Here's the problem with this analysis. It assumes that there's no skills transfer and that human beings are static and can't learn new things when given the proper resources. For example, is there any good reason why someone who programmed in Java can't pick up C#? Or, why are many CS classes have pencil-and-paper assignments. For example, an algorithm/data structure class is highly conceptual since a Binary Tree is conceptually the same regardless of what I implement it in - If I understand the theory I should be able to pick up syntax rather quick. The ability to think through problems should be the emphasis.
Secondly, wage is not a red herring. Many of us are contacted by Managers/HR/3rd party recruiters/etc. for jobs that may offer you a joke of a salary increase (i.e. why would I move to $BIGCITY with a family for a $5k increase in salary for basically the same job).
Back 30 years ago when my parents graduated from College with math degrees, they had multiple job offers from big companies to do computer programming. They would get the necessary training to fill in any holes of knowledge they had.
Now, companies have given up on any sort of training programs like that.
Now companies want experience to get a job but you can't get a job without experience.
This is a valid point. Perhaps the numbers are a bit overstated. But, the point in the article is still valid to an extent. Companies complain that they can't fill their run of the mill jobs with graduates. Secondly, at a time when underemployment/unemployment is higher than usual, and wages are flat, one should not have a problem finding "qualified" canidates.
And don't forget, the Net Neutrality debate. It would be in the interest of Google, Netflix and other companies that innovate to have decent connectivity to their customers.
This is the case. Whoever installs fiber should be able to milk it for the next few decades, just as the the phone/cable/power have milked their infrastructure for the last 100 years or more.
It's that and then HR doesn't understand the terminology they are recruiting for to begin with. So you have monkey's in HR using poorly written software.
This is a pretty good idea. Some applications ask for a "desired salary" and if you put in the wrong number, you're rejected. One may be willing to take less than the desired, if it's a job they would enjoy doing or it's a stable company.
There is very little I can actually put in the app requirements that don't rely on self assessment of the applicant. I don't care for degrees. More than half of my crew never saw a college from the inside, and what's worse, they're the BETTER half of the people. They are, granted, also the older half of the people. So asking for a degree is certainly out of the question.
One way to look at it is you do not have to buy 10 servers, that will end up sitting idle most of the time, while they take up space in your data center sucking up power. You can get better utilization by combining some of them.
Look. I work in a major US tech company and am involved with hiring from a technical level, and I can tell you first hand that the quantity of quality people in North America IS lacking. Out of all of the employees you hire, maybe 1 of the 10 is the rockstar you need for your project... the rest are OK, sure, but when you are working under tight timelines and need creative solutions on a global stage, you don't need a bunch of churned-out code monkeys, you NEED those rock stars.
I would expect most people to be "OK" as most people are average. Rock starts, by looking at a bell curve, are rare....
If he's in the middle of a big project (which is probably the case if he is trying to hire talent at that point in time,) he needs the talent NOW, not a month from now.
The problem with this is that you want the talent today instead of planning/hiring/budgeting a month or two ago.
TL;DR: saying "I'm smart enough to figure it out" doesn't work.
So the alternative is to shit where you eat - and hire H1-B's and/or outsource everything because of your poor planning? And God forbid you're going to allow for ramp up time and training....
This is wrong on so many levels. The term "IT talent" alone doesn't really mean much. A database admin isn't necessarily a network admin. A network admin isn't necessarily a web admin. A web admin isn't necessarily a programmer. A programmer doesn't necessarily know all there is to know about operating and maintaining large scale SAN's.
This couldn't be further from the fact. Anyone worth hiring has enough of a background and knowledge to figure this stuff out eventually. You're basically forcing people into some niche and never letting them leave.
You can spend a few days learning to set something up, but when you're operating in a large scale environment and something goes wrong, if you don't understand it top to bottom, you're going to find yourself up shit creak without a paddle when nobody at the office can get their work done and you lose a whole day, or even longer, of productivity.
It's called being proactive and investing in your workforce. Maybe if you hired a jr. network admin, had them learn the ropes under a sr. network admin, when shit hits the fan, both of them can figure things out. Or hired an extra body, or provide ongoing training. Lastly, how about paying your employees for their good work. If they keep things from breaking and fast, pay them as such.
But, we ran deficits when times where good. It's just that those day's look better because they were a tenth of what they were today.
Many people, understandably so, had concerns about government spending and how much the USA owes well before the 2008 crash. Maybe if the government had owed nothing and operated in the black every year, the crash wouldn't have been as bad and we wouldn't have this bickering today.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that internships are a good thing (tm), they may be one of the first things to get cut.
I get what you are saying. But the problem is many companies do not want to pay what it takes to keep "Great Engineers (tm)."
I would agree, but the problem is that they make those of us who actually know what we are doing look bad.
Here's the problem with this analysis. It assumes that there's no skills transfer and that human beings are static and can't learn new things when given the proper resources. For example, is there any good reason why someone who programmed in Java can't pick up C#? Or, why are many CS classes have pencil-and-paper assignments. For example, an algorithm/data structure class is highly conceptual since a Binary Tree is conceptually the same regardless of what I implement it in - If I understand the theory I should be able to pick up syntax rather quick. The ability to think through problems should be the emphasis.
