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

Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#131

Post by notahacker »

vectorjohn wrote: post #108
notahacker wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Person currently earns $80k. Training costs $20k. Rival company will be willing to pay $90k salary after training to poach the developer, which means the current employer may end up forced to counter offer with $91k salary after paying for the training. 91k + $20k in training fees = $111k Competitor does not pay $111k because competitor does not pay for training. Which was the entire point of the exchanges above You…

Nobody is asking how to add numbers together. I just think you're missing the point. Whatever a competitor is willing to pay, the company that provided the training can just pay that and not risk their employees being poached. Additionally, it isn't free to poach employees, they will have training costs no matter what. In other words, after training you raise their salary.

It isn't free to poach and onboard employees, but it's less than the cost of training in a huge number of industries, especially if the training comes with a recognised professional qualification attached to it. If I spend a large fraction of their annual salary on supporting them through a qualification I might well give them a pay rise afterwards, but a competitor able to extract similar revenue per head from trained staff can always afford to offer them a bigger pay rise after I've picked up the tab for their training. I'm only in profit whilst providing training if I can pay my staff less than their marginal revenue product for long enough to cover that overhead; ideally it would be before they've finished and got the certificate but that's not always possible.

And hence, in the original example, the company providing the training ending up spending $111k on their member of staff over the course of the year to head off a competitor's $90k offer, even if the employee isn't worth $111k (Considering your original contribution to the thread was to argue the competitor wouldn't pay $111k, I think accusing me of missing the point is a bit rich...)

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#132

Post by kartickvad »

learc83 wrote: post #76
genericuser wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My software engineering class spent most of the semester going over design patterns which are in fact quite useful to learn in school. And then maybe 1/4 of the class on going over the various development methodologies. I agree that a class devoted entirely to methodology would be complete over kill. However I think there is room for getting some exposure to it in school. Ideally before taking higher level classes, w…

The problem is design patterns are subjective, they are craft, not science or engineering. There hasn't been enough work serious research done on "Software Engineering" to call Engineering with a straight face. You can't point a whole stack of serious research to say the design pattern A is objectively better in situation X because Y and Z. What you can say is that design pattern A is currently in vogue so you should…

You're going too far when you dismiss design patterns as being merely fashion. Just because something is not objectively proven doesn't make it false. Things in the real world are not binary, where they are either objectively proven (hard sciences) or completely false ("The earth is flat"). In reality, lot of things are gray. Design patterns fall in that bucket — many of them help, as long as you remember that there are exceptions.

If many people learnt over and over again that global state, for example, leads to more bugs, you'd be wrong in completely dismissing it just because it isn't objectively proven. Because then you'd be arguing that a program that uses only global variables is just as good as one that's properly encapsulated and abstracted. Do you think anyone would take you seriously if said that?

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#133

Post by kartickvad »

learc83 wrote: post #128
kartickvad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a practician, not a theorist or an academic. I couldn't care less whether something is based in CS theory. I care whether something will be useful to me over the course of my career. If it is, I'd like my education to train me for that. In fact, some of the academic stuff like compilers and automata have been useless in real life. That's a failing of academia from my point of view.

That's perfectly fine. What you're looking for is vocational training, not a liberal college education. Non professional college programs are explicitly not vocational training. If they were, they wouldn't require spending nearly half your time on general education requirements (assuming we're talking about the US here). I doubt art history, physics, or psychology has proven much direct use to you in your career. >In…

My idea of education is one that teaches you skills that are broadly used throughout your career. I don't a priori reject things that meet this criteria just because it's not based in theory (because theory is not an end to itself), or by applying arbitrary labels like "vocational" (whatever that means), "liberal" or "professional".

As for art history and psychology, that's a different debate to be had about education — whether these should be part of education and how much time they should take.

As for your question, I've used regexes, but you don't need to understand the details of the regex engine in order to use them. Neither do I, in my day-to-day work, write programs that try to tell if other programs halt.

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#134

Post by kartickvad »

karmapolice wrote: post #130
kartickvad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a practician, not a theorist or an academic. I couldn't care less whether something is based in CS theory. I care whether something will be useful to me over the course of my career. If it is, I'd like my education to train me for that. In fact, some of the academic stuff like compilers and automata have been useless in real life. That's a failing of academia from my point of view.

Then, do not go for a degree in Computer Science if that is all you want. I am sure there are cheaper and better ways to become a practician than going through college. Becoming a software developer is just one of the possible career options after a CS degree.

I doubt that there are cheaper and better ways to become a practician than going through college. In India, where I live, most companies are not interested in you unless you have a degree. The normal path to a career in programming is to get a CS degree. And the normal outcome from a CS degree is a career in tech. So, they are much more closely related than you acknowledge, at least in my part of the world (things may be different in yours).

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#135

Post by dagw »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #105
vectorjohn wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arithmetic is wrong, unless it's just not fully explained. "there is nothing stopping another employer from offering $90k in salary after training is complete" Sure there is, and many people have pointed out the flaws in this comment. If $90k is the market rate, then there is nothing stopping the company that provided the training from paying that too, and there would be no more advantage to offering $90k. In add…

So to keep the same set of employees, a company must pay $20k for training + $90k for employees = $110k. Alternately, a company can just pay $91k and let someone else pay for training. Do you not see any reason why a company might prefer to be in the second category?

