That's a relative argument. A team leader's job MIGHT be as exciting, for certain people. However, many of the people who went so far as to obtain very strong technical skills, decided that the issues for a team lead are boring.
I am currently filling in a team lead role. Personally, I think it sucks. It is not always the case that a team lead decides programming languages or other technologies. More often than not, that decision was made long ago. And in a company that has a strong focus on changing technology, they will have an R&D group that keeps an eye out for the latest and greatest. Most team leads and managers lose their deeper technical skills, and think very high-level (as is needed). And that makes them a HORRIBLE choice to be deciding technologies to use for a project. They will base their decision on "marketted" factors, and not actual testing. They will go with the buzz-word decision.
In my experience, and from friends in similar situations, the engineers of a company will make recomendations to management, and are often ignored. Or management suggests a new product against the comments provided from below. This is not just one or two cases. I have seen this almost everywhere I've been, and in other companies that I have friends at.
Most management is about control and power. "Who can I get to do X" is often the thought process, without much thought about the real reasons WHY they should do it. Management often gets too lazy, and sees the lower level technical decisions as irrelevant. Granted, in their screwed up number crunching methods, the numbers work out, for the overall picture... but what they don't realize is that the criteria used for measurement is GROSSLY incomplete, and doesn't take into account many supposed "insignificant" factors. But those factors ARE important to the people 1-2 levels below them. This would be analogous to making project decisions that force a specific lower level implementation. And because they are so high up, and are "protected" from the lower levels, they are not aware, or don't care that they made a decision that makes some tasks/jobs "unacceptably" complex.
I am all in favor of having solid management. But in my opinion, it shouldn't be expected that a solid engineer/tech person will move "up" into management. Rather, I think managers should be forced to LEARN how to manage their group. There are MANY books on how to manage an engineering staff. Things usually go wrong when people don't pay attention to knowledge that has been known for decades, and try to figure it out on their own.
This is not really a flame, but rather a counter argument. I don't think management is "all that". And quite frankly, I'd rather go a technical route that involves decisions such as future technologies, areas to explore, etc... WITHOUT having to manage. What I find rediculous is that those tasks are considered the role of management, when it should be part of the alternate career path for a technical person, who has no desire to manage. Anyone know of many companies that do this? I know that Qualcomm has some cool technical career paths.
You're right. It doesn't guarantee any of that. However, there is NO guarantee. What you CAN guarantee is the statistics, and base decisions on what has a higher probability of what you want.
No, someone with a degree does not necessarily know crap. But they are "more likely", based on pure averages, to have the better education.
I totally agree with you, though. It's just a matter of how to make choices on a large scale, with too many unknown factors. It has to be done somehow, and statistics works.
I agree that skipping school can cause problems of a larger scope. The question of humanity is a big one. Engineering as a profession is supposed to take long term interests into account, to provide a better service to the public (see "Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice" as adopted by IEEE and ACM).
As we see more people rushing into the industry for the money, we're also seeing a large decrease in quality. There are many systems that are starting to make the y2k bug look like a minor fix. The complexity of problems being built into systems may not even be apparent yet. And not following methodologies, taught at most high level educational institutes, can cause longer term problems.
As much as many engineers (including myself) despise the "direction" that business pushes technology into, there are some things that can be learned from the economists of the world. Looking forward. If we don't look forward, we may end up putting ourselves in a painful position in 10 years. And of course, at that time... the people who jumped into the industry due to financial incentive alone, have skipped the proper education, and have produced technology that will cause failure in the long-term... they will be very likely out of it all. The mess will be left to the people who actually care about the profession, and not just their own pocketbook for the short term.
When the industry is not as lucritive, those who were there just for the money will leave. Those who want to remain in the industry will have to compete more than they do today (as if getting a job were difficult today... heh). The people who decided to skip the high level education, and actually want to remain in the industry, may find it to be more difficult, and therefore, their choice to just jump in may not have been the best long-term choice.
So, as much as I think that there are a lot of VERY intellegent people who didn't get their degree, who I am proud to work with... there are far more people who are winging it, and don't care about the damage they cause... as long as they can get their new $50K car.
There's a great book called "After the Gold Rush", that I read that actually addresses many of these concerns. I don't remember the author at this time.
