plenty of parasites on slashdot sitting on their fat asses who constantly complain about jobs. First they get themselves into a financially tough situation with dependents and then it's all someone else's fault that they can't find a 6-digit salary to feed their offsprings. And the whole crying over H1Bs and Mexicans and "lazy foreigners taking their jobs" begins. As someone who lived in 4 countries in different parts of the world, I haven't seen any place that's more friendly to productive people than the US. The parasites are pathetic.

  46. Re:Dumb idea by russotto · · Score: 1

    In America, if you're born in the Lower Classes, you should fucking stay there. We don't want you in our neighborhoods. We don't want you hanging out where we work, unless you're cleaning up the yard/garden, serving us food, driving our cars, or holding the doors open for us.

    You know, I have this sneaking suspicion that my landscaper makes more than I do.

  47. Inviting opposite gender can look like flirting by raymorris · · Score: 1

    What you said is right. Also, where I live, mengenerally hang out with men women with women, because a man inviting a woman can be perceived as flirtacious or similar. Also of course couples hang out with other couples. Outside of work, if a female friend gets married, a guy gets to know her new husband and then calls HIM to invite them somewhere, or my wife will call the female friend. I, as a man, don't call women with social invitations very often.

    Formerly, I didn't respect that tradition and I had many women's phone numbers. In time, I found the tradition is based on wisdom.

    1. Re:Inviting opposite gender can look like flirting by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would be the next step? Firing the new guy, because he is tooo handsome? And keep in mind, i am not joking...

  48. Thats as fair as life gets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so glad I wracked up all that college debt to prove to employers that which I had taught myself... now it is optional? WTF!

  49. Re:Dumb idea by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Well, the well-off white researchers in the US examined the caste system and mobility between castes, and found that the US has less actual movement between the casts, even if "allowed" than in places where such movement is illegal and can result in your death. Have you been to the US and tried to change caste?

  50. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by mephox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No one is good at everything

    I've worked with legendary programmers throughout my career and I can tell you this --- you must understand the strong points of a particular programmer (even the legendary ones) so that you can tap into his potential and let him/her perform

    That "hiring by algorithm" is indeed a new way of looking at things, but it does take experience - excellent programmers all comes with their own particular quirks - and you need to provide them the room to stretch, the freedom that they need, in order to get them to do whatever they are good at

    Interesting... You describe programmers much like other people describe artists. This is not a bad thing. I see programming, as a programmer, as part art, part science. Programmers need a deep understanding of logic and not a small bit of creativity to solve problems.

  51. Re:Dumb idea by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    She shows an aptitude in getting attention, and that's sufficient for a rich person to be successful. How many times has Donald Trump gone bankrupt? Yet he's still seen as successful. He even has his own TV show. Even with her failures, many girls would love to be her, and that drives demand. You can be stupid and rich and do nothing but party all day long if you are Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton, and Paris even makes millions doing it. How do you make $1,000,000? Step 1, start with $5,000,000...

  52. Use your own algorithm by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've hired about a hundred programmers in my career, and education and career background are a good set of indicators, but they're not the be-all and end-all of selection. I've had the best results from avoiding agencies and their filtering methods, believing it's worth plowing through a lot of crap myself, in order to not lose that one gem that can transform your entire development effort.

    And again, oddly enough, some of the best indicators were clear, intelligent, structured English and an interest in music. There seemed to be almost no correlation between those factors and their achieving a degree, or their lack of one.

    On a whim once I interviewed someone who had a non-standard resume that consisted of a well-reasoned argument for her self-taught programming skills, in impeccable English. I brought her in, and she showed me code samples that were sophisticated, well-written, well-commented and offered proof that they worked. Her background was "housewife", no job background at all, no degree. I hired her, and she ripped through the workload like a veteran.

    Don't be lazy, do your own filtering.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Use your own algorithm by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      clear, intelligent, structured English

      Why is this a surprise? Someone who can't properly use a language they've used daily since birth is unlikely to do much better with one they had to learn later on.

