61–70 of 201 posts
How about "Possibly, they see people making ridiculous amounts of money in tech and want a piece of it?"
Could you please forward me jobs advertised that have the real possibility of "ridiculous amounts of money"? All the programming jobs I see are about 90k?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" First job " That's an outstanding point, especially in today's economy. It sucks that a conventional programming career generally ends at age 35-40, but for someone not wedded to a programming career, and who has a modicum of talent and interest in the field, yeah, that'll get them started. They will then have plenty of time to arrange their first transition into another career, and they will have learned a lot of…
> It sucks that a conventional programming career generally ends at age 35-40, That's an illusion, created by two factors: * Many people choose to leave the "coder" job as they age, and mentally it's a difficult field to enter if you never coded befo reage 35. * The explosion of the size industry means that the number of young novices dwarfs the number of older veterans. You can see this now, as the young novices of…
I have my own telling experience there, based on being able to hide my age in my resume and my looks, and doing the former in the middle of a job search as well as subsequent ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I think we are at a peak for outrageous programmer salaries. The market is currently correcting itself.
Programmer salaries aren't outrageous. Most peoples' real incomes have declined substantially, making programmer salaries look high. US GDP is $15.68 trillion (2012), with 146 million people employed (April 2014). That's $107,000 per worker. US median wage is around $27,000. Programmers are one of the few occupations that have managed to retain bargaining power. Compare the lifestyle (e.g. house, vehicle, ability to…
and a large part is that progress has raised productivity and the standard of living quite a bit, but the top x% have captured the profits from that progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. Having everyone knowing how to code is the opposite of specialisation. It's inefficient and pointless. If a certain profession needs a piece of software, it's much more efficient for specialist developers to consult with domain experts, write that software, and sell it into the industry. Having every (for example) doctor being able to code adds negligible value, and I would argue the opportunit…
> A society of part-time coders would do nothing but produce a lot of badly-written toy programs. What's the point? Maybe you are embarassed by the content of github, but many of us feel it is changing the word for the better. An Excel jockey writing macros -> better spreadsheets. A writer who can analyze and restructure their story, wihout laboriously poring and cutting and pasting -> better stories. There was a tim…
How is this related to knowing how to code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. Having everyone knowing how to code is the opposite of specialisation. It's inefficient and pointless. If a certain profession needs a piece of software, it's much more efficient for specialist developers to consult with domain experts, write that software, and sell it into the industry. Having every (for example) doctor being able to code adds negligible value, and I would argue the opportunit…
Someone a thousand years ago would have dictated to his scribe the following: "Having everyone knowing how to read and write is the opposite of specialisation. It's inefficient and pointless. If a certain profession needs a document, it's much more efficient for specialist scribes to consult with domain experts, write that document, and sell it into the industry. Having every (for example) doctor being able to read a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big money is still in finance, unless you manage to build a successful business.
There now exist options in engineering which are comparable with those in finance, and importantly, there is now a credible case that engineering is one of the best median outcome career paths for a bright student who is willing to push whatever lever and turn whatever knob required to get to professional success. Stanford undergrads with their degrees still wet are getting $1X0,000 offers from AmaGooFaceSoft. That's…
I guess $300k vs $500k is much improved compared to $1X0k vs $500k that we would have been looking at a decade ago though :P
In addition, perhaps the parity is better when you compare median results rather than upper quintiles.
Btw, first year management consultants make nowhere close to $100k (though they can make up for it with Starwood points and frequent flier miles on United -- no joke). You'll only top $100k once you're an associate, which is after your 2+2 (2 years as an analyst, 2 years of bschool). Only 3-5% of the analyst class goes straight to associate. Students who enter as an analyst are doing it primarily for the great education and training McK/BCG/Bain give you, and definitely aren't making the choice based on monetary incentives.
What is the biggest reason for this growth?
I can speak to a few anecdotal factors having recently graduated from Stanford. 1) The current tech boom. There's the perception of being able to easily create a startup or to get a programming job at a tech company. Some major in computer science also for the technical skills it gives even though they plan not to pursue programming as a job. They may want to become a PM, or a related non day-to-day programming role…
> There's the perception of being able to easily create a startup or to get a programming job at a tech company
Yeah a lot of people believe simply having a CS degree is a shoo-in for any job. However, if you're studying CS you probably want to work at a top-tier corporate or startup and neither is easy for most grads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. Having everyone knowing how to code is the opposite of specialisation. It's inefficient and pointless. If a certain profession needs a piece of software, it's much more efficient for specialist developers to consult with domain experts, write that software, and sell it into the industry. Having every (for example) doctor being able to code adds negligible value, and I would argue the opportunit…
> A society of part-time coders would do nothing but produce a lot of badly-written toy programs. What's the point? Maybe you are embarassed by the content of github, but many of us feel it is changing the word for the better. An Excel jockey writing macros -> better spreadsheets. A writer who can analyze and restructure their story, wihout laboriously poring and cutting and pasting -> better stories. There was a tim…
If you are an 'excel jockey', then your job involves coding. Of course knowing how to code to some degree will make you better. I don't see that as a good example. You should have used one of the many professions that currently involve no coding at all as an example.
There was also a time when civil engineering was a specialist activity best left to professionals, and it still is. You seem to believe that coding is akin to literacy. I believe it is not, and have provided some reasons in my previous post.
All the other basic requirements of a university education are filled through entry level classes - credit-fillers that students have to take in order to graduate. This structure works out well for everyone: the university ensures that students are getting a well-rounded education (as opposed to a trade-school degree) and maintains its reputation and the value of its product.
The only classes that students can take to demonstrate an ability in computational thinking are CS classes. Entry level CS classes, like those in the other engineering disciplines, are not like entry level classes in non-engineering disciplines. Most students that take ARCH 101 and LIT 101 are not taking them because they are interested in pursuing the major, they take them because they were the best-sounding classes that help them to fill their credit requirements. In doing so, they end up with a well-rounded education. In contrast, most students that take EE 101 are trying out for EE as a major.
CS entry level classes traditionally fell into the latter category. Demand has resulted in students treating them as part of the former.
The best thing a university could do is to figure out what skills that these employers are all demanding and offer entry-level classes to fill the need. Structure them to work with large numbers of students, just like all the other 100 and 200 level classes that everyone takes.
Here's the key part: advertise these classes relentlessly, to students and employers. Talk about how the university has seen the demand for these skills and has shifted to focus on them. Become known as a university where every student can get these skills as a part of their education, regardless of major, and most choose to.
Potential students will be thrilled at the prospect of a university where they can get a bankable education without having to commit to CS as a major. Strain on the CS major will go down and prestige will increase - if every student is getting the kinds of CS skills that employers require, then the ones that enter the major must be the hardest of the hardcore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please forward me jobs advertised that have the real possibility of "ridiculous amounts of money"? All the programming jobs I see are about 90k?
Compared to the median income for most of the US ($40-$50k/year), $90k for a new grad is pretty high.