That's just my 2 cents as a Computer Engineer, BS ECE, UCSD.
I've worked with billing and financial systems quite a bit. I even had to redesign how our company functions in this respect. I can totally understand the safety issue with credit cards. I've seen too many companies that are not as secure as they should be with credit card numbers. And the more complex a system gets, the harder it is to ensure safety.
Something like this would help ensure safety. The only problem would be that this sort of thing can't apply towards accounts that people have that need to charge the individual's card on a recurring basis.
At least it is a possible solution to securing one-time purchases more.
Although I agree with your skepticism about computers in the classroom, I disagree on a few points.
I agree that education isn't about efficiently transferring information. Learning the progression that leads up to that efficiency is what is most important, so that children can learn how and why such things are possible. Simply using it, doesn't educate people on the critical thinking.
I disagree about the kids knowing more about computers than teachers. My HS computer science teacher actually had his PhD in Comp Sci. Many of the teachers I've known at other schools also tend to know their stuff. At level lower than HS, this may be the case... but also, students probably won't know THAT much yet either.
The "easy-to-use" computers are probably not a great education tool. I have to agree with you on this. I had the fortune of not being exposed to such "simple" interfaces until after I learned to program.
Amen! Although children may be more accepting of visual images as reenforcement, it doesn't mean they are learning the right things. I don't have enough background on child psychology to suggest an alternative... but perhaps, if they aren't accepting of learning "the hard way", they are not ready to be learning about computers. This idea is similar to what I've encountered in the work-place. There are too many people who don't have the knowledge and experience in the area they are making decisions on.
A multi-user system could be a good or bad thing. I know that I learned more by exploiting security holes in multi-user systems than any "teaching" in my earlier computer-user stages. When my old HS was thinking about getting computers in the classroom, and in the library (REAL networked computers), I wanted to help contribute to it. But they decided to post-pone, and then had some district person set everything up. I wasn't impressed. It seemed to be a bad example of what a system should be. I hate to think about people who will learn from that example... and what kind of thinking it is going to bring into the industry... or hard-times for those people to learn what's "right".
You might not be anywhere that the legislation exists... but keep in mind that the vast majority of the services for the net ARE affected by these laws. YOU may not be directly affected, but you will surely feel the effect when any traffic you have to passes through the US, and suddenly DOES fall under the laws.
It kinda sucks, now, if you think about it. YOU may not be in the region affected, but your data almost CERTAINLY does pass through.
I believe it's whether or not the domain name came prior to the legal trademark's date, and not the date of the law compared to the date of the domain.
.com does not automatically make it a legal company. There is no legal translation for.com to commercial organization. Even the Internic (who was the main registrar) had no real enforcement except those imposed by the government (.edu and.gov).
I have to agree about that minimum salary when you just get out of school. The lowest offer I had was 42K in San Diego, CA. for a software programmer position. I went with a 48K in San Jose, CA. doing SAP/UNIX Sys Admin. After 1.5 years I chose to leave, with a salary of 54K (raises, promotion, etc) and with the experience I had in SAP, Oracle, and UNIX, I took a position with one of the big 4 (big 5 or 6 at the time) consulting companies, at 64K. Now I'm looking to move on for specific reasons, and expect to increase to 70K+. Hopefully the current prospects will have the environment and stability that I can stay for a few years. I'm tired of changing so often.
I've noticed the average salary for sys admins to be a bit higher than programmers (5K or so).
If you have mixed skills (bio, chemistry, etc) and a strong computer education, you can start at a LOT higher salary... especially in the Silicon Valley, where bio research and computers are so well-to-do.
As most people have said... the company will try to screw you (I know from experience). They can afford more than they want to give, and that's something to remember when you negotiate offers for new jobs. If a company you're with is screwing you, keep in mind that there are other companies out there who are nicer (but will still try to screw you!). And that knowledge alone could give you more power within your current position.
On a related note... I wanted to put together a page with people's stories of interviews, salary negotiations and problems, and just post it. I'd like to have information that others can learn from and that can help people in our industry. So if you're so inclined, check out this page It doesn't have any ads on it... I'm gaining nothing... just thought it would be a nice thing to have had... and others may feel the same.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a relative argument. A team leader's job MIGHT be as exciting, for certain people. However, many of the people who went so far as to obtain very strong technical skills, decided that the issues for a team lead are boring.
