Published earlier this year, but still relevant.

top 76 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 134 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (27 children)

The major saw an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent, just under those top majors like physics and anthropology, which had rates of 7.8 and 9.4 percent respectively.

The numbers aren't too high although it shows the market is no longer starved for grads.

It's important to understand that this is a standard feature of the capitalist economy where the market is used to determine how many people are needed in a certain field at a point in time. It is not unusual that there's no overarching plan for how many software engineers would be needed over the long term. The market has to go through a shortage phase, creating the effects in wages, unemployment, educational institutions and so on, in order to increase the production of software engineers. Then the market has to go through the oversupply phase creating the opposite effects on wages, unemployment and educational institutions in order to decrease the production of software engineers. The people who are affected by these swings are a necessary part of the ability for the market to compute the next state of this part of the economy. This is how it works. It uses real people and resources to do it. The less planning we do, the more people and resources have to go through the meat grinder in order to decide where the economy goes next. We don't have to do it this way but that's how it's been decided for a while now.

I was doing my CS degree immediately after the 2008 meltdown. At the time there was a massive oversupply of finance people who graduated and couldn't find work. This continued for years. I was always shocked at the time why the university or the government does not project these things and adjust the available program sizes so that kids and their parents don't end up spending boatloads of money and lives in degrees under false promises of prosperity. I didn't have an answer then and people around me couldn't explain it either but many were asking the same question. I wish someone understood it the way I do now.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This should be common knowledge. I recall in the 1990s there was a huge push for truck drivers. Everywhere you went "Be a truck driver! Own your own business! Make six figures!" And only a decade later, employed drivers struggle to make ends meet.

    If you see a huge push for a particular job - you better plan your exit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    the university or the government does not project these things and adjust the available program sizes

    They kinda do, but only the part where they increase program sizes after demand exists and only wind down when the market is saturated. They can't really work too far ahead if they don't know ow something will be in demand and they don't want to tell students to not do something they offer just because there are too many graduates. Add the four or five years to graduation and you get a system that lags behind reality even if the planning was better.

    But a well designed post secondary education means graduates can go into similar or related fields, they aren't limited to what is on their diploma except in their own minds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I was always shocked at the time why the university or the government does not project these things and adjust the available program sizes so that kids and their parents don't end up spending boatloads of money and lives in degrees under false promises of prosperity. I didn't have an answer then and people around me couldn't explain it either but many were asking the same question.

    You are looking at Universities^0 all wrong. Predicting the markets are not their job or role in society.

    The primary purpose of a University is research. That research output comes from three primary sources: the faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students. Naturally undergrads don’t tend to come into the University knowing how to do proper research, so there is a teaching component involved to bring them up to the necessary standards so they can contribute to research — but ultimately, that’s what they exist for.

    What a University is not is a job training centre. That’s not its purpose, nor should it be. A University education is the gold standard in our society so many corporations and individuals will either prefer or require University training in exchange for employment — but that’s not the Universities that are enforcing that requirement. That’s all on private enterprise to decide what they want. All the University ultimately cares about is research output.

    Hence, if there is valuable research output to be made (and inputs in the form of grants) in the field of “Philosophy of Digital Thanatology” (yes, I’m making that up!), and they have access to faculty to lead suitable research AND they have students that want to study it, they’ll run it as a programme. It makes no difference whether or not there is any industry demand for “ Philosophy of Digital Thanatology” — if it results in grants and attracts researchers and students, a University could decide to offer it as a degree programme.

    We have a LOT of degree programmes with more graduates than jobs available. Personally, I’m glad for that. If I have some great interest in a subject, why shouldn’t I be allowed to study it? Why should I be forced to take it if and only if there is industry demand for that field? If that were the case, we’d have nearly no English language or Philosophy students — and likely a lot fewer Math and Theoretical Physics students as well. But that’s not the point of a University. It never has been, and it never should be.

