I think another problem you are going to have though is, unless you give them a fairly trivial solution to solve, they are probably going to need to think about (and or research) the problem for a while. Not only think about it, but take some time to actually complete the problem. You couldn't give a test like "write me a molecular dynamics simulator in the next 15 minutes". You could test their ability to know syntax and functions off the top of their head, maybe their general coding style, or watch them do some simple refactoring after they finish a quick once-over, or maybe you could GIVE them code that needs to be reorganized and watch them reorganize it (which I think is a better test of usable development skill than the quick once-over). I would try to find ways to test things like the latter, and not things like the former so much. I think some of your good coders are going to be put off by the idea of someone trying to measure how quickly they code, or if they know syntax off the top of their head. I tend to know a lot of the syntax but I suspect plenty of programmers need to reference a manual for obscure stuff and I wouldn't hold that against them as long as their design and problem solving ability is good. Measuring the last couple things is harder to do.
The problem you're going to run into is that developers in high demand are well, in high demand. Their time is valuable. Every hoop you make them jump through is fewer jobs they can apply to (if they even bother to apply anymore, they aren't just thrown job opportunities like cans of free beer), so that makes your job less attractive. Unless you can hire 1000 people, why are a large number of people going to waste their time taking these tests? Perhaps you could do the test, but only after you've narrowed your applicant pool to a small number of people, and only if your job entices them enough to not apply to 4 or 5 other jobs in the time it takes to apply to yours.
I do like your solution though of actually watching them write the code though, because that does prevent them just copying and pasting other code and sending it to you.
Why is it that so many people feel the need to give people some kneejerk economics lesson. Nothing in the original post indicates the person doesn't understand basic economics. As others have mentioned, the book wouldn't be worth writing for $5 (and no I am not implying that what it's worth to him is what it's worth to the market).
Sure, writing the book was a sunk cost, but that doesn't make it completely unethical for others to be stealing the product of all the hours he put in writing that book. And the prospect of working several hundred or a thousand hours writing a technical book in a subject where you are a highly educated expert, to make the equivalent of McDonalds wages, is probably not going to encourage people to write books.
Sure, some people will write for pleasure, for recognition, or for other reasons, but money is a great motivator too. If you don't reward people for the value they provide, they won't provide it anymore. And no, I'm not saying the price = the value or any other simple economics mistake, and I'm not going to give you any more disclaimers -- if I didn't specifically make an argument for an economic position, don't assume I'm taking a mistaken position. Inquire before you assume.
I think each of these job titles should be broken down into levels of knowledge as well. For example a Front End Web Developer (I) might know only HTML and CSS, (II) might know how to integrate JavaScript, (III) might just be better at those and also have some design skills that would overlap with a Web Designer (I). Another way to look at it might be... Markup Editor, for the HTML guy? But is just knowing some HTML even worth anything without CSS and so on? Markup and Stylesheet Editor?
You'd be surprised how much time it takes to find and format this data. It's not generally all available in an easy to digest form all on one page, complete with full book list and cover shots of the books.
However, the comparisons and so on are definitely in the works. It takes a while to develop that on such a complicated subject. Thanks for the input though.
I have to disagree. What books the faculty recommends does reflect upon them. I'll expand on this more later when I'm not trying to keep my site from crashing.
I think this is exactly the kind of tactic that is necessary to break Microsoft's monopoly on software on Windows. Get someone to install one of your products and then give them bonus installations of many other products. Get them using your stuff instead of Microsoft's stuff. Open source should do the same thing.
