Successful IT Workers Applaud Non-Traditional Paths to Tech (zdnet.com) 149
Tech columnist Chris Matyszczyk describes what happened after Microsoft's senior cloud advocate tweeted "Hire folks with non-traditional paths to tech."
Thomas Zeman, whose Twitter bio declared he's "scaling pods at daytime, working on a docker based raspberry pi router at nighttime," mused in reply: "Depends a bit what tech you are talking about. When doing machine learning for cancer recognition on medical images I am sorry but dont believe baristas will crack it...."
Oddly, Zeman's comment received what might be termed a reaction....
In wandered David Brunelle... "Hi Thomas!" he said. "I'm a vp of engineering at Starbucks. I started my career as a Starbucks barista. I have no college degree. Most of my early-in-career training came from the Navy. All non-traditional. And I lead one of the biggest digital payments platforms in the world...."
Here's Twitterer Ew, Ryan: "I've worked as a delivery driver, tuxedo salesman, sandwich maker, gas station attendant, server, a few summers as a plumbing apprentice, and I could go on and on... but now I've worked at Google, Twitter and TikTok. Don't confuse past work histories with future capabilities."
Or this from someone with the adorable Twitter handle @SecuritySphynx: "Gatekeeping is a bad look. 4y ago I was stamping envelopes/answering phones for $12/hour. Now I'm engineering security solutions with some of the worlds largest orgs Almost no one started in tech and never did anything else before. Check your classism at the door, please...."
The article ultimately asks how many tech companies (and their HR departments) "persist in seeking those with a particular qualification and a particular past history? How many think there's a tech type?" But at least the Twitter thread provoked this clarifying correction from the pod-scaling, router-builder who'd started all the reactions.
"I totally believe anyone can learn and master anything (including Baristas of course) without any doubt. The point is that mastering things will take a lot of time..."
Oddly, Zeman's comment received what might be termed a reaction....
In wandered David Brunelle... "Hi Thomas!" he said. "I'm a vp of engineering at Starbucks. I started my career as a Starbucks barista. I have no college degree. Most of my early-in-career training came from the Navy. All non-traditional. And I lead one of the biggest digital payments platforms in the world...."
Here's Twitterer Ew, Ryan: "I've worked as a delivery driver, tuxedo salesman, sandwich maker, gas station attendant, server, a few summers as a plumbing apprentice, and I could go on and on... but now I've worked at Google, Twitter and TikTok. Don't confuse past work histories with future capabilities."
Or this from someone with the adorable Twitter handle @SecuritySphynx: "Gatekeeping is a bad look. 4y ago I was stamping envelopes/answering phones for $12/hour. Now I'm engineering security solutions with some of the worlds largest orgs Almost no one started in tech and never did anything else before. Check your classism at the door, please...."
The article ultimately asks how many tech companies (and their HR departments) "persist in seeking those with a particular qualification and a particular past history? How many think there's a tech type?" But at least the Twitter thread provoked this clarifying correction from the pod-scaling, router-builder who'd started all the reactions.
"I totally believe anyone can learn and master anything (including Baristas of course) without any doubt. The point is that mastering things will take a lot of time..."
Slightly inaccurate summary (Score:2)
Microsoft's senior cloud advocate tweeted "Hire folks with non-traditional paths to tech."
That's not *exactly* what she tweeted. She actually tweeted "Hire [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] folks [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] with [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] non [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] traditional [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] paths [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] to [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand] tech [A weird sign that /. doesn't understand].[A weird sign that /. doesn't understand]".
Re: Slightly inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK but then again in that same book Heinlein promoted sibling and parent/child incest
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever it might be time for, it's not time to build a religion around Heinlein.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof by literary reference, is almost as bad, as this guy on Facebook said it.
Humans have the ability to be very generalist, however over time, we seems to fall into loosely specialist roles.
I can Change a Diaper, but a Nanny, or a Daycare worker can probably do it much faster than me, as they do it many times a day.
I can plan an invasion, but a military general will probably be much more effective than I, as they can fall back onto what was done in the past and tactics that seemed to work better than othe
I mean, goes against economic theory (Score:2)
All modern economic theory is built on the observation that specialization makes everyone richer. And fuck "dying gallantly".
But yeah, planning an invasion takes years of study. Programming a computer does too.
It's also not even tech (Score:2)
He was talking about machine learning cancer diagnoses. Well, yeah. I'm proficient with lots of technology (including some AI based health tech). And I wouldn't trust me to work on cancer diagnostics without an expert in the medical field assisting me.
On the other hand, I could get a payments system going on my own (although, obviously, a team and experts would help).
