He described the distinction he was trying to make rather poorly. There are software professionals with university science and engineering backgrounds. There are also a lot of software professionals who code software, and some who design software, who lack a thorough grounding in scientific thought process. That grounding can come from a high-caliber university, an average college or university, or by having a good high school science program, or by self study. However, It is possible - common, actually - to practice as a software professional with a brief degree or trade program, self study, etc., and do quite well in many areas of software with a very limited grounding in hard scientific thought or education. Slicing by MIT / ivy / 4-year / 2-year etc., does not get at the actual distinction, although perhaps there are trends. Software professional is someone who gets paid to produce software (and related work products, such as requirements, test plans, documentation, etc.). Some of those professionals write beautiful UI/UX and others simulate climate, nuclear reactions, etc. I took the essence of what he is saying is that there are a LOT of software professionals with poor scientific reasoning in physical sciences - and that those without a solid scientific education typically will have a harder time drawing good conclusions about hard science topics. Tying it to Ivy schools was a bit snobbish and missed the crucial point. In response to the other point of the discussion, Bill Nye is a very well known science educator - Bill Nye, Ira Flatow, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are probably the most well known living popular science educators. Sagan is probably more well known than all these, but is deceased. Hawking is well known, but his popular science education activities are more narrowly focused and not his primary job. Foremost, again, is a word that may imply accolades or quality within education circles, not directly relevant to popular education of adults not enrolled in school. Perhaps science and software people are struggling with language...? LOL
short answer: NO.
history shows that Christians were martyred by others when they were downtrodden. no, not much record at all of homicidal martyrdom... i'm sure there are exceptions i am overlooking - a clear citation is Samson, although technically Jewish, it is part of the Christian old testament. and, there were apparently some attempts to off Hitler... but, no, not as a historical trend; there is no evidence to suggests that Christians would behave this way, nothing like the current islamic suicide/homicide events.
Christians are much more likely to go to war when they are advantaged... or to war with each other over land or ideology (see Crusades; see European history; see Euro-American actions in middle east since Ottoman empire).
the original statement was that management likes the relatively inexpensive yes-men from india, specifically iit.
your statement confirms the original assertion.
how can management dislike bright, capable people, on the cheap, and they are inclined to be compliant to unpleasant work situations as well.
(to be fair, the people from lesser universities might even be more compliant on average, because they understand their pecking order and lesser range of opportunities)
no one cares why they are this way... i suspect it is a little bit culture, as well as survival instinct.
in my experience, they tend to be bright - usually among the best in technical smarts of the folks from india - but the vast numbers of H1-B programers from india generally really drive down the compensation and consideration given to employees by employers here.
market forces at work to be sure, but quite inconvenient.
nonetheless, the original statement is quite true, even if it is an uncomfortable truth and we both don't like it - for different reasons!
This things are usually a bit awkward, but their swift, protectionist response is quite common.
The point of giving 2 weeks notice is to give the employer some opportunity to make an effective transition to the new situation, a workplace without the resignee working there.
How they use this opportunity is entirely up to their discretion. Many companies choose to eliminate unsupervised access immediately, and pay salary for the two weeks as a professional courtesy.
In a right-to-work state - which many are - it is possible for the company to end paying the person immediately after showing them the door, unless there are other policies or contractual stipulations in place.
If the company needs to get information from you, they will ask. Typical practice, if system access is required, is to have the resignee work with the employee picking up the tasks; that employee would work on the system, sometimes with the resignee sitting beside them to explain things. At this point, though, the resignee has no system access, and the other employee has responsibility for the integrity of company systems and data at that point.
Of course, I have left places under both scenarios: all access removed, and with full access and expectations of my presence on the job up through the full two weeks. What you describe, where your presence is expected or allowed, but you have no system access, is no more or less awkward than the other possibilities - they are all a bit unpleasant. Remember, you have just disrupted a routine - usually not fun even when it is for the best for all parties - and caused the company an unplanned expense of adjustment, reassigning tasks, possibly recruiting a new hire, or maybe even reorganizing your area of the business.
The best thing you can do is to behave nicely, cheerfully, professionally. Accept the situation. Answer questions clearly and without resentment or reservation. If you can anticipate a list of items which require transition, write it up (even at home, if needed) and pass it on; management should ask for a list of things, but this does not always happen. Don't be upset or surprised if you and management do not have the same list of what is important to transfer.
Put on a positive spin, speak well of people, and encourage them. Be as helpful as possible. Go out of your way not to infect them with bad attitudes or wistful thoughts of moving on themselves. It is mostly execution style not technical details that matter at this point - provided the details are accurate, of course. A good exit often leads to future opportunities to consult, or to be hired somewhere else through a positive recommendation in the future. Remember, unless you or they have been one of the true nightmares, after some time each side will think of the other more fondly and forget many of the rough spots.