    I’ve been an undergraduate, a graduate, and a University instructor in Computer Science. I’ve seen some argue in the past that the faculty should teach XYZ because it’s what industry needs at a given moment — but that’s not its purpose or its role. If industry needs a specific skill, it either needs to teach it itself, or rely on more practical community colleges and apprenticeship programmes which are designed around training for work.


    [0] — I’m going to use the Canadian terminology here, which differentiates between “Universities” and “Colleges”, with the former being centres of research education that grant degrees and the latter referring to schools that are often primarily trade and skill focussed that offer more diploma programmes. American common parlance tends to throw all of the above into the bucket of “College” in one way or another which makes differentiating between them more complicated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Speaking for the US, major universities may be there for research, but they are a small portion of the mass of schools across the country.

    People have mostly been getting degrees to get a good job since at least shortly after WW2. It’s silly to pretend people are going massively in debt without the expectation of a return on that investment.

    Nothing against people learning for the joy of learning, but I absolutely hold schools accountable for not making job prospects clear when most of the students are both young and ignorant of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    they don't want to scare people away form an impacted majors, they probably lose money if they arnt butts in the seat, if people arnt willing to pay for a major with no jobs the uni lose money and they probably have to shut that program down. it seems state uni around here on care about putting as much butts in seats of undergrads as possible so they can have thier cash cow, they dont care what happens to those 3-4years in, just push them through like they are in high school.

    biotech is another one i bring up on other forums, its one of those it looks likes in demand, but they really arnt keen on hiring people. its gatekeeped at the scientist level, unless a student is aware that labs exists in thier universities they are out of luck. and state unis here do a good job of not telling or hiding the labs under an obscure category. Professors are very reluctant to even talk about thier labs at all; some have an ego issue(they dont want students to ruin thier reputation, eventhough we arnt even a threat thier field, as we arnt in grad school, i had a professor like this) and labs are usually filled up, so theres very little chance to get into lab if your lucky. CCs dont have labs. that is the part that universities dont warn students about, if you had labs in your unis all this time, isnt ir prudent to look for these labs, although i suspect they dont want the PIs to get inundated with students requesting to get into thier labs, thats why they are very hush hush about it.

    i also think bio unemployment is skewed towards health too, because a significant amount of them are held by women, who are likely to be employed in the field over men, first its likely they are going into NURSING, dieticians, PHYSICAL therapy where all the jobs are, plus CLS which is a niche grad job. on the research side its the same for women ive only seen a majority are in the labs volunteering(apparently at my uni some of them only wanted women because lab manager/PI was being a creep), otherwise the biotech side have a pretty large unemployment, but its lumped in with all bio majors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    What you describe might be true for Canada, but it doesn't apply to all universities. Many universities have two primary tasks: research and education. These are two separate tasks with overlap.

    I do find it understandable if publicly funded universities place restrictions on how many students they accept per program as it's their duty to give back go society.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So coding trade schools need to be created.

    It's not honestly a job more complex than many trades. Treating it as different is a relict from the time when most programmers came from backgrounds in some cutting edge defense research or fundamental science. And honestly not all of them did, some learned it as a trade when it was a new thing, and advanced is like a trade, and themselves treated it like a trade, and wrote books about it like about a trade. Unfortunately later there was that hype over tech and Silicon Valley and crap.

    Today's programmers sometimes have problems with deep enough understanding of algorithms and data structures they use, while this is about similar in complexity to the knowledge an electrician possesses.

    In USSR there was a program of "programming being the second literacy", with Pascal and C being studied in schools and schools getting computers (probably the most expensive things in there), PDP-11 clones looking like PCs, and a few other kinds of machines. Unfortunately, the USSR itself was on the path to collapse. Honestly if only it existed for a bit longer, and reformed and liberalized more gently, maybe that program would have brought fruit (I mean, it did, just for other countries where people would emigrate).

    BTW, Soviet trade schools ("primary technical school" that was called) prepared programmers among other things. University degrees related to cybernetics were more about architecture of mass service systems, of program systems, of production lines, industrial optimization, - all things that people deciding on those learning programs could imagine as being useful. Writing code wasn't considered that important. And honestly that was right, except the Internet blew up, and with it - the completely unregulated and scams and bubbles driven tech industry.