$90k is the market rate for trained employee not an untrained employee in this scenario. It's entirely reasonable for the company to say to an unpaid employee we'll pay you $70k + $20k worth of training until you become trained, and then we'll pay you $90k. The added value the company gets is being able to focus the candidates training on their needs (and perhaps a little light indoctrination).

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#136

Post by drauh »

kartickvad wrote: post #133
learc83 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's perfectly fine. What you're looking for is vocational training, not a liberal college education. Non professional college programs are explicitly not vocational training. If they were, they wouldn't require spending nearly half your time on general education requirements (assuming we're talking about the US here). I doubt art history, physics, or psychology has proven much direct use to you in your career. >In…

My idea of education is one that teaches you skills that are broadly used throughout your career. I don't a priori reject things that meet this criteria just because it's not based in theory (because theory is not an end to itself), or by applying arbitrary labels like "vocational" (whatever that means), "liberal" or "professional". As for art history and psychology, that's a different debate to be had about educatio…

> My idea of education is one that teaches you skills that are broadly used throughout your career. ... applying arbitrary labels like "vocational" (whatever that means)

vocational - adj. 2. (of education or training) directed at a particular occupation and its skills.

Which is exactly your idea of education. The labels are descriptive, not arbitrary.

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#137

Post by genericuser »

learc83 wrote: post #99
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design patterns are models, something very much within the wheelhouse of engineering. Engineering doesn't always deal with absolute facts as in science. When an underlying system is too complex to fully describe, simplified modeling can be appropriate.

Models are used to get a better of understanding of a complex system, or to test a complex system when you can't test the real thing. A design pattern could be used to this way but they aren't. They are used as a design methodology that you are encouraged to follow. They also aren't based on any formal theory. They are based only on the experience of the people who create them. They are almost the definition of a cra…

From my experience design patterns are both taught and used as a starting place for solving a problem which is recognized as similar to a problem which was previously solved effectively with in the manner of the pattern. Rarely will the design pattern fit perfectly as the solution, but by recognizing and using the correct one as a starting point for many architecture related problems you can greatly reduce the work involved, in creating the solution.

They keep people from re-inventing nearly identical solutions over and over, and allow for a vocabulary which can express rather complex ideas because fellow practitioners of software engineering generally know many of the same design patterns. This saves time and reduces the opportunity for miscommunication when expressing a more complex idea (assuming the person you are talking to doesn't lie and for instance say they are familiar with the facade pattern, when they are not).

To me this is using them to both get and express a better understanding of a complex system. I am also able to understand code for new projects I am to work on much quicker when I understand the underlying design of the elements. When the elements are designed with a structure that resembles things I am familiar with this process becomes fairly easy.

I see them as things like definitions of 'Suspension Bridge', 'Victorian House', 'Tunnel', or 'Dog House'. Sure we might see a book consisting of very rudimentary definitions of structures like these as being absurd, for the corresponding type of engineer, but that is because of our familiarity with the form these structures take. That familiarity with the form is the point of design patterns in my opinion. And I believe their utility is indispensable should we want to continue building more complex structures in code.

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#138

Post by __z »

mariodiana wrote: post #68
__z wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I heard about companies who pay for college - as long as you stay one year after your last class. If not you have to pay them back. Actually, just pay back just the tuition you spent in the last year.

Seeing as Army ROTC will want 4 years, it sounds like a great deal.

If you take classes for 4 years then you'll have to stay 5 to get your education fully paid off. If you took 4 years of classes and worked for 4 years then you'd owe them 1 year tuition (the previous year)

That being said, this deal was to further your education for your job. So you couldn't get your masters in finance unless you worked in finance. A software developer couldn't get their finance degree paid for.

This was for a company my friend worked for.

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#139

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #91
cousin_it wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. Then I'm fucked! My method will certainly have disparate impact (because it has nonzero correlation with IQ), be not very tailored to any particular job (because it's magical), and there will be numerous available studies (making it easier to sue me as you explai…

> Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. If you can demonstrate this is the case for the specific jobs where you want to apply it, you will then have no problem, even if it has a disproportionate negative impact on a protected class.

[deleted]

Re: Business Can Pay to Train Its Own Work Force

#140

Post by cousin_it »

dragonwriter wrote: post #91
cousin_it wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. Then I'm fucked! My method will certainly have disparate impact (because it has nonzero correlation with IQ), be not very tailored to any particular job (because it's magical), and there will be numerous available studies (making it easier to sue me as you explai…

> Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. If you can demonstrate this is the case for the specific jobs where you want to apply it, you will then have no problem, even if it has a disproportionate negative impact on a protected class.

> You will have no problem

Only in the same sense that an unjustly accused person will "have no problem" as long as they're actually innocent. In practice, they do have a problem. Firms are afraid of using IQ tests and being the first against the wall.

Post reply on HN