    2. Re:Use your own algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all programmers speak English as their native tongue. Heck, I do and I'm pretty sure I didn't speak it daily since birth, it took a while.

    3. Re:Use your own algorithm by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      some of the best indicators were clear, intelligent, structured English and an interest in music. There seemed to be almost no correlation between those factors and their achieving a degree, or their lack of one.

      That is fascinating, thanks for the tip.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Use your own algorithm by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      If you're not dealing with native speakers of English, this may change. Isn't that obvious?

    5. Re:Use your own algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know English is their first language?

    6. Re:Use your own algorithm by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Not just that, but rather somebody who takes the effort and care to proofread or let other people review a resume before sending it in.
      It doesn't really matter how they do it; it demonstrates a focus on quality.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:Use your own algorithm by dkf · · Score: 3, Informative

      And again, oddly enough, some of the best indicators were clear, intelligent, structured English and an interest in music.

      Those would be good correlates. The English skills are an indication that they can read very well (useful for background research) and communicate (also really useful), and music skills are often associated with ability in math and logic; they appear to use the same area of the brain.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    8. Re:Use your own algorithm by xelah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And again, oddly enough, some of the best indicators were clear, intelligent, structured English and an interest in music.

      Those would be good correlates. The English skills are an indication that they can read very well (useful for background research) and communicate (also really useful), and music skills are often associated with ability in math and logic; they appear to use the same area of the brain.

      English skills could also be about attention to detail and caring about the quality of what you do. And both, but especially music, could be about not just being able to focus for long periods on one, solitary task, building it up a little at a time until it works, but of actually getting satisfaction from it. ie, it could be substantially an indicator of introversion.

    9. Re:Use your own algorithm by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      English is *NOT* my first language --- and I had 4 "first languages"

      And yet, I try my best to write the best English, within my own ability, every single time I write / speak something in English

      Why ?

      If I am to do something, I want to do it right --- if I were to do something half-ass, I rather not do it at all

      That's just me, of course

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    10. Re:Use your own algorithm by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      you mean "half-assed" ;)

    11. Re:Use your own algorithm by shdowhawk · · Score: 1

      You joke about this, and while it is funny, the parent comment should be taken seriously. I speak three languages fluently and 2 more decent enough to get by. When I hire people, I ignore small spelling and grammar issues - unless there are a LOT of them.

      Many people/organizations will "filter" out the bad potential hires based on spelling or grammar. I'm not hiring these people to be the editors of the company... we pay someone ELSE for that job already. I focus on WHAT they wrote, not HOW they wrote it. People make mistakes, especially if English isn't their primary language, and then they should not be automatically turned down for that.

      To look at it from a different perspective, I've seen many resumes with zero mistakes, great amount of buzzwords, and a very clean look and feel. I then interviewed those people and found that they were completely full of shit. Professional resume companies - while they can be helpful - can also be extremely annoying because of the BS they load into a resume.

    12. Re:Use your own algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand you'll ignore people like me who were raised by an enthusiastic musician and are therefore willfully ignorant about music because it was the best "piss off dad" button during my teen years.

  53. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

    That "hiring by algorithm" is indeed a new way of looking at things, but it does take experience - excellent programmers all comes with their own particular quirks - and you need to provide them the room to stretch, the freedom that they need, in order to get them to do whatever they are good at

    I am inclined to agree with you.

    We typically hire people based on interest level and personality fit more than what their education was in. We do have a strong preference for people with advanced degrees who are looking to perform simple tasks for low wages...

    I currently have two employees with PhDs. They are both working in one of our retail stores, earning $9.00/hr, performing mostly menial labor, and enjoying the lack of stress and the occasional chance to discuss their areas of expertise with customers.

    My staff developer has a BA in something unrelated, and is entirely a self-taught programmer. He learned to do it because he wanted to accomplish a task and thought that a web-based application would be of use in doing so. He was offered the position based on this adaptability -his willingness to learn something new in order to accomplish a goal, and the obvious interest in programming that this showed. The lack of formal development training, project analysis, etc. shows, but is not a critical fault, the interest in accomplishing a task using code mostly makes up for it. I see basic mistakes that a trained developer would have been taught not to make and I have to take the time to explain why they are wrong, which is frustrating, but not overwhelming.

