181–190 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The industry wouldn't look the same, either: it wouldn't be nearly as profitable or widespread as it has become, and nobody but CS academics would care about it.
On the other hand, perhaps the quality of code would go up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite, we should also eliminate nurses. The minimum qualification to work in healthcare should be a medical degree, just like we shouldn’t allow any car that’s worse in an accident than a Tesla on the road.
Most European countries require a 4 year degree for nurses, where the first two years are kind of shared with medical degree.
Nursing
Medicine
There is not one single shared course between the two degrees. If you can find a course shared between medical and nursing students in all of Europe I'd be surprised.
I think this is terrible. I feel there are many good engineers that can't possibly compete for decent jobs in tech companies because they haven't spent 6-12 months reading cracking the code interview, doing this Stanford course, practicing mock interviews in crowdsourced websites, getting their leetcode rank up, attending bootcamps where they pad their githubs and practicing any single interview question they can scr…
Stanford kids do well on the SATs which require similar prep. Same thing, different day.
- Preparation not required.
- Preparation not beneficial.
And it shouldn't be surprising that they achieve that well. Consider these scatterplots comparing students who took the SAT without preparation to students who prepped: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/02/test-preparation-and-s... .
As further described at the same link, research quite consistently shows that the effect of preparation on SAT scores is small, and...
> One of the most remarkable aspects of this line of research has been the lack of impact it has had on the public consciousness.
Again, this shouldn't surprise you, because it is a design goal of the SATs not to show an effect of preparation on scores, and they do their own research to ensure that preparation in fact does not have much of an effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of having a whole class on how to solve interview whiteboard problems (a skill that is, at least where I work, not very relevant to doing your job) is terrifying.
At Google, the recruiter who schedules your interview specifically recommends reading books written about passing Google's interviews. It's a little unbelievable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but if that were the case wouldn't you think it's silly that you need to train months to be able to juggle to land a SWE position? wouldn't it be stupid? the current interview culture in those companies is not as silly as juggling but is also not a fair representation of candidates, with too much weight being in algorithmic puzzles and behavioral checkboxes you can train for. Obviously if the process was a 100%…
Yes, it is silly that you have to train for an interview for months to land a SWE position at a top company. However, until someone comes up with a less gameable system or a magic wand that stack ranks applicants, then I don't see a viable alternative :\ As someone who gives a lot of interviews, I'd love a better way to assess a candidates ability that is less gameable, but we haven't found one yet.
This is exactly the concept of an IQ test, right down to the stack ranking.
They're pretty well understood by now, and they take less than a day, which compares pretty favorably to "months".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, preparing for interviews is standard practice irrespective of the industry.
Sister is a travel nurse. She does not prepare for interviews and typically has several a year. Her entire interview process goes: call the agency and tell them she is looking for a new position, have one to several 30-45minute phone calls with hiring managers at the hospitals she is interested in (she actually took one once in the middle of a wine tasting - and got the job), then wait to hear back. That's what it's…
Can you explain how other industries do it better and come up with a better, plausible, non-fantastical way to interview programmers? I'd love to know how to interview people "better", but it still has to be something where I can later present evidence that my decision is based on, in some kind of report. It would have to allow multiple people at my company to interact with a candidate in a half day or less. Copying what another industry does would be great, if it worked, because it'd help convince people it was a good method to try out.
> Are the hoops you have to jump through justifiable for how "important" your job is?
I never thought a 1 hour phone screen and a few hours onsite was particularly onerous, and based on how much the job pays, it seems well worth it.
> People's lives are dependent on how well she does her job.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that saving lives correlates with strictness of interviewing, especially with the 2 jobs being so drastically different.
This is what I was afraid of. I always thought interviews were something where you present your abilities, experience and knowledge. It should not be something you "prepare" for because then you're not showing off your skills, instead you're just regurgitating what you are trained to do. I do somewhat blame the whiteboard culture, but I guess that's the one that has given the best results so far. I've no doubt that i…
The reality is the majority of tech interviews today are filled with questions/tasks that have little or nothing to do with the actual job you are going to be assigned. In fact an average programmer doesn't actually need to know a single piece of computer science or math (almost all such stuff is abstracted by common libraries and frameworks, whatever is not can be looked up on demand) nor to memorize anything (thank…
I have nothing in my GitHub profile. Some toy repos of no particular significance, one contribution to Rust that I've made before realizing it takes too much of my spare time... and that's it. I don't think that should make me un-hireable ... people that have kids tend to not have much spare time besides work, learning new stuff to stay relevant, and taking care of said kids. Not to mention, my company has me going through some bureaucratic process for any sort of open-source contribution that I intend to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is the majority of tech interviews today are filled with questions/tasks that have little or nothing to do with the actual job you are going to be assigned. In fact an average programmer doesn't actually need to know a single piece of computer science or math (almost all such stuff is abstracted by common libraries and frameworks, whatever is not can be looked up on demand) nor to memorize anything (thank…
It's a fitness test. Are you going to bring me value, or are you on the verge of burnout with outdated skills, trying to live off your past? "What did you do for me today?" is what matters for company to stay afloat and brutal competition is the way to achieve it. What kind of society it creates is another question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our industry also has quite a lot of self-taught professionals, who can perform as well as their college educated counterparts, which is something you won't really get in professions like Law or Medicine. I think that's a good thing, when it comes to software.
Just because in countries like US, one can call himself/herself engineer, without any actual meaning. At least in Europe things are a bit more strict.