"If people are wired for engineering logic and have programmed in some capacity in the past, they almost certainly can get up to speed in any other part of the field. Let them learn, or even better, help them learn."
I couldn't agree more with this and the article in general. So many people who have the capacity and potential to continue to be good engineers are overlooked because they don't know a specific framework or language or because they worked with unpopular tools in the past. It seems to be a trend to do absolutely zero training these days and expect the engineer to not only learn on his own, but to teach himself outside of the job. Some companies even expect extensive open source work from candidates while at the same time requiring incredibly long hours. The idea that candidates might be doing other, non-programming things outside of work, want time to do those, and might not be interested in pursuing their craft 24/7 is looked down upon. I can't think of a single profession that's so demanding.
The irony is that most jobs in the field are incredibly easy for someone who is even moderately skilled and hardly ever use the skills being tested for. When these things are eventually needed, all that one needs to do is a bit of research to come up with a good solution, but somehow this is looked down upon. Most programming jobs and professions that do not require knowing how to build algorithms, jobs in which if you're writing search algorithms or any other kind you're simply doing it wrong and wasting time. Why would we expect all programmers to know how to write certain algorithms or solve certain unfamiliar problems off the top of their head when that isn't what they've focused on in years, if ever? You wouldn't expect a cardiologist to be an expert in neurology, yet many software companies are really only seeking the equivalent of neurology experts when they actually need a variety of expertise. Sure, a general background is good, and most good developers will have a broad understanding of many topics, but expecting a deep understanding of every topic is simply ridiculous. The companies with such expectations end up hiring the same type of expert while ignoring a ton of talent.
Let's not forget that in the end, this is a job. Despite all the rhetoric about loving the work and other such nonsense, 99% of programming positions are just another job that no one would do if they didn't pay well. It's not in the workers' best interests to be emotionally invested in their work as this only benefits the employer to the detriment of the employee. Thus, most things will still be learned on the job, either with the support of or more commonly, in spite of the employer. People work the job because they want to provide for themselves and their family. If the job is enjoyable, it's mutually beneficial, but that's not something that can generally be expected. Yet many employers expect employees to both love their job and love the profession enough to put in a ton of additional time outside of work learning and coding for free because they are too cheap to provide proper training and their working conditions are generally to abysmal for them to retain workers long-term.
The solution here is to hire people with a good general background and invest in their education on the job. To do so, employers need to find people who can actually see the potential in others and who know how to interview, not people whose idea of a good interview is asking whiteboard questions and insisting the candidates talk them through the problem instead of letting them think it through and actually solve it. This requires employers to actually respect employees once they are hired so they can be retained long-term and their training is worth the investment. This would be an even bigger change than changing the interview process. Employers would have to stop asking employees to work for free (salaried overtime). They would have to stop being childish themselves and literally yell at or threaten employees. Employers would have to afford their employees basic human respect, something that is severely lacking in technology companies, especially in Silicon Valley. Those changes would indeed be radical, and employers who implement them quickly find out what the rest of us have known for years: there is no shortage of talent or good engineers.
I couldn't agree more with this and the article in general. So many people who have the capacity and potential to continue to be good engineers are overlooked because they don't know a specific framework or language or because they worked with unpopular tools in the past. It seems to be a trend to do absolutely zero training these days and expect the engineer to not only learn on his own, but to teach himself outside of the job. Some companies even expect extensive open source work from candidates while at the same time requiring incredibly long hours. The idea that candidates might be doing other, non-programming things outside of work, want time to do those, and might not be interested in pursuing their craft 24/7 is looked down upon. I can't think of a single profession that's so demanding.
The irony is that most jobs in the field are incredibly easy for someone who is even moderately skilled and hardly ever use the skills being tested for. When these things are eventually needed, all that one needs to do is a bit of research to come up with a good solution, but somehow this is looked down upon. Most programming jobs and professions that do not require knowing how to build algorithms, jobs in which if you're writing search algorithms or any other kind you're simply doing it wrong and wasting time. Why would we expect all programmers to know how to write certain algorithms or solve certain unfamiliar problems off the top of their head when that isn't what they've focused on in years, if ever? You wouldn't expect a cardiologist to be an expert in neurology, yet many software companies are really only seeking the equivalent of neurology experts when they actually need a variety of expertise. Sure, a general background is good, and most good developers will have a broad understanding of many topics, but expecting a deep understanding of every topic is simply ridiculous. The companies with such expectations end up hiring the same type of expert while ignoring a ton of talent.
Let's not forget that in the end, this is a job. Despite all the rhetoric about loving the work and other such nonsense, 99% of programming positions are just another job that no one would do if they didn't pay well. It's not in the workers' best interests to be emotionally invested in their work as this only benefits the employer to the detriment of the employee. Thus, most things will still be learned on the job, either with the support of or more commonly, in spite of the employer. People work the job because they want to provide for themselves and their family. If the job is enjoyable, it's mutually beneficial, but that's not something that can generally be expected. Yet many employers expect employees to both love their job and love the profession enough to put in a ton of additional time outside of work learning and coding for free because they are too cheap to provide proper training and their working conditions are generally to abysmal for them to retain workers long-term.
The solution here is to hire people with a good general background and invest in their education on the job. To do so, employers need to find people who can actually see the potential in others and who know how to interview, not people whose idea of a good interview is asking whiteboard questions and insisting the candidates talk them through the problem instead of letting them think it through and actually solve it. This requires employers to actually respect employees once they are hired so they can be retained long-term and their training is worth the investment. This would be an even bigger change than changing the interview process. Employers would have to stop asking employees to work for free (salaried overtime). They would have to stop being childish themselves and literally yell at or threaten employees. Employers would have to afford their employees basic human respect, something that is severely lacking in technology companies, especially in Silicon Valley. Those changes would indeed be radical, and employers who implement them quickly find out what the rest of us have known for years: there is no shortage of talent or good engineers.