As the bulge in older people progresses and ageism becomes worse in an irrational way, it may make sense for older people to come together and form companies of their own, focused on selling to older people, who, of course, have the wealth (if not always the income).
Why Ageism Never Gets Old
51–60 of 272 posts
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#52But academia is a profession more unlike than like our own. We do, after all, call ourselves not scientists but engineers. While the role of an engineer may include the invention of novel applications or even novel theory, it need not; what we do revolves instead around the application of ingenuity to the solution of real problems, and I see no reason to assume that facility of ingenuity or skill in its application are dependent upon youth. On the contrary, the accrual of experiential knowledge which comes with a long period of practice in the field makes a canny engineer more capable, rather than less so.
Not to say that there's no place for genius, of course - but, again, genius is hardly the sole province of youth. And ours is a young field, as the professions go; ours is the third or perhaps the fourth generation in all human history where the phrase "software engineer" has even had a defined meaning, and so it's reasonable to expect we may still be somewhat bound by the traditions of the theoretical fields in which our own so recently originated - we haven't really had time to establish traditions of our own, and the field is something of a free-for-all as a result. Combine all that with one of our preeminent centers of practice by happenstance being a place which has fetishized youth and beauty for well longer than our field's been around - and which has also, separately and for quite a few more years, made an industry of exporting its own culture to our country and the world - and it's not hard to see how we might end up with the kinds of attitudes here under discussion.
There is, though, cause for considerable optimism in the fact that Silicon Valley is not the reliable metonym for software engineering culture which it is so often taken to be, whether by the self-congratulatory among its own inhabitants or by those naïve or ignorant enough to believe the hype they expound. Sure - the field was in considerable part incubated there, and largely codified there to the extent it has been codified at all. But that a thing was invented in a place does not give that place an exclusive, permanent claim on defining the nature of the thing.
Sure - if you're forty or fifty and you want to work for Google as a software engineer, you're going to have a bad time, not least because you'll probably be interviewed by infants who may find you reminiscent of the fathers in their relationships with whom they are not yet fully past the adversarial phase. But there are many places to work other than Google, and many more preferable places to work and to live than Silicon Valley. There is no reason for anyone, but especially anyone who knows better, to subject herself to the programmer's equivalent of the Hollywood talent mill - often, as we have lately been hearing in the news, complete with "casting couches" for those who happen to suit the sexual fancy of one who happens to hold some power.
Come and join us out here in the real world! We'll be happy to have you among us, and you can make a life for yourself here. Believe it or not, we even have some houses that sell for under a million!
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#53> In the nineteen-twenties, an engineer’s “half life of knowledge”—the time it took for half of his expertise to become obsolete—was thirty-five years. In the nineteen-sixties, it was a decade. Now it’s five years at most, and, for a software engineer, less than three. This sort of mythology is NOT helping. An experienced Software Engineer has valuable skills that do not age at all. Yes there are new languages and fr…
The people pushing this viewpoint are self-interested Vinod Khosla’s quote is missing a punchline — “Young people are just smarter” [except for me]. The only timeless ageism thing is the willingness of old men to schnooker young turks into things, whether that is getting blown up on a battlefield for king and country or getting exploited to make guys like Khosla money.
(ETA: Unless you're familiar with the output of such publications, I suppose, at least enough so to validate the "Gell-Mann amnesia" concept firsthand. I can't say they serve no useful purpose - one doesn't care to contemplate packs of feral journalists roaming the streets, shaking down sundry passersby for tweed and elbow patches - but really, one is well advised not to take them overly seriously.)
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#54> In the nineteen-twenties, an engineer’s “half life of knowledge”—the time it took for half of his expertise to become obsolete—was thirty-five years. In the nineteen-sixties, it was a decade. Now it’s five years at most, and, for a software engineer, less than three. This sort of mythology is NOT helping. An experienced Software Engineer has valuable skills that do not age at all. Yes there are new languages and fr…
This mythology leads directly to horribly created software that will either ensure many terrible security breaches in the future or the continued proliferation of "magic" throughout a product. One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types. an engineer in any other proper engineering discipline does not become worthless with age, their experience actually counts for something. Somehow…
Does it matter if neither the product sales nor the execs will suffer from producing it?