    Honestly the longer I live, the more nostalgic I become for that country which failed 5 years before I was born. Yeah, people remembering it also remember that feeling of "we can live like this no longer", and that nothing was real or functional, but perhaps they misjudged and didn't see the parts which were real and functional, treating them as given. It was indeed a catastrophe, not a liberation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The grads coming from less rigorous 4 year programs are already lacking. Computer programming is complex enough that I would be very reluctant to learn from a trade school that took less than four years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    An electrician's work or a plumber's work are also complex. Or carpenter's.

    Come on. This is not about complex theory being used, this is about messed up instruments, where layers upon layers of bullshit are laid to deliver upon hype.

    People writing compilers and operating systems and cryptography libraries are those who need real education. People who make websites or Android apps on the framework of the day - need knowledge that is a thing in itself with no fundamental value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Coding trade schools effectively exist already — diploma granting Community Colleges exist for this reason. Here’s one, for example.

    But that’s not a University. We shouldn’t change the role of a University to match that of a diploma-awarding Community College. Challenging employers to see such students as being as useful hires compared to a University educated developer is likely a different story, however.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    That's not what I meant in that paragraph. I am not saying that universities are merely job training facilities. That was simply an example from my life where these types of professionals have come out of. I'm not making a judgement on universities as a whole. They just so happen to produce the vast majority of software engineers and finance professionals in Canada. That's why I mentioned the university. If I was talking about electricians, I'd have said trades school, or college, etc. I am absolutely aware of the larger role of universities and you won't catch me claiming they're professional training factories.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I find it hard to believe the true numbers are this low. Every job posting gets many hundreds or even thousands of applicants. It's a shame so much talent is wasted by so many people being unemployed and doing "unproductive" things like spending months applying to jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The way college works is a scam in itself. You don't need that much liberal art education. Four years and tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes hundreds of thousands) just to see if you can hack it in a job in your field? That's insane.

    Most jobs should be accessible right after high school in the form of paid internships. Programming is a trade, and most of the skills should be taught in high school. Not everyone needs to be a "computer scientist", just like not every plumber needs to be a hydraulic engineer.

    I've worked in a lot of programming jobs and zero of the people were what I would have called computer scientists. They were just coders who could write a conditional statement and a for loop. That gets the job done 99% of the time. (Obviously I'm greatly oversimplifying. My point is there's no "computer science" involved.)

    After a job in programming for a couple years, if you want to start working on the Linux kernel and write compilers, go ahead and go to school then and become a computer scientist. That's so few people.

    And then when there are no jobs hiring internships and computer science, you know not to focus on that. Do something else.

    But big business hates this. They want everyone to prove in a gauntlet that you can work under super high pressure and tight deadlines that are totally arbitrary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    What if I told you that in the Eastern Bloc many of the high schools used to be professional. In those schools you'd study most of the standard arts and science subjects, but also professional subjects like machining, automotive (mechanic, driver), construction, engineering, programming, agriculture, textile, food production, and many more. They used to produce ready workers in those fields. As a kid you'd choose which field you want to go to and apply after middle school, pass the necessary exams and get studying. If you wanted to go to university, you'd continue past high school.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I disagree on one point: the job of the education system is not to produce new workers, but to produce citizens. If I were I charge, I would force all stem students to take humanities courses. We have enough narrow-minded tech Bros.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I was always shocked at the time why the university or the government does not project these things and adjust the available program sizes so that kids and their parents don't end up spending boatloads of money and lives in degrees under false promises of prosperity.

    https://www.bls.gov/ooh/ does track this a bit, but I don’t know if universities use the info or if the site is intended for individuals instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It’s also just a general pattern that when a skill is in high demand, the jobs pay great. Everyone wants great pay, so the flood the schools to acquire that skill. Eventually things reach a saturation point.

    And also there are always charlatan programs that take your money to hand out worthless certifications. As time goes by, these “educations” mean less and less, a lot of people just nab them online because they want to make better money fast, and there are fewer and fewer real jobs unfilled. Until we arrive at a point like this.

