Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 370 posts

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#221

Post by nova22033 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #135
nova22033 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure about their own jobs. They see any move like this as a plot by bigcorp to undermine their job prospects. Training kids to code? Yup..threat to their own job.

>There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure about their own jobs. If the rest of the job market looked like it did in the 1950s, sure - no problem. I don't see any reason to feel particularly secure when this is what's going on outside of tech though: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/28/adjunct-prof... >They see any move like this as a plot by bigcorp to undermine their job prospects. Eithe…

What does the plight of adjunct professors have to do with the job market for software professionals?

>I wonder sometimes if people are really naive enough to think that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to "reform immigration" or "get CS taught in primary schools" out of the goodness of his heart.

First a non sequitur and now a strawman? I don't think Zuckeberg lets me use facebook out of the goodness of his heart either...

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#222

Post by alexanderstears »

cm2187 wrote: post #20
wehere1 wrote: post #2

always remember: the industry's involvement in CS education has less to do with philanthropy and goodwill than it does with lowering the cost of labor over the long term

High labor cost just because of skill shortage may be gratifying and lucrative for the happy few but is not an efficient allocation of resources for the wider society. Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do. Replace "developer" with any other profession to convince yourself.

It's not as if the skill shortage reflects some barriers to entry (like the Doctor's union deciding how many people get to go to medical school). The skill shortage reflects the difficulty of acquiring the skills, the high salaries are critical to ensuring that skilled people develop their technical skills.

I don't know how much a piano teacher costs, but I know it's the right amount because that's the equilibrium.

A more efficient allocation of resources would look like getting rid of 'too big to fail' banks and decreasing the rent that the finance industry extracts.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#223

Post by BjoernKW »

briholt wrote: post #181
BjoernKW wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. It's a common complaint among engineers that developing line-of-business or CRUD applications is tedious and not challenging enough as it doesn't require a lot of creative thinking. Truth of the matter is that most tech work doesn't involve AI, machine learning, self-driving cars or augmented reality but down-to-earth business applications. Developing those requires abstract thinking, empathy and pro…

You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.

You make this sound like someone with an IQ less than 120 is mentally impaired.

An IQ of 100 is defined as the median IQ level for a population. The range between 90 and 130 covers the whole gamut of human intelligence that's commonly considered normal.

Much of the day-to-day work in IT often doesn't need original thinking but merely skillful application of known methods and patterns, which in turn doesn't require a college education.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#224

Post by ptero »

grtrans wrote: post #217
ptero wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that hiring average talent and training it is best for Google business. They believe that it is better to try hiring only the very best, and do it even if employees do not match a specific position they ostensibly interviewed for (e.g., train for skills or find new positions, but after a very high entry bar). I think retraining programs primarily help sharp, energetic folks who somehow got into a bad state (u…

Google hasn’t hired “the very best” for at least five to seven years now; there are plenty “average talent” employees who do their job adequately. Mind you they do hire some of the best, but the idea that google engineers are “the best” is a myth.

I never said google engineers are "the best". I said that this is what Google tries to do. IMO it did this pretty well 10 years ago, but as a company gets big this gets much harder.

I heard though they are still trying to do this, even being aware of the lower success ratio.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#225

Post by s73ver_ »

hobofan wrote: post #215
s73ver_ wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given all the stuff that's happening lately with people like Susan Fowler, a whole lot of developers could have benefitted from more of those. Of course, that's completely ignoring that there is far, far, far more to "liberal arts" than gender studies.

I think it's more the people around them that would have benefitted from it.

That too. Everyone would benefit!

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#226

Post by weirdstuff »

WalterBright wrote: post #200
s73ver_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but there's no certificate. And, despite what everyone wants to believe, most employers still want that certificate or degree. They're not gonna accept "I watched a bunch of videos on YouTube" as an alternative.

In the programming biz, they often will if you've got a track record to back it up. Contributing to open source projects is a route to getting such a track record. If you already have a degree, just in the wrong field, you don't need to get another degree. Just get the training by whatever means. Heck, my degree is in mechanical engineering, yet I had jobs writing software.

In my own experience a track record is meaning less and less, and employers are really starting to fixate on credentials. It's very weird and disconcerting to a fellow like myself who likes to believe an impressive record should speak for itself. But apparently it's not speaking as loudly as it used to.

There really is a "cult of the degree" and I really don't get it. Is the field getting saturated and employers are finding it necessary to erect barriers? Does this, an average, make good fiscal sense? I would think successful, relevant experience is something (that when verified) would reduce risk for businesses.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#227

Post by s73ver_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #219
s73ver_ wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if I was a fetus in the early 80s? Or if I got sick and needed to sell that stock early to pay for treatment? Your point still is predicated on the "already having money" part.

Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not sidelined by disastrous health problems. The point is invest early in your working life, and you'll have the needed results when you're ready to retire. $1,000 is not what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000 is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than $1,000.

A car is a necessity in most of America for getting around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

And depending on who you're talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is "having money".

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#229

Post by psyc »

swendoog wrote: post #27

Everyone hates a cynic so bring on the downvotes: I'm going to warn everyone of what's coming. Software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030. The HUGE push from government, and private business, to fill the PERCEIVED lack of engineers, will come to fruition around that time. Make no mistake about it - there is NOT a lack of skilled engineers right now. There is a disinterest among business…

I'll believe there's a shortage or urgent demand when I notice a change in hiring standards and practices, and recruiting methods. As a former hiring person, yeah, it's kind of a pain in the ass to have to interview a lot of people before you find one who's any good. But if there was a genuine shortage + this alleged urgent demand, I have to believe that something about the tired, inefficient, and false-positive-allergic process would change in a newsworthy way.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#230

Post by fraserharris »

brudgers wrote: post #165

I wonder how long it would take for Google to spend an extra $1 Billion by bringing janitorial, food service, and other non-technical jobs in-house instead of contracting it out to the lowest bidder. To put it in perspective, $1 Billion is 10,000 times $100,000. Or 1000 $100,000/year jobs for ten years before discounting for the time value of money. Instead, big chunks of the money will get siphoned off to administra…

They aren't doing this for charity - they are doing it to ensure a steady supply of technical hires. Technical jobs are profit centers; non-technical contracted services are cost centers.
Post reply on HN