People without the fundamentals... (Score:5, Insightful)
And from the responses, it's clear that people without the fundamentals don't even know what the complex stuff is.
The complex stuff is not digital payment systems or the majority of jobs at Google or tiktok or whatever else the low self-esteem brigade are claiming as their achievements.
There are plenty of jobs for copy-pasters, but to get the hard stuff done when no one else has done it yet, you need staff well trained in the fundamentals. Otherwise your coders won't know what they aren't doing.
Re:People without the fundamentals... (Score:5, Insightful)
People without the fundamentals can't do the complex stuff
I love the response [twitter.com] from the woman who said that "[she is] a former barista and [she is] currently a nuclear physicist for a NASA contractor". Yeah, she forgot to mention that she's *also* a bona fide physics graduate. Let's say that I used to deliver mail back in high school to get some money, does that make me a mailman? I'm sorry, but in what universe is getting a physics degree "a non-traditional way" to getting a physics job?
Re: (Score:3)
Chances are you actually got plenty of CS courses in University to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People without the fundamentals can't do the complex stuff
I love the response [twitter.com] from the woman who said that "[she is] a former barista and [she is] currently a nuclear physicist for a NASA contractor". Yeah, she forgot to mention that she's *also* a bona fide physics graduate. Let's say that I used to deliver mail back in high school to get some money, does that make me a mailman? I'm sorry, but in what universe is getting a physics degree "a non-traditional way" to getting a physics job?
I financed my Comp. Sci. masters degree by washing dishes at restaurants and working construction jobs. I don't consider dish washing and cleaning concrete moulds to have done much to improve my skills at Comp. Sci. Experience helps to make you a better professional but so does a broad and comprehensive education. The self taught can always point at a handful of university dropouts who went on to build a tech empire but these drop outs all built their empire by standing on the shoulders of people with unive
Re: (Score:2)
Its not; and these people are largely leaving out all the therebetween that are not only traditional but down right classical.
Leaving aside folks who might have been working as barista between other skilled work due to say pandemic induced layoffs.
There is nothing weird, unusual, wrong, undesirable, etc about a former barista becoming the head software architect some place. If said person is talented, perhaps has played with a raspberry-pi in the evenings and done some personal projects, I see no reason not
Re: (Score:3)
Since when is getting training in the Navy non-traditional? I've known some great engineers that got their training in the Navy.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best programming hires I ever made was from the Navy. They take engineering seriously, especially if that person was in reactor maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Google is worth over $1 trillion. So apparently there is a huge market for the output of copy-pasters who can't do the complex stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
So they get their pick at the brightest people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that Google's value is built on the current quality of their software. Just like Comcast has excellent customer service and the DMV is a great place to visit.
Or hell, like Facebook has the best newsfeed algorithms and Apple's iOS store has the best store UI imaginable.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like Comcast has excellent customer service
I know this is off topic, but I feel like mentioning that I've had to call Comcast for tech support twice in all the years I've had them (which goes back to when they bought the company that bought the company that I originally got cable TV from back in the days of dialup) and the support both times was excellent.
I'm not sure if it's because I got lucky or because I started off by reporting signal quality numbers from the web UI of my cable modem and summarizing the troubleshooting steps I had already perfo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People without the fundamentals can't do the complex stuff
But you don't need a traditional path to get the fundamentals.
Re: People without the fundamentals... (Score:2)
But you don't need a traditional path to get the fundamentals.
Getting the fundamentals is the traditional path.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting the fundamentals is the traditional path.
No it isn't. You can learn the fundamentals in a variety of ways. Most people will learn them at university and that's the best choice for many people, but there are other choices.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of jobs for copy-pasters, but to get the hard stuff done when no one else has done it yet, you need staff well trained in the fundamentals. Otherwise your coders won't know what they aren't doing.
Based on what we've seen out of SolarWinds, Google, Mozille, etc, it appears their coders don't know what they're doing so obviously aren't well trained.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree 100% that you must have mastered the fundamentals to do good work. But one can learn the fundamentals. There are several other things you'll also need which cannot be taught.
One quality that comes immediately to mind is boldness. You absolutely must be comfortable with the thought that a mistrake on your part could potentially muck up the lives of other people -- perhaps even an enormous number of them. Very, very few people are willing to take that kind of responsibility.
Not everything can be learned
Re: (Score:2)
I wish more people had learned about threads and concurrency and networking before trying to build micro services.
The real answer: it depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course there are people who come to tech from other backgrounds. One of my best ever IT students worked his first 10 years as a baker. Yes, it can happen. But you know what: as a baker, he was always interested in computers. He spent his free time playing around with tech, he taught himself to program for fun. He had the ability and the interest, and finally realized that he would be happier with a career change.