    It’s a supply and demand issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yes my point is that it's a feature of using the market to decide these variables in the economy, that includes the supply-demand dynamics. If we used some form of planning at the macro level that takes data from the industry and educational institutions, project long term direcrion, and propagate targets or at least expectations down the industry and educational institutions, we could save a ton of real resources and parts of people's lives, and reduce the negative social effects of this process. Effects that destabilize the whole system if they grow to any significant proportions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    This explains why people gave me a hard time for getting an anthropology degree....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    its like psych degree, i heard people complaining in person about thier psych, yea you arnt going anywhere without a GRADuate degree for these majors, PSY-D/ PHD are the only options for that field, i assume thats what thier saying to you? anthropology might be more difficult, i assume your only going to be teaching at a university witha grad degree, but faculty positions are super-competitive asf, especially if its not a really in-demand degree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's a lot of jobs in the private and public sector for people with anthropology degrees. In the US, anthropology is taught as a four field approach encompassing Biological Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, Linguistic Anthropology, and Archaeology.

    Each of the subfields have different levels of hireability based on a bachelor's degree.

    I personally only have a bachelor's and live well. I have a home and live comfortably. But, to your point, I have essentially capped out my earnings. I can't make more without obtaining a graduate degree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    In case anyone is not aware:

    Are you currently employed?

    Have you actively sought a job in the last 4 weeks?

    If the answer to both of those questions is 'no', then congrats, according to the BLS, you are not unemployed!

    You just aren't in the labor force, therefore you do not count as an unemployed worker.

    So yeah, if you finally get fed up with applying to 100+ jobs a week or month, getting strung along and then ghosted by all of them...

    ( because they are fake job openings that are largely posted by companies so that they look like they look like they are expanding and doing well as a business )

    ... and you just give up?

    You are not 'unemployed'.

    https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#unemployed

    You are likely a 'discouraged worker', who is also 'not in the labor force'.

    https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#discouraged

    .........

    Also, if you are 5 or 6 or 7 figures in student loan debt, and... you can only find a job as a cashier? waiter/waitress? door dash driver?

    Congrats, you too are not unemployed, you are merely 'underemployed'.

    But also, if you have too many simultaneous low paying jobs... you may also be 'overemployed'.

    .........

    But anyway, none of that really matters if you do not make enough money to actually live.

    In 2024, 44% of employed, full time US workers... did not make a living wage.

    https://www.dayforce.com/Ceridian/media/documents/2024-Living-Wage-Index-FINAL-1.pdf

    (These guys work with MIT to calculate/report this because the BLS doesn't.)

    You've also got measures like LISEP...

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswestfall/2025/05/27/stunning-unemployment-survey-says-millions-functionally-unemployed/

    Which concludes that 24.3% of Americans are 'functionally unemployed', by this metric which attempts to account for all the shortcomings of the BLS measures of the employment situation.

    Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes.

    So basically this is a way to try to measure 'doesnt have a job + has a poverty wage job'.

    https://www.lisep.org/tru

    .........

    A more useful measure of the actual situation for college grads, in terms of 'did it make any economic/financial sense to get my degree?' would be 'are you currently employed in a job that substantially utilizes your specific college education, such that you likely could not perform that job without your specific college education?'

    Something like that.

    It sure would be neat if higher education in the US did not come with the shackles of student loan debt, then maybe people could get educated simply for the sake of getting educated, but, because it does, this has to be a cost benefit style question.

    • sincerely, a not unemployed but technically 'out of the the labor force' econometrician.
  • source
  • [–] 123 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The industry went to shit after non-nerdy people found out there could be a lot of money in tech. Used to be full of other people like me and I really liked it. Now it’s full of people who are equally as enthused about it as they would be to become lawyers or doctors.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The industry went to shit after non-nerdy people found out there could be a lot of money in tech.

    I started my undergrad in the early 90’s, and ran into multiple students who had never even used a computer, but had heard from someone that there was a lot of money to be made in computers so they decided to make that their major.