Slashdot Mirror
He described the distinction he was trying to make rather poorly. There are software professionals with university science and engineering backgrounds. There are also a lot of software professionals who code software, and some who design software, who lack a thorough grounding in scientific thought process. That grounding can come from a high-caliber university, an average college or university, or by having a good high school science program, or by self study. However, It is possible - common, actually - to practice as a software professional with a brief degree or trade program, self study, etc., and do quite well in many areas of software with a very limited grounding in hard scientific thought or education. Slicing by MIT / ivy / 4-year / 2-year etc., does not get at the actual distinction, although perhaps there are trends. Software professional is someone who gets paid to produce software (and related work products, such as requirements, test plans, documentation, etc.). Some of those professionals write beautiful UI/UX and others simulate climate, nuclear reactions, etc. I took the essence of what he is saying is that there are a LOT of software professionals with poor scientific reasoning in physical sciences - and that those without a solid scientific education typically will have a harder time drawing good conclusions about hard science topics. Tying it to Ivy schools was a bit snobbish and missed the crucial point. In response to the other point of the discussion, Bill Nye is a very well known science educator - Bill Nye, Ira Flatow, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are probably the most well known living popular science educators. Sagan is probably more well known than all these, but is deceased. Hawking is well known, but his popular science education activities are more narrowly focused and not his primary job. Foremost, again, is a word that may imply accolades or quality within education circles, not directly relevant to popular education of adults not enrolled in school. Perhaps science and software people are struggling with language...? LOL
short answer: NO. history shows that Christians were martyred by others when they were downtrodden. no, not much record at all of homicidal martyrdom... i'm sure there are exceptions i am overlooking - a clear citation is Samson, although technically Jewish, it is part of the Christian old testament. and, there were apparently some attempts to off Hitler... but, no, not as a historical trend; there is no evidence to suggests that Christians would behave this way, nothing like the current islamic suicide/homicide events. Christians are much more likely to go to war when they are advantaged... or to war with each other over land or ideology (see Crusades; see European history; see Euro-American actions in middle east since Ottoman empire).
the original statement was that management likes the relatively inexpensive yes-men from india, specifically iit. your statement confirms the original assertion. how can management dislike bright, capable people, on the cheap, and they are inclined to be compliant to unpleasant work situations as well. (to be fair, the people from lesser universities might even be more compliant on average, because they understand their pecking order and lesser range of opportunities) no one cares why they are this way... i suspect it is a little bit culture, as well as survival instinct. in my experience, they tend to be bright - usually among the best in technical smarts of the folks from india - but the vast numbers of H1-B programers from india generally really drive down the compensation and consideration given to employees by employers here. market forces at work to be sure, but quite inconvenient. nonetheless, the original statement is quite true, even if it is an uncomfortable truth and we both don't like it - for different reasons!
This things are usually a bit awkward, but their swift, protectionist response is quite common.
The point of giving 2 weeks notice is to give the employer some opportunity to make an effective transition to the new situation, a workplace without the resignee working there.
How they use this opportunity is entirely up to their discretion. Many companies choose to eliminate unsupervised access immediately, and pay salary for the two weeks as a professional courtesy. In a right-to-work state - which many are - it is possible for the company to end paying the person immediately after showing them the door, unless there are other policies or contractual stipulations in place.
If the company needs to get information from you, they will ask. Typical practice, if system access is required, is to have the resignee work with the employee picking up the tasks; that employee would work on the system, sometimes with the resignee sitting beside them to explain things. At this point, though, the resignee has no system access, and the other employee has responsibility for the integrity of company systems and data at that point.
Of course, I have left places under both scenarios: all access removed, and with full access and expectations of my presence on the job up through the full two weeks. What you describe, where your presence is expected or allowed, but you have no system access, is no more or less awkward than the other possibilities - they are all a bit unpleasant. Remember, you have just disrupted a routine - usually not fun even when it is for the best for all parties - and caused the company an unplanned expense of adjustment, reassigning tasks, possibly recruiting a new hire, or maybe even reorganizing your area of the business.
The best thing you can do is to behave nicely, cheerfully, professionally. Accept the situation. Answer questions clearly and without resentment or reservation. If you can anticipate a list of items which require transition, write it up (even at home, if needed) and pass it on; management should ask for a list of things, but this does not always happen. Don't be upset or surprised if you and management do not have the same list of what is important to transfer.
Put on a positive spin, speak well of people, and encourage them. Be as helpful as possible. Go out of your way not to infect them with bad attitudes or wistful thoughts of moving on themselves. It is mostly execution style not technical details that matter at this point - provided the details are accurate, of course. A good exit often leads to future opportunities to consult, or to be hired somewhere else through a positive recommendation in the future. Remember, unless you or they have been one of the true nightmares, after some time each side will think of the other more fondly and forget many of the rough spots.
Cheers! bobinspain