He was an exception. His story does not mean that your average baker will ever learn to code.
This is the pie-in-the-sky idiocy. No, every person cannot learn every skill. Look, I - as a very good IT person - am never going to be a musician. Sure, I can mash keys on a piano - I even took lessons - but no one wants to hear the result. People have their strengths and weaknesses, their interests and talents. It is not the case that anyone can learn and master anything.
The quote above is idiotic. It could only be uttered by someone who believes in participation trophies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of that, I think it has also been used as a tool for those in power to keep that power. "Everyone can become the nations leader, you just need to be voted in!". Any of the plebs can become a ruler. Not a
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are people who come to tech from other backgrounds. One of my best ever IT students worked his first 10 years as a baker. Yes, it can happen. But you know what: as a baker, he was always interested in computers. He spent his free time playing around with tech, he taught himself to program for fun. He had the ability and the interest, and finally realized that he would be happier with a career change.
He was an exception. His story does not mean that your average baker will ever learn to code.
They won't learn to code, or they won't be capble of it?
Because the former requires them to have interest, see it as a potential path, and have the time and money to learn themselves and/or pay for the education, and, yeah, have some sort of mental aptitude. So there are more requirements than having the special "programmer brain" that only us cool and smart folks on /. have. But our socieity is set up as school->choose university before you know how the world works-> work in that field until you die,
Re: (Score:2)
This is the pie-in-the-sky idiocy. No, every person cannot learn every skill. Look, I - as a very good IT person - am never going to be a musician. Sure, I can mash keys on a piano - I even took lessons - but no one wants to hear the result. People have their strengths and weaknesses, their interests and talents. It is not the case that anyone can learn and master anything.
The quote above is idiotic. It could only be uttered by someone who believes in participation trophies.
I'll point to the Disney movie Ratatouille for this, since the movie includes an almost identical quote. Don't think of it as everyone can become a coder, but that a coder can come from any background as long as they have the right amount of talent and desire to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the pie-in-the-sky idiocy. No, every person cannot learn every skill. Look, I - as a very good IT person - am never going to be a musician. Sure, I can mash keys on a piano - I even took lessons - but no one wants to hear the result. People have their strengths and weaknesses, their interests and talents. It is not the case that anyone can learn and master anything.
This is clearly true for people with learning disorders or brain damage - although some of those people have remarkable skills and talents.
It MAY be true with respect to learning languages. There is clearly something that goes on in children that doesn't seem to go on in adults that helps children learn language in ways that seem inaccessible to adults. But that might just be a case of "we haven't found it yet". In other words, our teaching techniques might be not be accessing the human adult brain in th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the pie-in-the-sky idiocy. No, every person cannot learn every skill. Look, I - as a very good IT person - am never going to be a musician. Sure, I can mash keys on a piano - I even took lessons - but no one wants to hear the result. People have their strengths and weaknesses, their interests and talents. It is not the case that anyone can learn and master anything.
The quote above is idiotic. It could only be uttered by someone who believes in participation trophies.
I belief it is uttered by a person that desperately wants to believe software can be made cheaply and programmers are essentially on the level of janitors. (With apologies to janitors, a good janitor is worth a lot. But you would not have that person write complicated code.) This is, of course, not true. Writing software starts on the level of a qualified technician for the very easy stuff and goes all the level up to where you need somebody with an engineering PhD in the respective area and a lot of experi
Apprenticeship (Score:5, Insightful)
Around 1880 or something like that, Master Builders wrote a manifesto AGAINST the proposal to turn architectural design into an academic subject tested by formal exams.
They argued that the work needed a mixture of aptitudes and abilities, including arts, business, psychology, practical understanding of materials, politics, and so on. Most of these could not be properly taught academically, but rather, needed people who already had a natural APTITUDE which they could then PRACTICE and DEVELOP in the REAL WORLD by working as apprentices.
Sadly, they lost the argument. Paper qualifications became the norm, and later, some quite famous architects noted that getting bad grades tended to correlate with being a better architect.
I think the original Master Builders were right, and that the academic-complex has eaten up too much territory--so this same problem keeps showing up in a variety of fields.
Here we see that gee, isn't it odd how people from weird backgrounds could do well, even though on paper they don't qualify? Yeah, that's exactly the point--the world of IT is similar to the world of architecture, in that you are building an environment and consequently you need many different aptitudes as well as abilities learnt in practice.
Academia, the whole notion of narrowly defined roles and abilities, especially as used by HR, is all bunk in this field. Yes there are certain very specific problems which require pure research. But as soon as you start building systems and integrating them with other systems, you are into the real world and multiple aptitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More mutual congratulation than the Oscars. Bleh. (Score:2)
STEM people rate each other by what they produce, not fluffy shit like the art and social science worlds, and we are better - and less discriminatory - for it.
