On Being a Generalist

Post by kthejoker2 » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 8:17 PM UTC

arcturus17 wrote: post #29

moksly wrote: post #13

I think the authors scope is way too narrow. If you’re a react developer who also knows vue, and perhaps enough ops to get side projects to run in Azure/AWS then you’re still a specialist. It’s easy to forget, because development is what we do, but it’s actually a rather specialist skill in itself. I say this as someone who has been part of several attempts at implementing things like RPA or even Sharepoint to non-de…

I think you're focusing too much on the strict semantics of "generalist" - whether the word is accurate or not will largely depend on context and how much you "zoom out". I could argue with you that someone who does development, project management and implementation is still a software specialist, and that a real generalist is someone who can sell, or someone who can play piano, as well as do the aforementioned. I am…

Post by bryanmgreen » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #69

The word "generalist" tends to be used where "unspecialised" would've been more appropriate. Junior, unspecialised engineers are exactly that: unspecialised. They haven't had the the time to become good at any one thing. At the mid-weight range, some engineers start to focus on a particular area and become specialists. Others seek knowledge across the spectrum and become generalists. Finally, others remain unspeciali…

Post by username90 » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

zerr wrote: post #123

umvi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, they hire Competitive Programmers More specifically, programmers who spend a lot of time learning how to solve algorithm puzzles. This heavily favors single people who have lots of time to devote to studying such things and disadvantages time-constrained people such as developers with a family life at home.

Yes, ageism is one of the consequences (or reason) of such interview practice.

Post by username90 » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 8:54 PM UTC

spir wrote: post #121

JoshTriplett wrote: post #2

> Some companies only hire specialists. If you’re Google, it makes little sense to hire a generalist, I think. Having been through a Google interview and offer process, this seems exactly backwards: Google selects heavily for generalists, so that they have people who can adapt to and integrate different technologies. (I'm sure they do hire specialists in various areas, but their interview process optimizes for genera…

How does Google "select heavily for generalists" when the interview is almost entirely comp sci? Perhaps you mean "computer science generalist". Afaik, the only way for me to get a software offer from Google is to spend dozens or hundreds of hours studying computer science, and nothing else. If I interview for software at Google, they don't ask about my skills in product design, economics, or strategy. If I interview…

Post by rahimnathwani » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

grogenaut wrote: post #120

rahimnathwani wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the people who interviewed me on-site at Google, none were in any of the same teams as the roles for which I was being considered. Only after my packet had passed the hiring committee did I speak with potential hiring managers about team fit. When I was interviewed at Amazon, all but one of the interviewers was a future colleague. And the one who wasn't led an adjacent team.

Amazon has started doing general hire and then placement for senior engineers in some areas, international hires in consumer goods for instance. I like this better as it gives you a lot more options. In the other model if you didn't have good fit you might end up with another partial loop. I also like this better than the Facebook model where you don't find out your real team for several months after the hire. For th…