    I did not choose these hiring practices, but inherited them from the founding partners. I can see strengths and weaknesses in these practices -but it has opened me to more experimentation in staffing than I would have been wiling to do otherwise. The idea of "hiring by algorithm" or at least of inviting people for an interview based on the results of such an algorithm is intriguing.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  54. There is big gap from HS drop out to college of ot by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    There is big gap from HS drop out to 4-6-8+ years of college.

    There are lot's of tech / trades / boot camps / ECT.

    Also on the job learning.

  55. College not necassary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I got a job with the Southland Corporation (7-11 stores) as an experienced computer operator in the early 70's. They were a great company that moved people up into positions they expressed a desire to be in and moved me into the computer programming department after nine months with the company. I was first trained as a cobol programmer, but very shortly started programming in IBM assembler. Everyone was helpful in getting you started. Many people in the Southland Corporation were not college educated and many rose to very nice position within the company. The only problem I could see was that those who had not gone to college for some period were not as mature as those of us who had some college. In many fields, a degree is not necessary to have a full degree.

  56. Klout again... by jythie · · Score: 2

    Great.... so now Klout has moved from sales and marketing to engineering. From reading the piece, that sounds like all this really is, a test of how socially connected and active the programmer is. Introvert and professional who have non-programming hobbies need not apply. I imagine non-OSS and non-web people would also struggle with this since those are domains that tend to be well represented in visible projects, while people in the app and embedded fields tend to not be able to show off their code like that.

    So yeah... not impressed.

  57. That startup is, of course, bull*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because an algorithm cannot possibly learn who will succeed and who will fail unless it has thousands (or millions, or billions) of training data. In other words, unless you hire an awful lot of programmers, you have no hope of learning which features are good indicators of success.

  58. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Many many degreed individuals think they are done learning. They want to coast on their formal education. When you find someone motivated enough to qualify without a degree it means they don't know how to coast. That's a really good trait to look for. There are plenty of people with degrees who also have that trait but if you use the degree as the filter you're still going to have to wade through a ton of resumes. When you turn the filter off and get the one or two with no degree, they stand out.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  59. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whole life. Started off very poor; not rich but heart, hard work (and some providence) make a difference.
    The U.S. still has a way to go, but the U.S. caste is not based on race any more, but on economics.

  60. Re:Dumb idea by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Whole life in the US, then what have you seen of India? I know lots of people from India, and some there now. They were more strict at some companies in the US about "caste" than anywhere else I've heard of in the world. A manger at a movie theater I worked at threw away sporting tickets that were given to the theater (in exchange for movie tickets, lots of barter happens). He couldn't go that night, and none of the other managers wanted them, and he was banned by corporate policy from giving them to underlings, or going with any of the number of underlings interested in those tickets.

  61. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by foobsr · · Score: 1
    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  62. Easy answer to the question! by JasoninKS · · Score: 1

    The easiest (and probably most correct) answer to the posted question is "Duh!" Of course good, talented people are getting overlooked. The most basic reason, I feel, is that too often the hiring is being done by the wrong people. I've known HR people that barely understand their own job, let alone any other jobs within the company. They'll hire the person that interviews well, not the best person for the job. And some companies are hard-wired to the mindset that someone with a college degree is better than someone without, regardless of experience. "Sorry, we know you've got 15 years experience doing exactly what we need. And even though the ink on Billy's diploma is literally still wet, because you don't have a college degree we're going to hire Billy over you."

    Could algorithms help? Sure...if used correctly. But they could easily be flawed too. Two developers could come up with two different solutions to the same issue, both being equally correct. But the algorithm may score one higher than the other simply due to how the algorithm is set up.