Make something and we will rate you on it, not on where you learnt to do it, the colour of your skin, what's between your legs, or anything else.
And that's also why we don't want your pathetic tokens forced into in our world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
STEM people rate each other by what they produce, not fluffy shit like the art and social science worlds, and we are better
Sounds like someone who can't draw for shit is salty about it and jealous of artists.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like someone who can't draw for shit
But just imagine the horrible clock skew embedded systems would have if we let Salvador Dali design software.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you're not raking it in by doodling crap, so clearly something matters. And you're jealous you ain't got it.
Anyone, even you, who has visited a modern art gallery cannot fail to realise that being able to "draw for shit" no longer matters to artists.
Well, gosh darn I didn't realise that whichever subset of modern art galleries you happened to visit encompassed the entirety of all art being done right now. You are a clearly a much more important person than I was lead to believe.
Umm (Score:5, Informative)
This is like saying Bill Gates and Steve Job dropped out and became a billionaire, therefore it's a good strategy.
Nevermind that 95% of homeless people don't have college degrees ( https://sites.google.com/site/... [google.com] ) .. compared to 65% of the general adult population. Basically only a dropout's understanding of statistics would make them play such odds.
Get yourself a STEM degree, unless you objectively are a natural hard worker and hardcore auto-didact (like John Carmack) you won't regret it.
Not everyone can be Steve Jobs and find themselves a Steve Wozniak to do their STEM heavy lifting. Or in the case of Gates, purchase 86-DOS from a naive programmer. Basically if you want to invent things you need a real STEM education with mathematics, like what Elon Musk has. Gates and especially Steve Jobs were business people that found the right people who were good at inventing. I mean, Steve Jobs didn't invent pinch to zoom, bounce scrolling, slide to unlock etc. Those were guys like Bas Ording, greg christie, Imran chaudri, and others you don't hear about.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not get past the HR department at some places, but there are plenty of others that will give someone a chance, despite lacking the requisite buzzwords. At the place I work right now (a small software development company), I can think of:
- At least a half-dozen who dropped out of grad school at various stages and for various reasons
- The guy who became a lead architect, despite getting his Masters degree in Philosophy
- The guy who was a nuclear physics major and one of our most talented coders
- The g
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs was smarter than people think, and that was part of the problem. A situation most geeks can relate to.
https://www.biography.com/busi... [biography.com]
Gates was a similar story of smart people not fitting into the current system.
https://www.biography.com/busi... [biography.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just a side note on the Bill Gates thing:
Bill Gates got admitted to and attended Harvard. So if anyone plans to use that as an excuse, get into Harvard and attend classes first, lol...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Test if in doubt... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have occasionally seen people with amazing qualifications on paper who turn out to be useless, and people with no qualifications who are great. The solution at Canon Europe was to have a simple programming test, and to write and give a presentation. The test was simple - write (say) a simple sort algorithm, what is the prescience of these operators, how would you support different image formats? Off the wall answers were encouraged. I remember answering the precedence of operators question with (1) I know the page in K&R that has the table, (2) no-one should write code like that, and (3) the answer (which may or may not have been right but it hardly mattered).
If you know the basics, it gets the interview ball rolling. And if you have any large gaps, they will show. One person applying for a senior sysadmin post went to the toilet during the test and never returned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>the prescience of these operators
I always use prescient operators when available; it saves so much time by not needing to code the arguments . . . :)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
>the prescience of these operators
I always use prescient operators when available; it saves so much time by not needing to code the arguments . . . :)
hawk
Talk about code that practically writes itself!
Found 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Or this from someone with the adorable Twitter handle @SecuritySphynx: "Gatekeeping is a bad look. 4y ago I was stamping envelopes/answering phones for $12/hour. Now I'm engineering security solutions with some of the worlds largest orgs Almost no one started in tech and never did anything else before. Check your classism at the door, please...."
Hey, we found the Solarwinds employee who got breached.
Depends on how you define gatekeeping (Score:5, Interesting)
It is, but gatekeeping is like racism in that many people cynically throw it out there as a way of using defamation and ad hominem to cow people into silence on questioning them.
Case in point, many of us traditional route guys resent the bumper crop of "data scientists" at my company because they are barely more qualified than a random barista. Junior hires are often econ degree + a 4 week boot camp in Python. Raise your hand if you think that sort of person writes code that rises to even the level of the average intern from a four year university who is in their junior year of college.