    Mind you, those students tended not to do terribly well and often changed major after the first two years — but this phenomenon certainly isn’t anything particularly new. Having been both a student and a University instructor (teaching primarily 3rd and 4th year Comp.Sci subjects) I’ve seen this over and over and over again.

    By way of advice to any new or upcoming graduates who may be reading this from an old guy who has been around for a long time, used to be a University instructor, and is currently a development manager for a big software company — if you’re looking to get a leg-up on your competition while you look for work, start or contribute to an Open Source project that you are passionate about. Create software you love purely for the love of creating software.

    It’s got my foot in the door for several jobs I’ve had — both directly (i.e.: “we want to use your software and are hiring you to help us integrate it as our expert”; IBM even once offered a re-badged version to their customers) and indirectly (one Director I worked under once told me the reason they hired me was because of my knowledge and passion talking about my OSS project). And now as a manager who has to do hiring myself it’s also something that I look for in candidates (mind you, I also look for people who use Linux at home — we use a LOT of Linux in our cloud environments, and one of my easiest filters is to take out candidates who show no curiosity or interest in software outside whatever came installed on their PC or what they had to work with at school).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My own experience (being probably around your age) is that "Software development being fashionable" and hence there being a subsequent oversupply of devs, comes in cycles, with the peaks being roughly coincident with Tech bubbles.

    I remember that period in the mid and late 90s when being a software developer was actually seen as "a good career choice" as the industry was growing fast (with personal computers, then computing spreading into all sizes of companies and vusiness activities, then the Net bubble).

    Then the bubble crashed and suddenly it wasn't fashionable anymore. The outsourcing wave made it fashionable again but in places like India, because they were serving not just their own IT needs but also a big slice of the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world's, so the demand-supply over there was so inballanced that being a software developer was enough for a good house with servants in places like Mumbai. (I actually managed a small team based in India back then and I remember how most were clearly people who had no natural skill at all for programming). At the same time in those countries which were outsourcing to places like India, programming wasn't a good career choice (mainly because it was the entry level stuff that got outsourced) but if you were senior back then demand had never been as high.

    Then came a period of retrenchment of outsourcing because it wasn't that good at delivering robust software that does what the business needs it to do (the mix of mediocre business requirements and development teams which are in fact not even it the same company means that deliverables invariably don't do what the business needs them to do and the back-and-forth cycles needed to get it there take more time than it would if everything was in-house) and a new Tech bubble, so software development became fashionable again and once again people who would otherwise not consider it, were choosing it as a career.

    I think that what we're seeing now is the initial effects of the crash of the latest Tech bubble: the Stock Market might still be ridding its own momentum, but the actual people "at the coalface" are already reducing costs, plus the AI fad is hitting entry level positions like the outsourcing fad did, and probably it too will fade because AI "coding" has its own set of problems which will emerge as companies get more of that code and try and take it through a full production life-cycle.

    As for how you chose devs, I would say it's really just anchored on the eternal rule that "toolmakers make much better devs than tool users" - in my experience gifted devs tend be the ones who "solve their own problems" and for a dev that often means coding coming up with their own tool for it, either as a whole or as part of an existing open source project.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I’m going to amend your timeline slightly, but only to note that Y2K masked what likely would have been a bit of a slump in the late 90s. Hiring around Y2K was crazy — but once the crisis date passed (with little fanfare due to the tremendous amount of work and money poured into remedying the issue), we definitely hit a slump as many of those extra hires weren’t really needed in a post-Y2K world.

    …at least until we get to Y2K+38 in a few years. And maybe Y2K+40 two years after that 😛

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    In the 1970s companies started "Stack Ranking" all their employees and firing the bottom 10% in order to replace them or simply using their wages to pay CEOs more.

    Companies used to provide workers a pay related sense of justice, a career for life.

    Now the media will jump past all this to blame anything but the CEOs and failure of Government to reign in the wage gap via the force of law.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Companies used to provide workers a pay related sense of justice, a career for life.

