I think in order to have a productive discussion about morals and rights, it is essential that those two terms are defined precisely up front. Otherwise, it just leads to everyone talking in circles, because they have different ideas of what those two things mean.
For example, if someone believes that the concept of rights isn't based on morals, I'd suspect they're using a very narrow definition of 'morals'.
So you want universities to act as your vocational training program for free? No thanks. If you want to make demands about college curriculum, you can start paying up. Until then, universities owe employers nothing.
Employers have already shifted enough of their job training costs onto universities and their unwitting students. The free ride is over.
I want university to produce people ready for the work force. This ultimately means less people will graduate. It’s clearer that the paper that said you were ready for work no longer means that. The fix is universes not worrying about pass fail rates and admission stats and focus on creating classes that produce what they advertised they would produce.
It’s so tiring to me people with masters in CS who can’t fizzbuzz or for that matter do basic programming even more simple.
Now days if too many people fail a class or get a bad grade, the students rally and write notes about how they are so smart and the teacher sucked. The. They grade on a curve and get a degree that is suitable for toilet paper.
Most jobs don’t require a degree and we should stop acting like they do.
Universities owe their graduates with 5-6 figure college debt jobs that can pay those debts off.
> Employers have already shifted enough of their job training costs onto universities and their unwitting students. The free ride is over.
I'm fine with this model, but will applicants be interested in earning a bit above minimum wage for 3 years as we train them from scratch?
This is the model that the Indian and Chinese tech industry uses - hire everyone, pay them a pittance, make them work insane hours, and the ones who survive and build relevant skills graduating to European level salaries in Asia.
I think certification institutions--from universities to bootcamps--have found that it's more profitable to focus on quantity over quality. They are producing dollar store products because the market has shown that employers are dollar store customers, despite what they say.
The more valid the cert program is as a hiring signal, the more it will restrict the quantity of labor supply, and employers don't want this; they want to churn and burn through a pile of young people--or outsource--and then throw them away when their upkeep gets too expensive.
> employers don't want this; they want to churn and burn through a pile of young people--or outsource--and then throw them away when their upkeep gets too expensive
I am an employer and have funded employers. That is a VERY WARPED view of hiring and I hope to god you never ever come near to getting a promotion to EM.
> I think certification institutions--from universities to bootcamps--have found that it's more profitable to focus on quantity over quality
That's BS. There's a reason employers still subconsciously discriminate based on the quality of program you graduated from.
The CS curriculum at Cal beats the CS curriculum at CSU East Bay in almost every single way, and it isn't because of the content alone but also the broad education provided.
We don't need code monkeys (and if you are a code monkey, you job is absolutely going to be automated or outsourced in the next 3-5 years), we need people who deep down understand or can think critically about a specific domain (technical or business).
I don't care if you can code in Cobol or NodeJS - can you deliver an MVP in a quarter, and then have the ability to pivot that MVP to meet changing customer or product demands? Can you architect services to both be cost efficient AND resource efficient?
We pay people in the tech industry good money to THINK. Critical Thinking is the actual blocker, and this is the primary reason why Leetcode and Whiteboard interviews are so popular.
At the end of the day, a Leetcode medium and Whiteboard interview is a puzzle, and if you can solve puzzles, you can think critically about architecture, product decisions, etc.
The modern application process is a spammer's dream. It works like Google search: optimize based on keywords to drive your resume 'page' to the top. People mastered the SEO game a long time ago, so it should be no surprise that recruiters are getting clickbait resumes.
The real idea is to get the public acclimated to police drone use by first using them in some mostly-innocuous way. Then in 10 years, they find some other pretense to start attaching weapons. For your protection, of course.
This reminds me of an article from Maddox in 2007 about how the Nokia E70 is better than the iPhone because he can use the terminal on it. [0] Time may have proven him right.
>Most companies are desperate for good, motivated, easy to work with engineers.
Is there currently a shortage of good, motivated, easy to work with engineers in this job market? It was my understanding that we are in an employer's market right now. Have things turned around?
This is a textbook example of poisoning the well. [0] We see it used in every discussion about pros and cons of a language on HN.
It's some variation of "People who like this language can't handle criticism/are part of a cult/etc." The idea being that this will preclude anyone from responding to a criticism, because that would confirm the comment.
For example, if someone believes that the concept of rights isn't based on morals, I'd suspect they're using a very narrow definition of 'morals'.