The worst part is that their own education often doesn't even give them the sort of out of the box thinking and analytics mentality that is pitched as an alternative to the traditional path. Had a data scientist with an econ background blather on and on in a meeting and then suddenly go into a rant about Trump being a grade A moron for thinking tariffs would have any positive impact, so I calmly asked "please explain to us how Ricardian theory addresses the super cargo ship, movable factors of production and the wire transfer." Looked like a deer caught in the head lights of bubba's jacked up pickup truck.
(Spoiler alert: Ricardo basically admitted that free trade couldn't work under the conditions of 2020 because English bankers could just move all production to Portugal and gorge themselves on all of that tasty arbitrage)
Re: (Score:2)
Junior hires are often econ degree + a 4 week boot camp in Python.
Boss: “I’ve had it with these motherfu**ing snakes on this motherfu**ing project!”
I would be interested in how many (Score:2)
MBA's working in large companies didn't actually have an MBA.
How many doctors found a Non-Traditional path to their practice.
In other words, liberal arts (Score:2)
There's a reason tech companies hire people with liberal arts degrees. It's certainly non-traditional, but what they've found is people with such degrees are more flexible, adaptable and able to grasp ideas just as readily, if not more, than people who concentrated in comp sci [edsurge.com].
“People coming from a liberal arts program who possess good human skills that translate to a variety of jobs are appealing because they are already good thinkers, and can be trained vertically on say, social media or programming,” says Sentz.
The company's diversity [cnbc.com] (as measured by people's backgrounds) also increases which in turn can lead to better productivity. Silicon Valley is rife with people leading tech companies who have a liberal arts background [forbes.com] as opposed to
IT is hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
So your new doctor doesn't really have a traditional degree per se, and got all of his/her medical training through "non-traditional" methods? I wonder how many insurance companies wouldn't mind. Or patients.
Repeat after me. IT is hard. It's highly technical. It not only requires upfront and persistent training to remain proficient and current, but it also takes a decent amount of cognitive ability and intelligence, which not everyone has. And like any other challenging profession, that also includes those who are currently trying. IT is often a support role to both internal and external customers, so a certain personality is required of the job as well. (A shitty desk side manner, is no more welcome than a shitty bed side manner.)
It's not "classism" to look to hire those who have proven they have the capacity. Kind of like we do with many other professions that demand a particular capability.
As far as the "non-traditional" argument goes, we've been doing OJT and accepting certifications and experience in lieu of a "traditional" degree for decades now in IT. You can earn CEUs at DEFCON. Those trying to make a point here, haven't been paying attention.
Premise is slightly off. (Score:2)
Or if you speak in ridiculous non-sense, "Don't (clap) dismiss (clap) the (clap) idea (clap) of (clap) hiring (clap) folks (clap) with (clap) non (clap) traditional (clap) paths (clap) to (clap) tech (clap)(coffee)(coffee)(beer)(coffee)(hundy)(pizza)(smiley)(dog)(kite)(music)(eyeroll)"
Wait. Disregard that last one. That was me.
Great, more amateur dilletantes (Score:2)
These are the people mainly responsible for the current mess. And they want to get more into the field? Are these people completely derangesd?
college degrees are overrated (Score:2)
College adds to debt and is also time consuming.
I learned a lot about tech on my own and through mentorships. I live in a small town where there aren't a lot of job opportunities but I avail myself of books at the library (curbside pickup these days) and I also use many online resources.
Answering the age old question (Score:2)
Step 2: Sleep at a holiday inn express
Step 3: Engineer security solutions for a Fortune 500 company
Step 4: Profit!
We did it slashdot!
Shilling for low wages and no training (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how much of this gets promoted as a means to find people who corporations can pay less because they have weaker existing credentials and they don't have to invest in training/continuing education because these people will do it themselves?
I'm not knocking self-directed learning here, everyone who has been successful in IT has spent some time learning on their own time (and dime!).
But some of this feels like a means of encouraging yet another way for corporations to obtain talent without investing in directly. Either because the people come from a background with no credentials and can be justifiably paid less (for a while, at least) and they come to the table willing to keep investing in their own training without any corporate dollars going into it?
I know they go nuts for this where I work and it often just feels like lazy and cheap management, worse it leads to chaotic and incoherent technology direction since it often boils down to some gee-whiz thing Chad did in his basement being the standard, which of course is undocumented and often wrong.
Aptitude over Education (Score:3)
I think many folks on both sides are confusing aptitude. To me, it doesn't matter if you have the education or not, if you don't have the aptitude for IT, you're going to suck at it.
I've worked with tons of "educated" developers who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. They got into it for the money, were able to pass the exams, but they never had the real aptitude for it. And this lack of aptitude results in bad code and bad implementations and ultimately bad projects and products.