I am currently filling in a team lead role. Personally, I think it sucks. It is not always the case that a team lead decides programming languages or other technologies. More often than not, that decision was made long ago. And in a company that has a strong focus on changing technology, they will have an R&D group that keeps an eye out for the latest and greatest. Most team leads and managers lose their deeper technical skills, and think very high-level (as is needed). And that makes them a HORRIBLE choice to be deciding technologies to use for a project. They will base their decision on "marketted" factors, and not actual testing. They will go with the buzz-word decision.
In my experience, and from friends in similar situations, the engineers of a company will make recomendations to management, and are often ignored. Or management suggests a new product against the comments provided from below. This is not just one or two cases. I have seen this almost everywhere I've been, and in other companies that I have friends at.
Most management is about control and power. "Who can I get to do X" is often the thought process, without much thought about the real reasons WHY they should do it. Management often gets too lazy, and sees the lower level technical decisions as irrelevant. Granted, in their screwed up number crunching methods, the numbers work out, for the overall picture... but what they don't realize is that the criteria used for measurement is GROSSLY incomplete, and doesn't take into account many supposed "insignificant" factors. But those factors ARE important to the people 1-2 levels below them. This would be analogous to making project decisions that force a specific lower level implementation. And because they are so high up, and are "protected" from the lower levels, they are not aware, or don't care that they made a decision that makes some tasks/jobs "unacceptably" complex.
I am all in favor of having solid management. But in my opinion, it shouldn't be expected that a solid engineer/tech person will move "up" into management. Rather, I think managers should be forced to LEARN how to manage their group. There are MANY books on how to manage an engineering staff. Things usually go wrong when people don't pay attention to knowledge that has been known for decades, and try to figure it out on their own.
This is not really a flame, but rather a counter argument. I don't think management is "all that". And quite frankly, I'd rather go a technical route that involves decisions such as future technologies, areas to explore, etc... WITHOUT having to manage. What I find rediculous is that those tasks are considered the role of management, when it should be part of the alternate career path for a technical person, who has no desire to manage. Anyone know of many companies that do this? I know that Qualcomm has some cool technical career paths.
Cheers,
-DM
You're right. It doesn't guarantee any of that. However, there is NO guarantee. What you CAN guarantee is the statistics, and base decisions on what has a higher probability of what you want.
No, someone with a degree does not necessarily know crap. But they are "more likely", based on pure averages, to have the better education.
I totally agree with you, though. It's just a matter of how to make choices on a large scale, with too many unknown factors. It has to be done somehow, and statistics works.
-DM
I agree that skipping school can cause problems of a larger scope. The question of humanity is a big one. Engineering as a profession is supposed to take long term interests into account, to provide a better service to the public (see "Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice" as adopted by IEEE and ACM).
As we see more people rushing into the industry for the money, we're also seeing a large decrease in quality. There are many systems that are starting to make the y2k bug look like a minor fix. The complexity of problems being built into systems may not even be apparent yet. And not following methodologies, taught at most high level educational institutes, can cause longer term problems.
As much as many engineers (including myself) despise the "direction" that business pushes technology into, there are some things that can be learned from the economists of the world. Looking forward. If we don't look forward, we may end up putting ourselves in a painful position in 10 years. And of course, at that time... the people who jumped into the industry due to financial incentive alone, have skipped the proper education, and have produced technology that will cause failure in the long-term... they will be very likely out of it all. The mess will be left to the people who actually care about the profession, and not just their own pocketbook for the short term.
When the industry is not as lucritive, those who were there just for the money will leave. Those who want to remain in the industry will have to compete more than they do today (as if getting a job were difficult today... heh). The people who decided to skip the high level education, and actually want to remain in the industry, may find it to be more difficult, and therefore, their choice to just jump in may not have been the best long-term choice.
So, as much as I think that there are a lot of VERY intellegent people who didn't get their degree, who I am proud to work with... there are far more people who are winging it, and don't care about the damage they cause... as long as they can get their new $50K car.
There's a great book called "After the Gold Rush", that I read that actually addresses many of these concerns. I don't remember the author at this time.