  63. Talented Introverts are Tough To Spot by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as HR would like to see "out there" people with tons of blog posts and lots of check-ins on open source repository sites the fact remains that many great programers labor on in obscurity because they're too modest to promote work that while useful isn't exactly brilliant. Just because somebody checks in a lot of code and writes me-too blog posts doesn't mean that they're a great programmer. You want to know what really attracts good developers, especially experienced ones with grown up responsibilities and families to feed? How about making them some basic promises when you hire them, like a 2 year deal with a guaranteed severance package and some time at work to either work on personal growth projects or work on new skills that will be useful in future projects? The problem with these Silicon Valley types is that they want bright young hotshots fresh out of school and not experienced enough to recognize the fact that they're being used up and thrown out by people who don't really care about their careers or their futures. The other thing about bright young hotshot coders is that you can't tell them anything. They think that they know everything and that everyone who came before them was a dumbass and then proceed to make every mistake in the well worn programming book of things not to do. If you want to relearn the programming mistakes of the past, hire that hotshot fresh out of school. If you want it done right, look for the experienced programmer described above and pay him what he's worth. It's just better that way for everyone in the end, even the blue flame special straight out of school.

    1. Re:Talented Introverts are Tough To Spot by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      This!

      I've been involved in the Tech Startup world for a bit now (though in London, not SV) and it's amazing the amount of bullshit being spewed around to try and catch the innocent and naive.

      Even just the reference to "Big Data" (which is just a rebranding of a past concept) sets alarm bells ringing in my head. Anybody looking for a "rockstar" anything is just branding themselves as either idiots or devious types.

      FYI, I'm programmer in my forties that started his own company after 15 years working in 3 countries as a permanent employee and freelancer. I still vividly remember being in the middle of the Y2K boom and bust.

      That said, looking around at other people working in Tech Startups I can understand why somebody would be trying to sell some kind of algorithmic programmer evaluation kit to them: most Tech Startups are not started by techies, they're started by non-techies who then have tons of trouble finding a CTO-type techie to help them (an all around hacker-type willing to work and manage the technical side of a startup is actually very hard to find), so they end up having to evaluate and hire the developers themselves and they simply have no clue how spot the good ones from the bad ones or even what a developer is capable of (or not) at a certain level of experience.

      This is in fact a pretty generic problem: people have tons of prejudices and preconceptions about how work is done outside of their area of expertise and lack the needed real-life knowledge about it to be able to judge the practicioners of other areas of work properly.

    2. Re:Talented Introverts are Tough To Spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, talent introverts are BUSY WORKING - they don't have time to start a github project using this week's new programming language and blog about it all day. The people you want already have jobs, and they're working for a living. They're not college students blogging all the time and posting to social media. The problem is, when someone like this needs a job, it's hard for them to function in this social-media driven world.

  64. Re:Dumb idea by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Paris Hilton is a walking title to a shitpile of cash. She doesn't make the financial decisions, but rather the people around her. She could be completely comatose and a single fart could be interpreted as a directive to take action by said people around her. Fortunately such privileged people are rare in America, but they do make the biggest noise. That's because we all want to be just like her. Living the life with no limits and without fear of failure.

    "Money doesn't buy happiness" is a bullshit saying. Money does buy security which makes you happy!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  65. Re:Dumb idea by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

    The poor are sold the lie that anyone can strike it rich but the U.S. actually has the worst chance for an individual to change their socioeconomic status of all first-world nations.

    It's tempting to consider this as a fraud of economic deregulation theory, however the second worst country is the much more 'socialist' UK.

  66. Next step? Keeping work and social life separate? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what you mean, why you think there needs to be "next step". It seems to work fine as-is. I suppose if you had to take it another step, though, you wouldn't go out with anyone from work.

    My boss and I work very well together. There's no need for us to hang out at happy hour after work. That isn't necesary in order to work together. Because she happens to be a smart, attractive woman, hanging out after work could possibly result in problems. She and I both understand that, so we don't put ourselves in a situation that could have bad results. That doesn't affect work.

