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

331–340 of 370 posts

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

#331

Post by ucaetano »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #324

But nobody wants to address the mounting student loan problem!! Degrees don't come for free, technical graduates don't come for free, students have to go to college for that and in US you need a LOT of money for that. This is the chicken and egg problem where nobody wants to address the real problem an everyone is going around giving superficial solutions.

Student loans are only a problem to students doing one or more degrees in low-2nd and 3rd tier schools with few job market prospects.

The rate of student loan defaults is actually inversely proportional to the amount owed.

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

#332

Post by ucaetano »

bradleyjg wrote: post #157
rifung wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd be more impressed if they committed to hiring employees that don't already have the skills they are looking for and doing on the job training I work for Google and I find there's already a very large amount of on the job training required due to all the powerful but complicated internal tools. My manager has told me that I should not feel pressured to contribute at all for my first 6 months and I should feel fr…

At the dawn of the computer age ATT, IBM, and other companies taught people how to program from scratch. Early on because there were no college programs to do so and later on because programs didn't graduate nearly enough people. And no one was self taught because there were no home computers. I don't see why Google couldn't do that today. I'm not saying they are morally obligated to do so. At the end of the day they…

> Early on because there were no college programs to do so and later on because programs didn't graduate nearly enough people. And no one was self taught because there were no home computers.

This made sense back then because most of the tools, languages and techniques were either proprietary or niche. IBM wouldn't hire an ATT employee as FB hires a Google employee today, and back then people saw jobs as "until retirement", with a very different culture.

If you invested a lot of money training someone, you could expect them to stick around for a while and "pay back" your investment.

Today that isn't worth it. You could hire someone out of high school, spend a lot of resources training them just to have them poached by another company right after they are "ready".

That time is gone.

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

#333

Post by [deleted] »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #315
jas_far wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calculus and programming are in two different leagues of complexity, and most programming doesn't require a knowledge of calculus. Like any other skill, programming comes more easily to some than others, but with the right approach can be acquired by anyone.

Calculus classes are more passable than programming classes, and the claim you're making is just pulled out of your hat, made in such a way that you could never be found wrong, because no matter what you could just say you're not taking the right approach.

[deleted]

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

#334

Post by netheril96 »

kamaal wrote: post #303
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.

>>They're not gonna accept "I watched a bunch of videos on YouTube" as an alternative. Soon they will. If the internet people come at cheaper prices. There isn't much difference between people who watch a lecture on the internet vs those who watch it live.

> If the internet people come at cheaper prices.

But filtering out the good ones from the "internet people" is more expensive than seeking through college graduates.

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

#335

Post by tiggybear »

alpb wrote: post #321
afpx wrote: post #268

Google spends what, upwards of $10B a year on software engineer salary and benefits? So, seems like a good deal. If they can spend $1B and decrease salary’s and benefits by at least 10% over a few years, they get return on investment.

Why would salaries or benefits decrease?

Your paid based on your leverage not how much your output is worth. If supply of workers with your skills goes up, your leverage to negotiate goes down and so does your wages.

Labor does not get to share in economic growth, they get to split an ever decreasing share of profits. The more people that are available to sell their labor, the more pieces that shrinking pie has to be cut into.

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

#336

Post by kamaal »

forapurpose wrote: post #308
WalterBright wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is full of people who can help you, like stackexchange.com for programmers.

Yes, but it's not really the same thing at all as a teacher in a classroom and after class, focusing on the student and their educational development, or a professor in their office. Few I've encountered online are as knowledgeable as 90% of my professors. (And most fields of knowledge have less online community than IT.) If someone said they were shutting down local schools and just telling the kids to watch YouTube…

>>Yes, but it's not really the same thing at all as a teacher in a classroom and after class, focusing on the student and their educational development, or a professor in their office.

In most top universities, teaching largely works through learning by doing. Its just that they keep the quality of assignments high. So your projects make up for it. Also note those taking online courses have an active interest to get good at things, so they would work on these projects.

In the real world you need as much as you can receive from a lecture. Beyond that mostly you have to learn on the job. So online learning will work for most cases. Yeah in some cases you can't fully learn it without a teacher, such cases will exist, but will be exceptions to the rule.

>>If someone said they were shutting down local schools and just telling the kids to watch YouTube and ask question online, I'd be horrified, the kids would get far less attention and teaching, and the kids would be far less educated. Also, few would have the self-motivation to pull it off.

There is a reason why despite all the awesome public education system US has compared to the rest of the world, only a fixed percentage of awesome people come out of it every month.

Every thing at the end comes down to personal motivation. You can't make anyone succeed without their participation and will.

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

#337

Post by sulam »

evanlivingston wrote: post #277
fraserharris wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't forget that if they increase the supply of technical jobs, they get to drive down the cost of those technical hires.

I think I know what you meant to say, but what you typed is logically wrong. s/jobs/workers/

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

#338

Post by amigoingtodie »

losteric wrote: post #279
baursak wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay. It might be true, but in my opinion an average janitor is more beneficial to society than an average programmer. More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor!

Direct vs indirect utility. Janitors are directly beneficial to a small number of people. The typical Google engineering is indirectly and marginally beneficial to millions.

Is that what we tell ourselves, "I'm making a difference"?

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

#339

Post by sulam »

s73ver_ wrote: post #195
WalterBright wrote: post #155

It's never been easier to get training in all sorts of things, for free. For example, I'm currently taking MIT's 6.002 electronics course because I never learned circuit analysis properly. It's on youtube, it's free, I watch it anytime. There's the Khan Academy, too.

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.

No degree here, and when I was in college I was essentially an artist. No one has ever asked me about it in an interview. Instead I get asked how to solve problems, and maybe what problems I’ve solved in the past.

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

#340

Post by speedplane »

jondubois wrote: post #327
fraserharris wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thing about hiring more software developers than you need is that it just adds complexity to the project without adding any new features. Big companies are terrible at this. As companies add more engineers, the engineers become less productive, then managers get worried and so they 1. Hire more engineers and 2. introduce new project management tools and methodologies to the company which lowers productivity even…

> As companies add more engineers, the engineers become less productive

This is definitely true, but it's a necessary evil. If you want to build something small, you can do it with a super efficient tiger team. But if you want something huge, you need a massive inefficient team, even if each additional engineer is only 1/10th as efficient as the engineer in the tiger team.

This is explained, with real-life examples, in the classic Mythical Man Month.

Post reply on HN