I'm sort of disturbed by the idea that just because you can make 10000 copies of something at no _cost_ to the original creator of the content, you should just be able to make as many copies as you want and never compensate them. Yes, it doesn't cost them anything, but what about compensating people for the work they do, or encouraging them to do more work in the future? There are lots of things I would like to write or produce that I think would be valuable, but rather than simply wondering how many people would like my product and what they would think it's worth, I have to wonder how many would just copy it and steal the product of my labor. Sure, open sourcers would still produce things, and there would be people willing to work for free for the fame or future job prospects or whatever, but not everybody wants to work for free! I like the idea of working hard and getting a higher income than the guy who doesn't, and having a nice house and a new car parked in front of it. I don't understand why people want to reduce the opportunity to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think another problem you are going to have though is, unless you give them a fairly trivial solution to solve, they are probably going to need to think about (and or research) the problem for a while. Not only think about it, but take some time to actually complete the problem. You couldn't give a test like "write me a molecular dynamics simulator in the next 15 minutes". You could test their ability to know syntax and functions off the top of their head, maybe their general coding style, or watch them do some simple refactoring after they finish a quick once-over, or maybe you could GIVE them code that needs to be reorganized and watch them reorganize it (which I think is a better test of usable development skill than the quick once-over). I would try to find ways to test things like the latter, and not things like the former so much. I think some of your good coders are going to be put off by the idea of someone trying to measure how quickly they code, or if they know syntax off the top of their head. I tend to know a lot of the syntax but I suspect plenty of programmers need to reference a manual for obscure stuff and I wouldn't hold that against them as long as their design and problem solving ability is good. Measuring the last couple things is harder to do.
The problem you're going to run into is that developers in high demand are well, in high demand. Their time is valuable. Every hoop you make them jump through is fewer jobs they can apply to (if they even bother to apply anymore, they aren't just thrown job opportunities like cans of free beer), so that makes your job less attractive. Unless you can hire 1000 people, why are a large number of people going to waste their time taking these tests? Perhaps you could do the test, but only after you've narrowed your applicant pool to a small number of people, and only if your job entices them enough to not apply to 4 or 5 other jobs in the time it takes to apply to yours. I do like your solution though of actually watching them write the code though, because that does prevent them just copying and pasting other code and sending it to you.
Why is it that so many people feel the need to give people some kneejerk economics lesson. Nothing in the original post indicates the person doesn't understand basic economics. As others have mentioned, the book wouldn't be worth writing for $5 (and no I am not implying that what it's worth to him is what it's worth to the market). Sure, writing the book was a sunk cost, but that doesn't make it completely unethical for others to be stealing the product of all the hours he put in writing that book. And the prospect of working several hundred or a thousand hours writing a technical book in a subject where you are a highly educated expert, to make the equivalent of McDonalds wages, is probably not going to encourage people to write books. Sure, some people will write for pleasure, for recognition, or for other reasons, but money is a great motivator too. If you don't reward people for the value they provide, they won't provide it anymore. And no, I'm not saying the price = the value or any other simple economics mistake, and I'm not going to give you any more disclaimers -- if I didn't specifically make an argument for an economic position, don't assume I'm taking a mistaken position. Inquire before you assume.
Bureau of Labor Statistics says 80% of people employed in computer science have a bachelors or better, FYI.
I think each of these job titles should be broken down into levels of knowledge as well. For example a Front End Web Developer (I) might know only HTML and CSS, (II) might know how to integrate JavaScript, (III) might just be better at those and also have some design skills that would overlap with a Web Designer (I). Another way to look at it might be... Markup Editor, for the HTML guy? But is just knowing some HTML even worth anything without CSS and so on? Markup and Stylesheet Editor?
You'd be surprised how much time it takes to find and format this data. It's not generally all available in an easy to digest form all on one page, complete with full book list and cover shots of the books. However, the comparisons and so on are definitely in the works. It takes a while to develop that on such a complicated subject. Thanks for the input though.
I have to disagree. What books the faculty recommends does reflect upon them. I'll expand on this more later when I'm not trying to keep my site from crashing.
I think this is exactly the kind of tactic that is necessary to break Microsoft's monopoly on software on Windows. Get someone to install one of your products and then give them bonus installations of many other products. Get them using your stuff instead of Microsoft's stuff. Open source should do the same thing.
I'm sort of disturbed by the idea that just because you can make 10000 copies of something at no _cost_ to the original creator of the content, you should just be able to make as many copies as you want and never compensate them. Yes, it doesn't cost them anything, but what about compensating people for the work they do, or encouraging them to do more work in the future? There are lots of things I would like to write or produce that I think would be valuable, but rather than simply wondering how many people would like my product and what they would think it's worth, I have to wonder how many would just copy it and steal the product of my labor. Sure, open sourcers would still produce things, and there would be people willing to work for free for the fame or future job prospects or whatever, but not everybody wants to work for free! I like the idea of working hard and getting a higher income than the guy who doesn't, and having a nice house and a new car parked in front of it. I don't understand why people want to reduce the opportunity to do that.