Disclaimer: I'm happy Capital One changed their hiring policy. It's their reasoning -- not their policy -- that worries me. What worries me is that the attitude that "Software development can be learned anywhere" might coincide with not treating software development as a serious and mature field of engineering.
Investment banking, the practice of law, many parts of medicine, and bridge building can also be learned anywhere. None-the-less, we demand practitioners of these trades have a foundations in their respective fields.
To be clear, I am perfectly happy using software written by an expert at the craft who taught him/herself the foundations of computer science and software engineering.
I am far less happy using software written by a graduate of one of these "learn to code" 12 week workshops. Especially as anything more than pure implementation work ("implement this spec to the letter") on anything serious (such as the core infrastructure for a bank).
Security is hard. Reliability is hard.
It's incredibly ironic that the current administration invests hundreds of millions/billions into cyber-security while simultaneously calling for less -- not more -- training in software engineering.
>>I am far less happy using software written by a graduate of one of these "learn to code" 12 week workshops... Security is hard. Reliability is hard.
Sure. But the graduates of those workshops don't get jobs working on security and critical infrastructure. Rather, they get hired as junior programmers and are given small-scale projects where they can continue to learn and grow under the guidance of more experienced developers.
Besides, the code school graduates often have critical subject matter expertise in their former fields. For example, when I need a programmer to build an in-house system for a marketing team, I'd be much more willing to hire a former marketing specialist who completed a 3-month code school than a fresh computer science graduate.
My point was just that, on balance, colleges -- especially elite ones -- tend to produce the "highly skilled engineer working on critical infrastructure" type of CS practitioner, not the "in-house data munging app" type of CS practitioner.
And it's the former that there is a critical shortage of.
They still have to pass the hiring requirements, then have to go through 1 to 2 years of rotations before they are considered a non-development member. They actually do this regardless or rolls. They also will require applicants without a degree to show previous work.
The main idea is that many smart people start companies or consult and dont go to school. There's no reason to ostracize then.
Investment banking, the practice of law, many parts of medicine, and bridge building can also be learned anywhere. None-the-less, we demand practitioners of these trades have a foundations in their respective fields.
To be clear, I am perfectly happy using software written by an expert at the craft who taught him/herself the foundations of computer science and software engineering.
I am far less happy using software written by a graduate of one of these "learn to code" 12 week workshops. Especially as anything more than pure implementation work ("implement this spec to the letter") on anything serious (such as the core infrastructure for a bank).
Security is hard. Reliability is hard.
It's incredibly ironic that the current administration invests hundreds of millions/billions into cyber-security while simultaneously calling for less -- not more -- training in software engineering.