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

Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 495 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#371

Post by bulditand »

jedberg wrote: post #276

> when it would take days or a couple weeks to learn XYZ framework/library/whatever to the level of competence that is required for the position. Here is their thought process: If you believe that is the case, then why not spend a couple weeks learning XYZ, so that the next time you need XYZ you can say you know it? Either it's not actually that simple, which means that it would take a long time for you to ramp up, o…

> If you believe that is the case, then why not spend a couple weeks learning XYZ, so that the next time you need XYZ you can say you know it?

Because there are many things to learn and it doesn't make sense to learn everything just to get to the first interview at any company.

As a developer it makes sense to do one or two small projects with any framework just to see how it is, but that doesn't count as knowing the framework.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#372

Post by rajacombinator »

ivansavz wrote: post #118
oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

A friend of mine runs a web dev shop and I have seen him train at least six people from zero-to-pro (very smart, fast learners with a math background) and what you described is exactly what happens. Once they become medium/advanced-level proficient they often quit and move on to other, bigger companies. If there was some formal, or informal understanding that candidates "trained on the job" would stay for a few years…

Increase their salaries to fair market rates as they improve. Stop being a cheap bastard.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#373

Post by marcus_holmes »

I've built a team from trained-up junior devs, and it was great, I would recommend this route for anyone building a team.

BUT... you have to have people who can train and teach as well as code. There are personality traits that don't align with this. The typical "aspy Dave" stereotype of a rockstar programmer is not good at this.

So you have to align the entire team from day 1 as being a training environment as well as a software excellence environment. It's not easy to do. We lost a few people because of it.

However, the loyalty generated was incredible. We tended not to lose people because they knew they could learn more with us than they could elsewhere. Our retention was fantastic, despite the overwhelming opinion than new trainees leave as soon as they can get better salaries elsewhere.

But then, we hired for people who were hungry to learn and create. Less graduate programmers thinking they knew it all, more college dropouts who loved coding but couldn't stand academia. The best coder I trained on this team (in fact, the best coder I trained ever) was a girl who taught herself coding while getting off heroin in a Glasgow slum. I doubt any "normal" dev shop would have even interviewed her, but she was really good.

Oh, and we were too small to have an HR department. When we grew big enough, they definitely got in the way. I had to more or less fight them off over every position we hired for, because they didn't understand anything about coding, IT or creativity, and would just look for relevant experience in a similar field.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#374

Post by ashelmire »

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

If you aren't giving juniors significant pay raises when they get good, you deserve to lose them.

But also, younger people (who are more likely to be juniors) want to get more experiences, find somewhere more suited to them, and have less tying them to a given location.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#375

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #321
collyw wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big companies will spend money on training but personally I have learned a lot more at smaller places because I was able to explore a lot more and my contributions had a lot more impact on the buisiness overall.

So in a sense, small companies are the training. You pop in, learn what you can, and jump ship.

The holy Grail of small company is to get trained and keep getting trained at the same company as your trainer(s) rise to executive level.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#377

Post by bulditand »

yhoiseth wrote: post #289
jedberg wrote: post #276

> when it would take days or a couple weeks to learn XYZ framework/library/whatever to the level of competence that is required for the position. Here is their thought process: If you believe that is the case, then why not spend a couple weeks learning XYZ, so that the next time you need XYZ you can say you know it? Either it's not actually that simple, which means that it would take a long time for you to ramp up, o…

I think you're right that it's not that simple. The really valuable knowledge is not the type you get from introductory tutorials, but the type you get from working on production systems. GitLab concluded that they didn't have the capacity to train developers unfamiliar with their tech: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...

GitLab is talking about (not) training python people to do ruby work, which indeed needs months of work.

OP is talking about not knowing framework xyz, I'm assuming like knowing JavaScript but not knowing Vue or knowing Python but not knowing Django or Pyramid.

You can be productive with a framework in days / weeks if you have solid knowledge of the programming language.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#378

Post by adetrest »

marvin wrote: post #355
ryanobjc wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact in the good big companies, they crave for employee growth. Time and money for training, meaningful career growth, and pay growth, major tech switches without changing jobs. I find that small companies are often much worse in all these metrics. As a jr employee they’ll never rise to chief architect - your friend, the cofounder, has that job. And is never giving it up. Plus thanks to cash crunch, making shortcu…

> the company’s health plan was on the hook for a million in costs As usual, this is the craziest part of the comment to my European mind. Your healthcare system spent somewhere around an entire lifetime of effort for something that, while relatively dramatic, should still be quite routine for a sophisticated medical organization!

Which begs the question: what happens if the premature baby is born to a US family that can't afford a decent insurance plan? Does the hospital repo the baby? Is the family bankrupt and the baby's life ruined from the get go just for being born premature? I can't wrap my head around it, and it seems to suck either way.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#379

Post by _1qd4 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #373

I've built a team from trained-up junior devs, and it was great, I would recommend this route for anyone building a team. BUT... you have to have people who can train and teach as well as code. There are personality traits that don't align with this. The typical "aspy Dave" stereotype of a rockstar programmer is not good at this. So you have to align the entire team from day 1 as being a training environment as well…

I call this method of team building the "island of mistfit toys", it is something I practice on my team since I was a misfit toy myself.

I disagree that training juniors keeps them loyal. When you bring someone the island of misfit toys and they get some experience and success, they no longer see themselves as a misfit toy. But when they come in to the office in the morning, they look all around them and see misfit toys. But I am not a misfit toy any more! I can leave the island now!

Misfit toys are hungry people! They want to prove that they can do it, since by all other metrics they should not be able to. And once they have proven they can do it, they leave to find better appreciation of their talents.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#380

Post by jimnotgym »

stormbrew wrote: post #137
ivansavz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine runs a web dev shop and I have seen him train at least six people from zero-to-pro (very smart, fast learners with a math background) and what you described is exactly what happens. Once they become medium/advanced-level proficient they often quit and move on to other, bigger companies. If there was some formal, or informal understanding that candidates "trained on the job" would stay for a few years…

The other replies touch on this, but I'm gonna get straight to the point: Does your friend give them actual, meaningful raises as they grow? Is he actually paying competitively to begin with? Because I think if you have this pattern that consistently, it's really likely that either you're underpaying to begin with or your raises suck or are not even present. I love working at small companies. It's by far my preferenc…

^THIS I have come into a job missing a particular qualification, but being the best candidate. Then I have worked my socks off, and had all the plaudits off senior management and colleagues.

But still I was being paid less than the job was originally advertised at, because of a missing qualification.

So I moved, yes. Pay people what they are worth to you, not what you think you can get away with.

Post reply on HN