That's just my 2 cents as a Computer Engineer, BS ECE, UCSD.
-DM
I've worked with billing and financial systems quite a bit. I even had to redesign how our company functions in this respect. I can totally understand the safety issue with credit cards. I've seen too many companies that are not as secure as they should be with credit card numbers. And the more complex a system gets, the harder it is to ensure safety.
Something like this would help ensure safety. The only problem would be that this sort of thing can't apply towards accounts that people have that need to charge the individual's card on a recurring basis.
At least it is a possible solution to securing one-time purchases more.
-DM
Although I agree with your skepticism about computers in the classroom, I disagree on a few points.
I agree that education isn't about efficiently transferring information. Learning the progression that leads up to that efficiency is what is most important, so that children can learn how and why such things are possible. Simply using it, doesn't educate people on the critical thinking.
I disagree about the kids knowing more about computers than teachers. My HS computer science teacher actually had his PhD in Comp Sci. Many of the teachers I've known at other schools also tend to know their stuff. At level lower than HS, this may be the case... but also, students probably won't know THAT much yet either.
The "easy-to-use" computers are probably not a great education tool. I have to agree with you on this. I had the fortune of not being exposed to such "simple" interfaces until after I learned to program.
Amen! Although children may be more accepting of visual images as reenforcement, it doesn't mean they are learning the right things. I don't have enough background on child psychology to suggest an alternative... but perhaps, if they aren't accepting of learning "the hard way", they are not ready to be learning about computers. This idea is similar to what I've encountered in the work-place. There are too many people who don't have the knowledge and experience in the area they are making decisions on.
A multi-user system could be a good or bad thing. I know that I learned more by exploiting security holes in multi-user systems than any "teaching" in my earlier computer-user stages. When my old HS was thinking about getting computers in the classroom, and in the library (REAL networked computers), I wanted to help contribute to it. But they decided to post-pone, and then had some district person set everything up. I wasn't impressed. It seemed to be a bad example of what a system should be. I hate to think about people who will learn from that example... and what kind of thinking it is going to bring into the industry... or hard-times for those people to learn what's "right".
You might not be anywhere that the legislation exists... but keep in mind that the vast majority of the services for the net ARE affected by these laws. YOU may not be directly affected, but you will surely feel the effect when any traffic you have to passes through the US, and suddenly DOES fall under the laws.
It kinda sucks, now, if you think about it. YOU may not be in the region affected, but your data almost CERTAINLY does pass through.
-DM
I believe it's whether or not the domain name came prior to the legal trademark's date, and not the date of the law compared to the date of the domain.
-DM
.com does not automatically make it a legal company. There is no legal translation for .com to commercial organization. Even the Internic (who was the main registrar) had no real enforcement except those imposed by the government (.edu and .gov).
-DM
I have to agree about that minimum salary when you just get out of school. The lowest offer I had was 42K in San Diego, CA. for a software programmer position. I went with a 48K in San Jose, CA. doing SAP/UNIX Sys Admin. After 1.5 years I chose to leave, with a salary of 54K (raises, promotion, etc) and with the experience I had in SAP, Oracle, and UNIX, I took a position with one of the big 4 (big 5 or 6 at the time) consulting companies, at 64K. Now I'm looking to move on for specific reasons, and expect to increase to 70K+. Hopefully the current prospects will have the environment and stability that I can stay for a few years. I'm tired of changing so often.
I've noticed the average salary for sys admins to be a bit higher than programmers (5K or so).
If you have mixed skills (bio, chemistry, etc) and a strong computer education, you can start at a LOT higher salary... especially in the Silicon Valley, where bio research and computers are so well-to-do.
As most people have said... the company will try to screw you (I know from experience). They can afford more than they want to give, and that's something to remember when you negotiate offers for new jobs. If a company you're with is screwing you, keep in mind that there are other companies out there who are nicer (but will still try to screw you!). And that knowledge alone could give you more power within your current position.
On a related note... I wanted to put together a page with people's stories of interviews, salary negotiations and problems, and just post it. I'd like to have information that others can learn from and that can help people in our industry. So if you're so inclined, check out this page
It doesn't have any ads on it... I'm gaining nothing... just thought it would be a nice thing to have had... and others may feel the same.