6 ms·

The software industry is broken for older engineers. Look at the typical algo/CS heavy interview today. It favors and selects for these characteristics: 1) Yo

The software industry is broken for older engineers. Look at the typical algo/CS heavy interview today. It favors and selects for these characteristics: 1) Young, fresh graduates who still remember well the CS material. Or those who have a lot of free time and can study for these interviews (for example look at this Quora link http://www.quora.com/How-much-time-did-you-spend-preparing-for-Googles-interviews http://www.quora.com/How-much-time-did-you-spend-preparing-f... the first reply mentions spending 28.5 hours per week for 5 weeks, which is 142.5 hours total) From a senior software engineers perspective that's a ridiculous commitment for something where an arrogant asshole interviewer can shutdown a whole onsite interview process because they're having a bad day or have some favorite question they think is the One True Question for determining if someone is a software engineer. 2) The software industry tends to overvalue youth. It has a very high salary at start, but also a very quick salary cap. And most companies have no technical ladder, and even those that do it's a joke compared to the manager ladder. All of this is not surprising. Since the industry is so heavily biased towards hiring and rewarding youth, older experienced engineers are not valued. 3) Senior software engineers have heavy pressure to leave the software field. I'm feeling this now. I'm a senior at my current place and my salary is basically capped. There would be little to no benefit going to another company. And even if I wanted to, I have a family now and don't have the free time to study for software interviews. My options are basically go into management, consulting, or start a business. I have no desire to start a business or go into consulting because I simply don't like doing those business related things. I want to be an engineer not a business person. But if I just stay an engineer, I will probably get laid off someday due to ageism. And if I'm an old engineer who is laid off, job mobility is basically gone due to ageism and the CS heavy interviews that I don't have the time or motivation to study for. So the only safe path is management. A lot of senior engineers face this decision. Which again reduces the number of mentors and experienced engineers to teach the new younger engineers. 4) And doesn't anyone notice just how wrong whole concept of studying for an interview is? There's a whole book publishing industry dedicated to technical interviews such as Cracking the Coding Interview. The technical interview has become like the SAT. Many could just study to pass it, but be horrible engineers.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago
>And doesn't anyone notice just how wrong whole concept of studying for an interview is? This has been going on for ages. A lot of coding bootcamps and similar things are just interview prep programs. A lot, I mean a lot, of people I have worked with can nail interviews but can't do real work for shit. Unfortunately to land a job, you have to go through this process. Developing interview skills is parallel to being able to do actual work.
tptacek 12y ago
Interestingly, the author of that book also wrote the top comment on the TechCrunch story, disagreeing pretty strongly with me about hiring processes. I got to talk to her a bit about it on Twitter: http://www.conweets.com/tqbf/gayle/ http://www.conweets.com/tqbf/gayle/ (I'm having a pretty bad day, which I hope doesn't show through too much in that summary).
- dpritchett 12y ago
  Bummer. Her career seems to be predicated on a correlation between algorithm tests and performance. Can't expect her to seriously entertain disagreement as long as the current model is profitable for her. Google is no more a proof of the value of algorithm tests than Github proves the value of manager-free organizations. I was a bit horrified at the acquisition coaching comment. I did not realize that happened but of course it makes sense. Can't manage an acquihire if your devs can't pass the algorithm tests at the big acquirers. Shame.
  - gaylemcd 12y ago
    Your assumptions are false. It is actually more profitable for me if I say that these algorithm tests are BS and completely study-able, and even the worst engineer can pass them. That easily translates into "here! buy my book and even YOU can get a job at Google!" It's actually a much harder sell when, really, it's more like studying helps someone perform better, but only to an extent. Oh, and the acquirers encourage studying and prep, just as most of the top tech companies do for their normal dev (and non-dev) candidates. To be clear: my experience is that the algorithm interviews, when done properly, work reasonably well to identify intelligence/problem solving and coding skills. Those are more important at some places than others. They can work well for certain places -- but not at all. I do not think that all companies should use this process. It's not right for all places, but it's reasonably good for some. As for Google being proof of the value of algorithm test: I think you're pulling that from a twitter conversation very much out of context. Context: Some people were arguing that the algorithm interviews offer zero value - that you'd be at least as well off, if not better off, hiring at random. If they truly believe that (and they appeared to be sticking to this argument), then it's absolutely relevant that not just Google, but basically all the top tech companies, use this hiring process. Could a randomly selected group of engineers build the technology at companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc? I suppose that's what they must believe, and I find that pretty absurd. If they had argued that these interviews sort of work, but aren't nearly as good as some other interview processes, then you're right that the company about Google and other companies wouldn't be relevant. And I also wouldn't have brought it up.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago

>And doesn't anyone notice just how wrong whole concept of studying for an interview is? This has been going on for ages. A lot of coding bootcamps and similar things are just interview prep programs. A lot, I mean a lot, of people I have worked with can nail interviews but can't do real work for shit. Unfortunately to land a job, you have to go through this process. Developing interview skills is parallel to being able to do actual work.

tptacek 12y ago

Interestingly, the author of that book also wrote the top comment on the TechCrunch story, disagreeing pretty strongly with me about hiring processes. I got to talk to her a bit about it on Twitter: http://www.conweets.com/tqbf/gayle/ http://www.conweets.com/tqbf/gayle/ (I'm having a pretty bad day, which I hope doesn't show through too much in that summary).

dpritchett 12y ago
Bummer. Her career seems to be predicated on a correlation between algorithm tests and performance. Can't expect her to seriously entertain disagreement as long as the current model is profitable for her. Google is no more a proof of the value of algorithm tests than Github proves the value of manager-free organizations. I was a bit horrified at the acquisition coaching comment. I did not realize that happened but of course it makes sense. Can't manage an acquihire if your devs can't pass the algorithm tests at the big acquirers. Shame.
- gaylemcd 12y ago
  Your assumptions are false. It is actually more profitable for me if I say that these algorithm tests are BS and completely study-able, and even the worst engineer can pass them. That easily translates into "here! buy my book and even YOU can get a job at Google!" It's actually a much harder sell when, really, it's more like studying helps someone perform better, but only to an extent. Oh, and the acquirers encourage studying and prep, just as most of the top tech companies do for their normal dev (and non-dev) candidates. To be clear: my experience is that the algorithm interviews, when done properly, work reasonably well to identify intelligence/problem solving and coding skills. Those are more important at some places than others. They can work well for certain places -- but not at all. I do not think that all companies should use this process. It's not right for all places, but it's reasonably good for some. As for Google being proof of the value of algorithm test: I think you're pulling that from a twitter conversation very much out of context. Context: Some people were arguing that the algorithm interviews offer zero value - that you'd be at least as well off, if not better off, hiring at random. If they truly believe that (and they appeared to be sticking to this argument), then it's absolutely relevant that not just Google, but basically all the top tech companies, use this hiring process. Could a randomly selected group of engineers build the technology at companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc? I suppose that's what they must believe, and I find that pretty absurd. If they had argued that these interviews sort of work, but aren't nearly as good as some other interview processes, then you're right that the company about Google and other companies wouldn't be relevant. And I also wouldn't have brought it up.