Likewise there can be folks who were never educated or trained but, because they had the aptitude for it, they could pick it up and run with it. With the aptitude, not only could they learn programming, but they could apply it appropriate ways to build meaningful systems.
That said, you simply can't beat the combination of aptitude and education. The education gives you the fundamentals to understand how it all works, how to make sense out of multithreaded systems with synchronized blocks and semaphores controlling access, and the aptitude allows you to apply all of that education to build and maintain complex systems.
I think currently our problem is that we don't really have a good test to identify those with the right aptitude and can't get them set up into the right education track to take advantage of that aptitude. Growing up, I remember in elementary school we were tested for "musical aptitude", or basically seeing if we had aptitude to learn an instrument and which one(s) we might be good at. I'm wondering if we couldn't have such a thing for "IT aptitude", or maybe we do and I've just been out of elementary school for too long ;-)
And for the record the "I used to be a barista and now I'm the VP of Engineering" example blows. Why? Because a VP of Engineering is a fancy term for a business person that oversees engineering. It doesn't mean they have such awesome technical skills that they're better than all other engineers in the company. It means they understand the economics of business spending and investment, and they know how to make decisions that improve profit while minimizing risk. It requires a little technical experience to understand terminology and what not, but only at a surface level. Any in depth knowledge required will be provided by subordinates who are expected to understand the details and explain them when required. Maybe Mr Brunelle is different, but I'm sure if we had a developer intimately versed in completing an electronic payment, dealing with failures, handling rollbacks, etc. that we could easily identify gaps in his knowledge of the systems he oversees. Not that is a bad thing, someone at his level should not waste time mucking around in the details, but neither should we raise him up as an excellent IT person that didn't get a classical IT education...
Re: (Score:2)
I think many folks on both sides are confusing aptitude. To me, it doesn't matter if you have the education or not, if you don't have the aptitude for IT, you're going to suck at it.
This right here. I saw my fellow class mates struggle and work hard and spend hours and hours of lab time and make decent grades and .... run away from the IT field as soon as they graduate.
A few decades later I'm teaching as an adjunct at the community college level and I can pretty much tell who can/will end up actually getting a job in IT (because they LIKE it and want to do it) vs those going through the motions to get a degree 'cause they "help grandma with Facebook and like playing games online" or "t
Nothing new (Score:2)
I starte
Fucking Twitter (Score:2)
So, Twitter pulled the plug on it's Javascript-less version December 15th. Anyone have a way to read what's on Twitter without enabling JS?
But no matter how good they are.... (Score:2)
HR won't hire them, because HR KNOWS NOTHING about the organization they're HR for, and all of them will be moving to somewhere else in several years, so they don't *care* to learn about their organization.
Since they know *nothing*, they want degrees and certifications that someone else said this person was ok.
Come the Revolution, we'll lead HR into the parking lot, toss asphalt on them, and PAVE THEM INTO THE ROADWAY, and *then* they'll have some social utility.
Designers, mechanics and drivers (Score:3)
I don't believe anyone can be taught it - at least not to code, working in generalist business management positions in tech of course is no different from any other industry. Like some musical abilities, its innate, something people are born with or not.
There was a wave of pronouncements from UK politicians some time ago that all children should be taught programming in school. Only people who had never written code would think that was sensible. The sensible thing to teach them was either to become intelligent users or for some to learn a minimum of systems management.
What you need is some test for this ability. Its like musical composition. Most will develop taste in music. Some will take up an instrument. Very very few will master music composition. Expecting everyone to be able to, with training, is silly. Just as not everyone can master serious levels of math.
What you need is not an account of background - this just screens for those who have the ability who have happened to have exercised it in the past. What's needed is a screen for those who have it.
Quite a number will have it, and never know they do. Like a guy I knew who in his sixties, no previous programming experience, who for various reasons found himself with a challenge which he could only solve by writing a quite large application. He picked up a high level language and wrote the app in three months. Before that, he had no idea of having any special ability in the area.
Its not a teaching problem, or not primarily a teaching problem. The problem is finding the ones with the unconscious ability to profit from the teaching. Or even, not really to need teaching, once they know they have to learn. My acquaintance taught himself.
Its like Capablanca, who picked up chess as a child by watching his father play. Similar thing.
Re:No wonder tech has gone to the dogs. (Score:5, Insightful)
... 4 years experience under their belt is now "engineering" security solutions for the world's biggest companies
Came here to say this.
I'm a "self-made" IT guy myself, but I've invested ~25 years into it, starting with my highschool nights. I've been running my own infratructure (email/web) for more than 10, and I've set up and managed several company networks. I've been playing with neuronl nets in the '90s and '00s, and solved (astronomy) pointing model equations with genetic algorithms when I was in high school. In between then and now I've also majored in physics, oh, and also did a PhD, just for good measure.