    Hmm, I'm PRETTY sure she doesn't read Slashdot and won't see this post. :) By "attractive" I of course mean hardworking, smart, and skilled.

  67. Re:Dumb idea by russotto · · Score: 1

    How many times has Donald Trump gone bankrupt?

    Best I can tell, his bankruptcies are a strategy. He has companies which own a lot of real estate. He has companies which need real estate, like casinos. He has the second set of companies lease the real estate from the first. They go bankrupt, wipe out their debts (but they still have to pay their leases; they're dischargable but at the price of eviction), and continue on debt free. What I can't figure out is why anyone else would continue to lend to the non-RE companies.

  68. Re:Dumb idea by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    And it's his "class" that pushed to band poor people from wiping out student loans and other such things. Bankruptcies only help the rich.

  69. 25 years in the biz... by db10 · · Score: 0

    ..and the biggest problem in enterprise style development is the rut, and the fear of new technologies and ideas. So asking about why manholes are round, or how to build a pyramid, or other such nonsense, it's fun for the interviewer but it's not going to get you the guy that has a sound fundamental knowledge and a drive to keep up with the latest technologies and best practices, and most importantly an ego-free sense of pride in their work.

  70. BIG by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    Something that is not considered is that the world is big and so is our body of knowledge, as well as the body of knowledge which exists out there that we haven't found. I studied math and even at the onset, I realized that each branch was incredibly large. I worked on certain architectures, and had an interview for another position a couple of years later where the emphasis was on a close field. Great, even though I knew a lot about my field, how it was used by others wasn't something I knew much about. There was a large gap in my knowledge. I believe that that happens everywhere.
    For every situation, you are going to find people who excel in your criteria and others who just don't. There are brilliant kids and housewives out there and there are Ph. D's whose field of knowledge isn't what you think it should be. Maybe the housewife took a path that intersected yours and maybe the Ph. D. managed to miss yours during his studies. A case in point was brought up during a view of the Harvard Enterance Math Exams from the 1920's. Today's Harvard math entering students just don't study the same stuff these days. Do you know how to calculate the cubic root of a number? Ironically, the way that a [post-calculus] HS student could solve the problem is via Newton's iteration, which is a lot faster than the old (2500 yo) fashioned algorithm.
    Sometimes, people have off days, and sometimes they just don't relate to you. Albert Einstein was incredibly talented, but did not speak until 4 and seemed to be not concentrating in his primary education. He failed his college entrance exams both for undergraduate and graduate studies, yet managed to publish world class research working as a patent clerk. I bet most patent clerks today would be fired for "not paying enough attention to their primary work these days."

    1. Re:BIG by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

      Worse, in this day and age, after he got fired from his patent clerk job, his wife would divorce him for neglecting his child and family. After being unemployed for 6 months and not being able to land a job even shoveling shit, a divorce court judge would sentence him to weekends in jail for falling behind on his child support payments and to help motivate him to be a better father. He wouldn't be able to get much work done inside prison, as he would be spending his time avoiding getting gang raped or fighting with the asshole inmates all weekend and be drained from the experience.
      Any one have experience to add to this insight, as I know a similar thing happened to someone I know.

    2. Re:BIG by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      More proof that the US justice system is fucked up. In the UK, if you get a court order for payment of child mainteance (or anything else) they look at your income and outgoings and decide what you can afford, then it's deducted from your wages. If you haven't got a job, you're not really in a position to pay anything are you?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  71. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a hiring manager for Radio Shack?

  72. Nevers works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The traditional markers people use for hiring can be wrong, profoundly wrong"

    NO WAY.

    People are hired by companies (presently).

    Companies have limited funds.

    Limited fund means limited positions.

    There are more geniuses than positions. Period.

  73. Re:Next step? Keeping work and social life separat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If she does, in fact, read Slashdot, then you may want to check for balls.

  74. Go away... OR! by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    go away or I will replace you with a simple shell script

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  75. Wish I could mod this up! by tlambert · · Score: 1

    But no mod points.