    .... There was a period from the 1940s to the 1970s when this was more common-place. But historically this kind of cut-throat wage squeeze was very normal, particularly in the industrialized American north.

    One of the driving forces behind improvements in the American capitalist model, wrt pensions and professional job security and a regulated relationship between business and labor, was European Communism. The allure of the revolutionary communist reconstructions (and less revolutionary socialist rebuilds) drove some significant number of Western professionals into the waiting arms of Papa Stalin and a fair number more into large labor unions and socialist political ideologies.

    Without the USSR as foil to the capitalist system, there is less urgency among the capitalist class to negotiate with labor and less optimism among American workers to achieve some kind of superior economic position.

    That, combined with an absolute tsunami of corporate propaganda to brainwash civilian workers, a swelling pustule of a police state to cow the lumpen proletariat, and a Global War on Whatever to galvanize young liberals and conservatives alike against the phantom menace of foreign invasion, has supplanted any kind of negotiating between capital owners and their wage cuck workers.

    The only thing you have to hope for in the modern day is a big enough 401k such that you can live like a parasite rather than the host.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    they are using the right wing blaming strategy: blames the student for choosing a "useless" degree, and not having 'CONNECTIONS'/networking, these basically are a form of Nepotism to be honest, not many people can get connections like that, and its based on "knowing a person of a person with said company that is friendly with a HR manager" i guessed correctly in another forum(indeed) that its around half when they decide if they want to hire you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    Give it a minute. Pretty soon, they're going to need a lot of people to fix all the vibe-code that's currently being spewed out by AI. That'll be a monumental task.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    If businesses continue believing they can vibe code some intern into success while drop kicking talent to the curb to save a buck, those CS unemployment numbers will fall off like a lemming!

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago*

    An unfortunate but completely predictable result of the debt manufacturing industry. Widespread and getting worse.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    To the quote in the summary - might be because debugging dozens of layers of bullshit is hard. Anyway, debugging is about sitting for hours and reading logs and looking for weirdness, and looking at dumps, and what not. It's a very different skill from "being the next Zuckerberg". Also Zuckerberg is a psychologist most of all, his computing knowledge is not that unique. Network effect is more important than skill and knowledge here.

  • source
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    As a Computer science graduate, I have to say:

    No shit! The industry is terrible and has no standards (I don't mean level of quality but there is no agreed accreditation or methodology). If you do end up in a job you will most likely not use even 5% of what whatever school you went to taught you. You will likely work for peanuts as there will always be someone to do it cheaper (not always right, or good, or even usable). You will work with people doing your job that just lied about having any post secondary education. There is almost no ability to move up in any position in the industry, and like everyone I know that stuck with it you will have the same job until you stop working (you will have to take a side move into another department most likely). This is also the industry most likely to get touched by the "good idea fairy" so you will also be exposed to the highest levels of stupid, like 3 layers of outsourcing the NOC to an active warzone sort of stupid.

    I should have known it was a bad idea in college when most of my classmates where ACTIVELY WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY TO PAY FOR SCHOOL so they could get a piece of paper that said they could do the thing they where already doing. But I did my 15 plus years and got out, I have my own business now selling drugs and it is way less sketchy.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You know its bad when dude casually drops that he's a drug dealer and we all collectively shrug, like yeah sounds about right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    There is almost no ability to move up in any position in the industry

    Change jobs every three years until you find a place that doesn't suck.

    The insanity of the industry is that employers will hire some schmuck with "10 years experience" on their resume for twice what they're paying the guy who has worked at the firm for ten years.

    Eventually, you can get yourself into a position where you're unfireable, because you are the only one who knows about the secret button that keeps the whole business from falling over.

    That's when you can really squeeze'm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Urgh, yeah it is just so bad. Most places don't even have a possible job above yours to even potentially move to. Where I was they literally sold us to a competitor (then unsold me as they forgot about a few contracts) and then just removed all the positions above us or related to our department. I lost 3 layers of bosses one day (not that anyone noticed much). And then expect people to just happily go on and on and on.