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types In Canada the term 'engineer' is regulated at the provincial level, and a person can be prosecuted for labeling themselves as an engineer if they are not registered and licensed with their province's engineering association. For example in Ontario in order to join Professional Engineers Ontario and call yourself an engineer you must meet…
The link suggests that what is regulated is "Professional Engineer", not "engineer".
[1] http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=2075&la_id=1#whypeng [2] http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=2075&la_id=1#aftergrad [3] https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p28#BK36
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and have "Software Engineer" in their job title, and proudly introduce themselves as such. Personally I don't see a problem with this. That's their job title. Whether they have a P. Eng and can legally sign documents is another matter. You are correct that technically they cannot walk around saying "I am a Software Engineer" unless they are a Professional Engineer. But I don't see the harm of someone saying "I work…
That’s how we got to where we are today. You don’t get to call yourself a doctor or nurse because you have a box of band-aids in your pocket. The meaning of engineering on the other hand has been watered down to be meaningless. There are no professional standards and no control on what companies represent their staff to be. It sounds prestigious as a title, but that’s about the end of it.
For some disciplines like Software Engineering, I agree.
For other disciplines like Civil engineering, the term has not been watered down. No company would hire someone to certify designs who was not a P. Eng because they are required to employ a P.Eng for this by regulations/law.
This problem has come up because the government/PEO has not reacted to the changing engineering landscape and don't require positions like "Software Engineer" to be filled by an actual P. Eng.
Companies made the title worthless. I don't see how it's fair to fault the person in the position because there is a double standard applied to individuals and companies regarding the term "Engineer"
Apply the standard both ways. People cannot call themselves an "Engineer" unless they hold a P.Eng and companies cannot hire anyone but a P.Eng for an "X Engineer" position.
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types In Canada the term 'engineer' is regulated at the provincial level, and a person can be prosecuted for labeling themselves as an engineer if they are not registered and licensed with their province's engineering association. For example in Ontario in order to join Professional Engineers Ontario and call yourself an engineer you must meet…
> and have "Software Engineer" in their job title, and proudly introduce themselves as such. Personally I don't see a problem with this. That's their job title. Whether they have a P. Eng and can legally sign documents is another matter. You are correct that technically they cannot walk around saying "I am a Software Engineer" unless they are a Professional Engineer. But I don't see the harm of someone saying "I work…
From [1]: Becoming licensed gives you the right to use “P.Eng.” after your name and “engineer” in your job title. Under the Professional Engineers Act, you may only use “engineer” in your job title if you hold a P.Eng. licence.
So yes, I'd agree that companies shouldn't be using engineer in the job title unless they're hiring a P.Eng, but that doesn't absolve the employee of liability.
[1]http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=2075&la_id=1#whypeng
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#58Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
This mythology leads directly to horribly created software that will either ensure many terrible security breaches in the future or the continued proliferation of "magic" throughout a product. One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types. an engineer in any other proper engineering discipline does not become worthless with age, their experience actually counts for something. Somehow…
> One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types In Canada the term 'engineer' is regulated at the provincial level, and a person can be prosecuted for labeling themselves as an engineer if they are not registered and licensed with their province's engineering association. For example in Ontario in order to join Professional Engineers Ontario and call yourself an engineer you must meet…
Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and have "Software Engineer" in their job title, and proudly introduce themselves as such. Personally I don't see a problem with this. That's their job title. Whether they have a P. Eng and can legally sign documents is another matter. You are correct that technically they cannot walk around saying "I am a Software Engineer" unless they are a Professional Engineer. But I don't see the harm of someone saying "I work…
> to my knowledge there are no legal restrictions on what title a company can give a role From [1]: Becoming licensed gives you the right to use “P.Eng.” after your name and “engineer” in your job title. Under the Professional Engineers Act, you may only use “engineer” in your job title if you hold a P.Eng. licence. So yes, I'd agree that companies shouldn't be using engineer in the job title unless they're hiring a…
So, would you agree that if we are going to be strict about who can use the term "Engineer" there shouldn't be a double standard allowing companies to call a position "X Engineer" and then hire someone who isn't a P. Eng for the position?
If Engineer is a restricted term for individuals, then it should be a restricted term for employers as well. Employers having a position with "Engineer" in the title should only be permitted to hire people with a P.Eng.
> Under the Professional Engineers Act, you may only use “engineer” in your job title if you hold a P.Eng. licence.
The company sets the job title. So if they want to hire someone who isn't a P.Eng to the role, that person is supposed to tell the company to change the role title to exclude the term "Engineer" ?