Secondly, wage is not a red herring. Many of us are contacted by Managers/HR/3rd party recruiters/etc. for jobs that may offer you a joke of a salary increase (i.e. why would I move to $BIGCITY with a family for a $5k increase in salary for basically the same job).
You couldn't be more incorrect.
Back 30 years ago when my parents graduated from College with math degrees, they had multiple job offers from big companies to do computer programming. They would get the necessary training to fill in any holes of knowledge they had.
Now, companies have given up on any sort of training programs like that.
Now companies want experience to get a job but you can't get a job without experience.
This couldn't be more true. You're job you have is most likely average, by definition.
This is a valid point. Perhaps the numbers are a bit overstated. But, the point in the article is still valid to an extent. Companies complain that they can't fill their run of the mill jobs with graduates. Secondly, at a time when underemployment/unemployment is higher than usual, and wages are flat, one should not have a problem finding "qualified" canidates.
And don't forget, the Net Neutrality debate. It would be in the interest of Google, Netflix and other companies that innovate to have decent connectivity to their customers.
This is the case. Whoever installs fiber should be able to milk it for the next few decades, just as the the phone/cable/power have milked their infrastructure for the last 100 years or more.
It's that and then HR doesn't understand the terminology they are recruiting for to begin with. So you have monkey's in HR using poorly written software.
This is a pretty good idea. Some applications ask for a "desired salary" and if you put in the wrong number, you're rejected. One may be willing to take less than the desired, if it's a job they would enjoy doing or it's a stable company.
There is very little I can actually put in the app requirements that don't rely on self assessment of the applicant. I don't care for degrees. More than half of my crew never saw a college from the inside, and what's worse, they're the BETTER half of the people. They are, granted, also the older half of the people. So asking for a degree is certainly out of the question.
You do realize that some universities are starting to offer some courses in security?
http://www.csec.rit.edu/?q=node/29
Also, how about getting involved with something like this?
http://www.rit.edu/news/story.php?id=46016
Simply glossing over everyone who has a degree is a bit dangerous.
One of the problems is state mandates and the fact that you can't buy health insurance across state lines.
And it is up to SyFy to make content that people want, if they want people to subscribe.
One way to look at it is you do not have to buy 10 servers, that will end up sitting idle most of the time, while they take up space in your data center sucking up power. You can get better utilization by combining some of them.
Look. I work in a major US tech company and am involved with hiring from a technical level, and I can tell you first hand that the quantity of quality people in North America IS lacking. Out of all of the employees you hire, maybe 1 of the 10 is the rockstar you need for your project... the rest are OK, sure, but when you are working under tight timelines and need creative solutions on a global stage, you don't need a bunch of churned-out code monkeys, you NEED those rock stars.
I would expect most people to be "OK" as most people are average. Rock starts, by looking at a bell curve, are rare....
Better stated: you need to know the context in which the metrics are stated.
So, how do you expect people to get [paid] enterprise level experience when no one hires and trains them?
If he's in the middle of a big project (which is probably the case if he is trying to hire talent at that point in time,) he needs the talent NOW, not a month from now.
The problem with this is that you want the talent today instead of planning/hiring/budgeting a month or two ago.
TL;DR: saying "I'm smart enough to figure it out" doesn't work.
So the alternative is to shit where you eat - and hire H1-B's and/or outsource everything because of your poor planning? And God forbid you're going to allow for ramp up time and training....
This is wrong on so many levels. The term "IT talent" alone doesn't really mean much. A database admin isn't necessarily a network admin. A network admin isn't necessarily a web admin. A web admin isn't necessarily a programmer. A programmer doesn't necessarily know all there is to know about operating and maintaining large scale SAN's.
This couldn't be further from the fact. Anyone worth hiring has enough of a background and knowledge to figure this stuff out eventually. You're basically forcing people into some niche and never letting them leave.
You can spend a few days learning to set something up, but when you're operating in a large scale environment and something goes wrong, if you don't understand it top to bottom, you're going to find yourself up shit creak without a paddle when nobody at the office can get their work done and you lose a whole day, or even longer, of productivity.
It's called being proactive and investing in your workforce. Maybe if you hired a jr. network admin, had them learn the ropes under a sr. network admin, when shit hits the fan, both of them can figure things out. Or hired an extra body, or provide ongoing training. Lastly, how about paying your employees for their good work. If they keep things from breaking and fast, pay them as such.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
But, we ran deficits when times where good. It's just that those day's look better because they were a tenth of what they were today.
Many people, understandably so, had concerns about government spending and how much the USA owes well before the 2008 crash. Maybe if the government had owed nothing and operated in the black every year, the crash wouldn't have been as bad and we wouldn't have this bickering today.
And it allows corporations to bypass any investment in talent locally. We can bring in H1B's (or outsource) at a fraction of the cost.
I've been getting flamed for bringing up this point repeatedly.
You sir, are correct. Many ISP's block ports as well. You're probably going to get better/more reliable bandwidth at a data center anyways.