    The fact they could not hire anyone (I was the "new" guy for 10 years on my team) was down to really shitty hiring practices, that automated the requirements in such a way that the only people who could get an interview would have had to lie on their applications. They where desperately trying to say they wanted to hire more people but no one was "qualified", meanwhile they froze pay for years (really showing that dood that was there for years how much they care).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fact they could not hire anyone (I was the “new” guy for 10 years on my team) was down to really shitty hiring practices

    Not a bad time to start collectively bargaining, especially if you've got your fingers in the dam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    HA, not at that sort of place. Unions where never even allowed to be talked about, they instafired anyone that even hinted, illegal or not they did not let that happen.

    Edit: oh and everything did fall apart, but like a lot of large companies, they don't care/notice. We used to joke around that we where in the business of getting out of business, and business was goood

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    When android and ios were taking off, I'd see job requirements saying 8 to 10 years experience in Android development.

    It hadn't been out 8 to 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Oddly a very common occurrence. It was normally one or a combo of 3 impossible things:

    • Experience needed with a thing that has not existed for the time asked for (like your example)
    • Experience needed with a thing that does not exist at all (typos or just full on bullshit like "5 years in QQR8F deployment")
    • Or my favourite, Experience needed in a tool/program that is only used by the company like our proprietary call management software.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Change jobs every three years until you find a place that doesn’t suck.

    Most of my social circle is in tech and we're spread across or have worked for basically every company in our city and that isn't really a thing here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You're dead on about the 5% of what you learned thing. I'm on like my 20th tech job and pretty much every one has been different. What I learned in school has applied to only the most basic aspects of any of those jobs. Everything else was learning as I go and just generally understanding how PCs and software work. I have done fairly well with upward mobility (currently about as high as I can go without taking another leadership position) but I had to bust my ass to do it and it was only because I always stood out because of that so I would be first choice. There were never enough promotions/mobility to go around to everyone that was deserving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    If you talk to people who went to different schools you quickly realize that its all different. I spent a lot of time learning antenna theory, Cisco networking and really out of date system admin, while on the other side of the nation my future co workers where learning soldering, cable terminology and text based HTML.

    I was on the college board of governors and the thing I learned is that no one knows what computer science even is. Sad part is that it was the same for a lot of the subjects taught.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    My experience is so different to yours.

    Work a lot with what I studied, need the algebra very often. I still have people randomly contacting me for interviews. People move a lot, it's rare to be in the same function for over 3 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Well yeah, when the tech industry went through multiple waves of massive layoffs, that's going to be the case in the short term as things shake out.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    And everyone and their dog is trying to get into tech. The industry is bound to get saturated eventually...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I’d it’s already saturated if we’re looking at high unemployment in the sector.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Not necessarily, it might mean it I'd an industry easy to get into, but hard to master. If I was short on people, and inexperienced person might actually make mistakes that require even more work to fix.

    Everyone thinks they are Mr Robot after they let ChatGPT create a simple HTML page. No, they are not, and they won't even pass as a junior. Surprise surprise, you have to know the basics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Yup. We're hiring, but the candidate pool is a minefield of utter trash, so it takes a while to hire despite having hundreds of applicants. We don't expect much beyond basic competency, but apparently that's too much to ask sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To the tech people listening... I was high up in many areas for a few decades but I left it all behind. There is still a massive talent-acquisition problem, not just in tech but every industry, that is just waiting to be solved. The departments and staff tasked with hiring are not competent, nor capable of connecting qualified applicants to jobs. The entire hiring system is broken as fuck, and the "job boards" and apps didn't fix it, they made it far, far worse for everybody on all sides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Exactly. Our recruiters aren't tech recruiters, they handle recruitment for the entire company (and we're not a tech company). As a result, a lot of our candidates have flashy resumes, but no actual skill. As in, I asked someone to write code in whatever language they wanted and they couldn't do it. And it wasn't some difficult assignment, this was a first round weeder task. The candidate straight up lied about having any development experience whatsoever. I even had an Information Systems background candidate say straight up that they're not interested in a dev role, which they were explicitly applying for.

