I’ve always wondered if the solution to the hiring fiasco in IT is to have official licenses similar to the way engineers and lawyers have formal credentials.
Most companies do dumb shit like this because is hard to know if you are actually qualified or if you are blowing smoke. Everyone has had that one guy on the team who barely has a clue how to even set up his ide let alone code.
The problem with this would be the same as it is with all licenses and certs. The tests don’t match real world practice. The other option is adopting the trades approach and combine that with licensing. Apprentice, journeyman etc.
I remember failing an interview once because they wanted me to know all sorts of obscure c++ tricks. The kind of stuff that most people skipped over when they read about it because it has almost no use case. Had travelled 200 miles for that interview too.
No idea who they wanted… someone who had a photographic memory to memorise a textbook, maybe?
We tend to give practical tests when interviewing… ‘go away and write this thing’. We’re not testing whether they write it, or how they found the solution… google is there to be used… but the questions they ask about the (deliberately) interpertable spec and what the code looks like.
Yea, but more formal and less “sell you a boot camp study course” style.
I understand thst even the (law) bar has those courses but it’s also a pretty good filter. Law degree + passing the bar is a solid bare minimum. Then adopt a similar approach to trades where you are an apprentice for x years under a master/mentor before you become a journeyman.
The industry has sort of already adopted it but it’s not standardized and it’s not trustworthy. Calling yourself a senior software engineer means almost nothing. It’s the same as “vice president” in financial companies.
I’ve always wondered if the solution to the hiring fiasco in IT is to have official licenses similar to the way engineers and lawyers have formal credentials.
Most companies do dumb shit like this because is hard to know if you are actually qualified or if you are blowing smoke. Everyone has had that one guy on the team who barely has a clue how to even set up his ide let alone code.
The problem with this would be the same as it is with all licenses and certs. The tests don’t match real world practice. The other option is adopting the trades approach and combine that with licensing. Apprentice, journeyman etc.
Removed by mod
I remember failing an interview once because they wanted me to know all sorts of obscure c++ tricks. The kind of stuff that most people skipped over when they read about it because it has almost no use case. Had travelled 200 miles for that interview too.
No idea who they wanted… someone who had a photographic memory to memorise a textbook, maybe?
We tend to give practical tests when interviewing… ‘go away and write this thing’. We’re not testing whether they write it, or how they found the solution… google is there to be used… but the questions they ask about the (deliberately) interpertable spec and what the code looks like.
Removed by mod
Like certifications?
Yea, but more formal and less “sell you a boot camp study course” style.
I understand thst even the (law) bar has those courses but it’s also a pretty good filter. Law degree + passing the bar is a solid bare minimum. Then adopt a similar approach to trades where you are an apprentice for x years under a master/mentor before you become a journeyman.
The industry has sort of already adopted it but it’s not standardized and it’s not trustworthy. Calling yourself a senior software engineer means almost nothing. It’s the same as “vice president” in financial companies.
I think the trades approach is the way to go. It makes sense as far as training goes imo. And jesus christ anything needs to be done at this point.