  76. Re:Dumb idea by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    It's about freedom and opportunity. The US is so far right that the "far left" parties would be center (or right of center) in most places. This massive conservative slant breaks all the politics. With so much government oppression, and public support behind it, there are no options for anyone to get ahead. The UK, for being "socialist" is right on the US's heels (as is Australia, though they are far enough behind that they aren't quite there yet). It's not about "deregulation" though the UK is highly regulated. Any place that's been out of land for hundreds of years is very very tight on consents and approvals for businesses and such. Socialism has nothing to do with the market and social barriers.

    The US controls too much. It even starts in school, if you are too smart, the bullies drag you down. We live in a meritocracy that punishes merit. Many parents are proud of their children, but many are jealous of them.

  77. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by dkf · · Score: 2

    The trick is that you want to get rid of the ones who want to coast, whether or not they've got degrees. A lazy ass is a lazy ass, whatever pieces of paper they've got. However, I'm not going to pretend that a lack of a degree automatically makes you better either. The advantage of a degree — apart from having a piece of paper that says you can actually work and think a bit, at least some of the time — is that you've probably got better contacts and have been exposed to more sophisticated ideas than someone without. For someone who is good and hard working in the first place, a degree is a good thing as it should expand the range of ideas in their mental toolbox.

    But after a year or two of work, that degree doesn't matter a whole lot. At that point, it should be possible to see if they're a stupid lazy ass on the basis of their work (or lack of it). You don't want stupid lazy asses, at least not for programming jobs.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  78. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Managing programmers sounds like managing musicians.

  79. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by tehcyder · · Score: 2

    Some programmers are artists in the same way that some engineers are. "Some" being a small handful in each generation. 99.9% of the rest are just doing a job in the same way that a joiner makes a table.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  80. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by xelah · · Score: 1

    Not only is no-one good at everything, and not only might a mix of skills be helpful in itself, but also IIRC teams with a mix of people who think differently perform better (there's some research on this sort of thing, but I don't really know or remember it very well, so do your own searches if you care about it). It might not be so great to have an algorithm - or a person, for that matter - which always picks similar people. I guess that's a downside of the friend-of-a-friend approach to hiring, too.

  81. Re:Dumb idea by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    It was precisely to get rid of the class system that the UK introduced "socialist" measures after WW2, such as equal access to good schools and universities for those who were intelligent but not rich, as well as attempting to redistribute wealth away from the landed aristocracy through high taxes, death duties, etc.

    Now, of course, the Tories and their friends are building all the old divisions back up again. The only difference is that at least in the past the aristocrats had some notion of public duty and charity towards those less well off then themselves. The new breed of billionaires doesn't care about anything except making more money.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  82. Not in all cases by mjwalshe · · Score: 2

    As a dyslexic my writing ability is disconnected from my reading ability I had a adult reading age several years above the average for the population at 10.

  83. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by jameshofo · · Score: 1

    That's not always a good thing and I'd seriously challenge the value of it. My experience with people who have the proper education many times has been, if it's outside their box of what they've been taught the it's not possible or worth their time. Education can be self limiting because it can make people believe that what they've been taught and learned is the most advanced and best way to do something. To a worm in horseradish the world is horseradish.

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
  84. Class isn't Caste by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    I have never had some one say they cant socilaise with the team because we where the wrong class I have had some one say that on caste grounds.

  85. Better idea by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Fire HR and let the actual developers and engineers sit with the person.

    1. Re:Better idea by kmoser · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the algorithm that decides which developer to fire and when. It should be very simple: IF ( developer.number_of_bugs / developer.number_of_lines_of_code_written > $FIRE_THRESHOLD ) { programer.fire(); }

    2. Re:Better idea by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1
      I would say apply that to the release code, not the developing code. I would prefer this:

      if( language.type == managed ){
      set.job = "fired";
      exit(0)
      }

  86. Do You Really Know Your Algorithm by BSalita · · Score: 1

    When I was interviewed for an elite job at an elite company, I was dumbfounded to discover that their "elite" engineers didn't understand fundamental flaws in their solutions. When their top programmer tried to optimize my solution, I told him he just added a syntax error, not an optimization. The conversation got out of hand and was finally settled by referencing the ISO standard. Apparently, this guy had been giving a thumbs up to people who couldn't spot syntax error. My advice, take time to know the algorithm and the language really, really well.