I also worked behind a bar once or twice.
I still wouldn't consider myself able to engineer security solutions for "the world's biggest companies". I also wouldn't trust myself with training AI for cancer imaging, just to be clear. I'm not saying that I don't have the brains for it -- chances are that I do. But I'd have to invest significant amount of time (say: 3+ years) in understanding modern methods of machine learning, in particular their subtle failings. I'd also have to have at least some amount of idea of cancer imaging and medicine.
By the time I'm finished with my training, you sure as fuck cannot call me a barista anymore. You can't even call me a physicist, because that's (probably) not going to be the primary quality that will enable me to train AIs for cancer (I guess...). By that time, I'll primarily be a ... "medical AI imaging whatever". That's what it's going to take to be able to do that kind of stuff.
Nobody says that you can't become anything you want, regardless of what you were, given enough brains and a fuckton of time to learn new, complicated stuff. But no, flipping burgers at daytime, then downloading the occasional image for RasPis at night, is not going to make you a "security expert".
As for "vp of engineering at Starbucks"... honestly, what does it take substantially beyond "apt-get install samba postfix apache" and managing people to clean coffee machines? Go VP of engineering at Tesla, SpaceX, BMW, Siemens or any other at least moderately complex tech compnay, then I'll probably be impressed; or at least I'll start raising an eyebrow and nod in respect instead of mumbling a bad joke in my beard.
Did I mention that I worked behind a bar twice or so?
Re:No wonder tech has gone to the dogs. (Score:5, Insightful)
How much engineering does the VP of Engineering actually do? Sounds more like a management role.
Re:No wonder tech has gone to the dogs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think I found him on LinkedIn. His description is...just a little misleading. He appears to be "vice president, customer experience engineering". He expands on this to say "The teams I lead deliver revolutionary digital experiences that grow businesses and delight customers."
Which is a fancy way of saying that he leads web development projects. He started out as a web developer (probably self-taught) back in 2005. Which is fine - there are people who can do that, and they should be recognized. The problem comes when someone asserts that *anyone* can master *any* skill - which is just self-evidently untrue that we shouldn't even have to discuss it.
As for SecuritySphynx: This sounds like the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large. She, or someone like her, was working with SolarWinds when they decided to set a critical password to "solarwinds123".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My experience with veterans mirrors that of the civilian population. Some took advantage of opportunities presented to them and ran with it resulting in great quality engineers. Some however used it to pay for college or drifted through and the result was subpar.
At my work we always give the veteran the first crack but I test them the same as anyone else. I look for curiosity, if they are curious about tech then they will learn whatever skill gap they might and are largely to have a much broader range of s
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know any engineering field for which that might be true. I've had 40 years work experience, and other than the first 6 months when I was doing drafting followed by a couple of years as a designer, I've been doing engineering my whole carreer. I've been project manager and had other non-hands on engineering roles on projects, but even then I've always been doing engineering. My experience is that the great majo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3)
The size of the client doesn't determine your competence.
No, but it determines the complexity of their technological underpinning (and thus the attack surface and the number of differently classed attack vectors), the complications of change management involved with introducing new measures, and quite generally, what it fucking takes to pull actually the job off.
Googling the "Secure Postfix HOWTO" just doesn't cut it above a certain company size. Somebody knowing the limits of their own competence would know that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Secure Postfix HOWTO"
That strikes fear in my heart. Just say no. I don't think there's a way to make it secure.
Re:No wonder tech has gone to the dogs. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a "self-made" IT guy myself, but I've invested ~25 years into it
That's the key right there. And maybe that's what Cloe Condon means: hire qualified people, but don't get too hung-up about diplomas. Qualification can come from experience gained on the job or even as a hobby. Most of the truly great IT people I've known followed a "non traditional path" to IT... but most did have a college degree of some sort, and all of them were passionate about tech. HR hates people like this though, because it means they can't just filter CVs; they have to actually do their job and vet each applicant.
.com boom, where we were going to re-train unemployed people and mothers re-entering the workforce for coding jobs, in a 3 month boot camp. This idea sadly still isn't dead: the recent rise of unemployment figures had politicians asking (again): "Why don't we retrain them as tech workers?"
The article seems to be about how companies "persist in seeking those with a particular qualification and a particular past history", not about that hare-brained idea of the
Re:No wonder tech has gone to the dogs. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand your point, and you're right in principle, but you have to admin that it's not entirely honest in terms of the current discussion. :-)
Me investing 25 years to get proficient is pretty much the "traditional way", even if it wasn't accompanied by a CS degree. This is what CS proficiency used to look like in the '90s and '00s. If you were going to study CS in Europe, the first thing they were going to tell you is: if you're looking to be a good programmer, you're in the wrong place. You study CS if you look to advance Computer Science, i.e. build better computers etc. Yes, there were those of us who could do both -- be proficient and provide a degree.