    And that's unfortunately far more common than not. People think that because they paid for a bootcamp that they're now competent enough to write code professionally, but it turns out, a lot of them didn't apply themselves at all.

    There are good candidates in that mix, it's just hard to find them. We're happy to train a promising candidate, and we've hired interns that we've offered full-time positions to. We don't even particularly care about age, we had someone internally decide to transition to tech from a blue collar background, so we funded their education and now they write code for production on the side of their main job (they're our support person for our blue collar users, and they're really good at it).

    If you're not a big flashy tech company, you're not going to get as much attention from qualified candidates, and you'll get a bunch of trash applicants who are looking for easy marks on the job boards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • I rag on those too.

    Our "coding challenges" aren't all that hard, they're similar to what you'd do on the job.

    For example, we use React on the FE and Python on the BE, and here's what we do in the first round:

    • FE - basic React state use - store input from an input tag, and render in a label
    • BE - write a SQL statement to join two simple tables to query something; just a SQL playground, no Python needed

    And here's what the more in depth second round looks like:

    • FE junior - array functions (lots of examples with tests) or moving data between multiple components
    • BE junior - simple web server (or fake one, just need a function that takes opaque data) with somewhat complex logic; we're looking for code style (do they separate controller logic from service layer logic?)
    • FE/BE senior - structure an app from scratch given very limited requirements; the point is to see what questions they ask to clarify requirements

    For BE, we let them use whatever language they want, because Python is simple enough that they can learn on the job. That's actually why we picked it, our BE requirements are simple enough that the language doesn't matter, so we went with something familiar to ease hiring (performance-sensitive code is written natively and wrapped).

    The first round is designed to take 5 min and we allot 20 min, the second round is designed to take 20 min and we allot an hour. They are asked follow up questions about changes they would've made if they had more time, and getting the right answer is secondary to any explanations they make. We've hired people who failed the challenge, provided the code was clean and the expansion was reasonable.

    We're not looking for rockstars who nail some complex challenge, we're looking for competent professionals who can write decent code under pressure, because we will have sev 1 prod bugs and we want people who can diagnose and fix them while feeling confident enough in their fixes to make the call on whether it can go to prod that day. The challenges merely confirm what they've given as answers to the questions (most of which are way more complex than needed, we just want to gauge breadth of knowledge).

    Yet we keep getting applicants who are surprised that we ask them to do basic coding in a technical interview. Some can't even write syntactically correct code in a language they picked...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What you are describing is a constant. Everything is scaled up. I don’t believe for a second that it’s difficult to hire unless you’re talking about these idiots who say things like “Don’t I deserve to hire the best candidate for the job?”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It is not hard to hire someone, it is hard to hire someone who doesn't give you more work than they solve. I am not against hiring juniors, but they have to show initiative that they are passionate and able to improve. I don't want a person who will be junior for the rest of their career, because juniors usually require babysitting and that that away work and attention from competent people (the chads who actually build the core features and have to attend business meetings on why it is so good for customers to see additional offers during checking out).

    It is a combination - incompetent HR, incompetent candidates, or bad hiring process. I am yet to apply to a company with a hiring process I'd call pleasant on all angles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And most importantly a lack of companies willing to train their employees. They're all pointing fingers at every other company to do the training for them, then wondering why they can't find anyone with the training they want. Whodathunkit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    On one hand, courses exist, but they can't prepare you for company specific situations. Companies rely on people knowing everything because they had some course. It's dumb and you gotta pray the company brings it up sooner or later.

  • source
  • parent
  • It's really not. Hiring was much easier 3-4 years ago as the pandemic nonsense was ending and people were bailing on companies forcing people to be back in office 5x/week. The competent devs knew they could do better, while the less competent devs held on to what they had.

    Now with a bunch of layoffs, the candidate pool is completely flooded, and since we're not a big flashy tech company, we seem to get a ton of drive-by applicants who aren't qualified at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post