    1. Re:Do You Really Know Your Algorithm by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Was this on a white board? If so, why quibble over syntax?

    2. Re:Do You Really Know Your Algorithm by BSalita · · Score: 1

      He believed there was no issue in assigning an int to an unsigned in C. Not a quibble, right?

    3. Re:Do You Really Know Your Algorithm by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      If the code on the whiteboard was supposed to be syntactically correct C code then yeah, that'd be a problem. Almost every time I've had to spec out algorithms on a whiteboard, though, it was made clear that I was to work in terms of pseudo-code. What they were interested in was my understanding of the algorithm, not the minutiae of any specific language. That said, I've had other exercises in interviews that were specifically designed to test my knowledge of language specifics. Just not on a whiteboard.

    4. Re:Do You Really Know Your Algorithm by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Not a syntax error, either. Syntactically it's valid. Semantically it's dubious, but only if the range of values in that int is out of the range of values of the unsigned. Even then its well-defined for a particular platform (except for very weird platforms), but it could be a very bad idea if the expected range of values in the int goes negative. Unless you're extremely pedantic, everytime you put a small number into an unsigned you're relying on the int->unsigned conversion.

          unsigned int x = 37;

      That line doesn't look too bad, does it? And it compiles fine too. Only the extremely pedantic make it

          unsigned int x = 37u;

      but otherwise the constant 37 has type int, and you assigned an int to an unsigned.

      Getting into a signed/unsigned argument shows either that you are bad at explaining the issue, or they are pricks who don't listen. Either way a bad fit.

      --
      -DwS
    5. Re:Do You Really Know Your Algorithm by BSalita · · Score: 1

      Bad at explaining the issue? Are you sure you really know the issue yourself? Your explanation shows you do not.

  87. Piece of Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more technical the software the more important that piece of paper. I program in a very statistical/machine-learning oriented field and can guarantee that no one with less then an MS would have a chance here.

  88. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My entire family is only 3rd generation native born American citizens and the 4th generation were immigrants. My great grand-father was a farmer, my grand-father was a carpenter, father had an associate's degree and I have a 4-year college degree. Almost everyone related by blood are now "well-off" and nearly everyone of my cousins and siblings are top 1% of their classes. I'm on the poor side of my family and I make as much with my single income as the average family income around here.

  89. ummm by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    These seem to be narrowly focused. There are plenty of folks who don't own (or contribute to) projects on GitHub, Google Code, etc.

  90. "retraining english majors as programmers" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    This was the title of a story during the height of the dot.com era. When there appears to be a shortage of programmers all kind of strange things happen. Code Academy and data mining are among them.

  91. Sounds like a hiring fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So from TFA the company hired an opioninated punk who's failed at everything he's ever attempted and throws a fit if he doesn't have a say in the way things are done. The company themselves have already identified him as a potentional problem in the future as the company becomes more structured. To me it sounds like this kid has a personality disorder.

  92. Re:Not all programmers are suitable for all projec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. In my experience, the genius programmers tend to over-engineer the problem. It really makes a terrific team to also have a few of the practical minded, YAGNI types.

  93. Globalization is zero-sum by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Unlike in Capitalism, Globalization demands you to be an "Highly Skilled Wage Slave" to get a job

  94. From Michael Breon_Austin by Michael_Breon_Austin · · Score: 1

    Interesting concept, but hiring a quality employee comes down to hard work and education shouldn't be weighed as heavily as experience, in my opinion.

  95. Like many companies aren't alread doing that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the big companies are. You get your resume into their database, and some ignorant idiot (HR, but I repeat myself) searches on acronyms, with *zero* input from the hiring manager, or knowledge about what they need....

                  mark