The current discussion insted focuses on the twitter folk screaming "I too can has security ekzpert because I play with raspis after hours", which is clearly *not* the case. The global twitter outrage started when one dude stated that you cannot do ${ADVANCED_COOL_STUFF} just because you're a barista with a soft spot for IT, and he's completely right about that. Funny all the people who stated the opposite because they work for NASA now although they used to tend bars, too... conveniently leaving out the fact that they graduated in physics in between. That's dishonest.
It's all about the time and energy you invest. You won't get good at something just because you read a few tutorials and play with it in your backyard. You actually have to devote a significant part of your energy, your life, to it. But at that point you stop being whatever you were before and become... whatever you devote your energy to *now*.
Case in point: Einstein "inveted" the relativity theory. He also used to be a patent clerk, but it's not like patent clerks are geniuses. He just happened to have had an interim job different from that of a genius physicist for a while.
Obligatory XKCD: Pressures [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is (Score:2)
There are a handful of jobs out there you can work your way up from help desk to, but if you lose them you are *boned*. Nobody cares how much experience you have because nobody sees your resume if you don't hav
Re: (Score:3)
you wouldn't have been given a chance to become a self made IT guru in 2020
I haven't been given that choice in 1995, either. I just simply did what I liked. Eventually I got good enough at it that, at some point, people paid me to do stuff for them, trusting that I'd bring it to a good end. I worked a lot for now to little money to prove myself.
And that's pretty much also the point here: nobody owes you any "chances". You're either good at something, so you can prove it, or you're whining about how nobody hands you over the world on a plate... and post stupid stuff on twitter.
As f
Re: (Score:2)
*chance
Re: (Score:2)
I also wouldn't trust myself with training AI for cancer imaging, just to be clear.
Just so you know, people training AI for cancer imaging have taken a single AI imaging class (this one, to be precise [youtube.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
If "training neural nets" is all there is to modern methods of machine learning, then it's not much of a field in the first place. More like a small garden.
Also, I expect that he includes mastering the traditional mathematical methods employed in any kind of engineering in those three years -- is your "very well-developed literature on image recognition, signal detection, etc" aimed at people with high-school level knowledge of mathematics, or does it have college-level prerequisites?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll also mention that if it takes you three years to get your head around training neural nets, then it's not the field for you. There's a very well-developed literature on image recognition, signal detection, etc, etc.
Oh, really? Then explain to me what the Canonical Ensemble [wikipedia.org] is, what it has to do with neuronal nets, and how this equation
P = exp (( F - E ) / ( k T ))
comes to be.
See?
This is what I mean: idiots playing idiotic games and not knowing the limits of their own knowledge. If you want to train your Arduino to ring a doorbell and run when the pizza guy comes around, fine; get a video tutorial on YouTube for that. But if you do stuff that people's lives depend on, then do it properly or stay the fuck away.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
four years of experience in data security is worth more than any undergrad degree.
Sure. Experience counts for more than education in any narrow field.
But the degree indicates a broad education in the fundamentals. So a self-taught data security expert may be better at data security, but the BS-in-CS guy will likely master an unrelated job more quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
This. There are plenty of good people in IT/tech fields that do not have degrees in IT/tech or any degree at all. Organizations should not have hiring restrictions that eliminate good applicants before they have a chance to be interviewed.
I am sure there is a long list of very successful people in tech that never graduated college. John Carmack, Bill Gates,?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only experience, but anyone working in tech has to be able to adapt to and embrace change... What was cutting edge tech 5 years ago is a security liability today, you need to be able to keep up to date or you become useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. People thinking IT is easy and then messing it up. And messing it up again. And again and again and again. We need to keep these amateurs out of it, not bring in even more of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Computer Programming isn't hard. I am sure many of us Started to program when we were a kid, I wrote my first program when I was 6 years old. I was working for a software development shop while I was in High School, and I was doing very well working there. (Pre .COM pop) At the time, I could work professionally without any College or advanced schooling, I probably would have done well until the .COM Bubble popping, than shortly after the big push towards outsourced IT work in the 2003ish. In which man
Re: (Score:2)
Tech very often requires domain knowledge outside of tech (building apps). Software is a tool. A tool that will be used from everyone from a graphical designer to a geneticist. Granted, the design of the tool will probably be produced by a CS major. But the users of that tool may very well be someone who's principle area of expertise is NOT software.