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

351–360 of 370 posts

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

#351

Post by ralmidani »

thatonechad wrote: post #349
ralmidani wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a cliche, but universities (are supposed to) teach you critical thinking as well as social and life skills, not just train you for a specific vocation. Watering down university education is not necessary. If someone wants to focus just on tech skills, they can go to a boot camp. Expanding boot camps so they become multi-year experiences may be a good idea, but they should not be called universities.

I would agree and my use of the term University is not necessarily meant to be used in that traditional sense. What I believe is that there should be an alternative to Universities that could focus more on that aspect and present you with a 4 year degree. I guarantee if you created a tech school that focuses strictly on tech related classes for 4 years compared to a University that you would produce higher quality st…

Maybe "higher quality" in the sense that they've spent more time growing their tech skills, but there is more to a person than their skills in a chosen vocation.

Also, what happens if a student wants to switch majors? Or graduates but later wants to change careers? Your proposal doesn't make that feasible.

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

#352

Post by bradleyjg »

ucaetano wrote: post #332
bradleyjg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 retir…

It's true that it doesn't make as much sense from a business perspective as it once did to have a deep training pipeline. If I were suggesting that Google switch over to such a model for all their hiring that would be all there was to say on the matter.

But here Google is looking to donate $1 billion as a charitable contribution to address a specific social problem. I'm suggesting an alternative way of "spending" that money. From that standpoint the fact that such a training program is sub-optimal in a bottom line sort of way isn't as important -- indeed it is kind of the point. The difference between the optimal business focused process and such a hiring and training program would be in lieu of the donation that Google is planning on making.

It's my contention that this way of spending money would yield more benefits than the current plan. I could well be wrong, but just criticizing the idea from a business efficiency angle misses the point.

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

#353

Post by jorblumesea »

sulam wrote: post #341
jorblumesea wrote: post #158

How does flooding the market with developers that will never be able to pass their interviews help them? I guess it will increase the amount of people in the 1% by expanding the size of that pool? Just seems like Google out of all companies has a need for the best, not just blue collar code slingers. Many people with 4 years CS degrees from good schools do not get hired.

A couple misconceptions seemed buried in here. First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. The hiring process is far more random than we’d like to imagine it is when you have a “high bar”.

> First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads.

Google's hiring process does not reflect this at all. Even entry level positions have very high bar. Boring has nothing to do with it, Google wants the best.

> Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there.

That's not random, that's just setting a really high bar.

Have you been through a Google interview? Their phone screen questions are equivalent to many companies' "hardest" interview problems.

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

#354

Post by jimmaswell »

stale2002 wrote: post #272
Apocryphon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not try both? The point is that the status quo is untenable, corporate power is going to commodify devs just as they have done to workers in many other industries, and you might as well try fixing about it rather than getting disrupted like so many other dinosaur entities that tech has done to.

The status quo is untenable??? I am not sure what world you live in, but the world that I live in is one where software engineering salaries and jobs have continued to increase over the last 5, despite all these bootcamp grads and the large increase in CS majors.

The tech labor shortage seems to me to be essentially a fabrication invented by tech companies to encourage further oversaturation. I just cannot believe jobs are growing faster than the workforce when my experience has been this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15461080

The status quo is untenable because it's a bubble. There are far too many junior programmers.

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

#355

Post by s73ver_ »

kbart wrote: post #319
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.

Usually, as soon as you get through the first interview, your papers won't matter much. Credentials might help to get you that first interview, but getting a good engineering job still requires deep technical skills and that's where those, who "watch a bunch of youtube videos" can shine. I have my credentials written on CV, but never have been asked to show any of these papers or shown any interest in them.

"Usually, as soon as you get through the first interview, your papers won't matter much"

Unfortunately, getting that first interview can highly depend on those papers.

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

#356

Post by s73ver_ »

j45 wrote: post #311
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.

A certificate is one thing. Expecting your education to make something of you, instead of making something of your education (track record) is another. Managing to get a certificate does not guarantee one can apply those YouTube videos.

I never, ever once implied anything of the sort.

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

#357

Post by s73ver_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #306
baursak wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't the original commenter, but I don't think when they said "owner class" they meant passive minority shareholders with $200K portfolios or people with some money in their 401Ks. While some of the richest are certainly entrepreneurs, the largest percentage of Forbes 400 are people who got there with OPM, other people's money, like hedge fund managers. Another chunk are heirs like Waltons or Kochs. Did Waltons g…

Check this on Sam Walton before assuming he got something for nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton More accurately he made something from nothing. You and anyone else could have made a little something, too, if you'd bought Walmart stock. Lots of people did. Also, you could be a millionaire by retirement if you adhered to a regular investment program rather than only one investment of $1,000.

And if I didn't have the money to buy that stock?

Also, the Walton kids most assuredly got something for nothing.

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

#358

Post by somebehemoth »

Klockan wrote: post #329
s73ver_ wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given all the stuff that's happening lately with people like Susan Fowler, a whole lot of developers could have benefitted from more of those. Of course, that's completely ignoring that there is far, far, far more to "liberal arts" than gender studies.

Diversity training doesn't work though and it often makes things worse. https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work

You will need more citations to prove that point. Same publication, more recently published, "Two Types of Diversity Training That Really Work".

"For one, a recent meta-analysis of over 40 years of diversity training evaluations showed that diversity training can work, especially when it targets awareness and skill development and occurs over a significant period of time."

https://hbr.org/2017/07/two-types-of-diversity-training-that...

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

#359

Post by sulam »

jorblumesea wrote: post #353
sulam wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple misconceptions seemed buried in here. First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. The hiring process is far more random than we’d like to imagine it is when you have a “high bar”.

> First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Google's hiring process does not reflect this at all. Even entry level positions have very high bar. Boring has nothing to do with it, Google wants the best. > Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. That's not random, that's just setting a real…

I've been through the entire Google interview, yes. And I'm going to go (slightly) out on a limb and say that if Google could reduce their false negative rate, they would. IOW, yes, that's a factor of having a high bar, but what that statement is capturing in aggregate is the fact that their interviewers are not all equally calibrated and the interview process can be very uneven, although always looking for very strong people. They then turn around and give those really strong engineers a very high salary and (in many cases) relatively uninteresting work. It would be surprising to me if that changes as a result of this $1B grant, but I would be equally surprised if they don't try to skim the cream off that particular crop.

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

#360

Post by WalterBright »

s73ver_ wrote: post #357
WalterBright wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check this on Sam Walton before assuming he got something for nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton More accurately he made something from nothing. You and anyone else could have made a little something, too, if you'd bought Walmart stock. Lots of people did. Also, you could be a millionaire by retirement if you adhered to a regular investment program rather than only one investment of $1,000.

And if I didn't have the money to buy that stock? Also, the Walton kids most assuredly got something for nothing.

> And if I didn't have the money to buy that stock?

But you do.

> the Walton kids most assuredly got something for nothing.

85% of American millionaires are self-made. See "The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley.

Post reply on HN