Is it April the 1st already?
The thesis here is “just hire random people (regardless of coding ability) and pay them all $30k a year; software will happen,” right? Does that actually match anyone’s experience? Wouldn’t anyone who discovers that they’re decent immediately leave to make twice, three times, or four times more money? Wouldn’t you have an almost immediate dead sea effect in which the only people staying in your company were the people you hired for their “soft skills” who proved useless except for their pleasant small talk in meetings?
Well, they’re not going to stay at $30K a year. The proposal explicitly states increasing their salary as they advance in the program.
But yeah, I’m pretty skeptical this could ever work. First, because there are very few companies who can afford to spend two years training someone with no prior dev experience. Second, because it assumes you can teach anyone to code. Some people just won’t take to it. Third because, as you said, you have no way to incentivize them to stay once they’ve completed their training and become much more employable.
One of the things that seemed strangest to me about this proposal was the complete neglect of the people already at a company. It takes a lot of work to get a senior developer in place without serious disruption in a small team. I can’t even imagine what bringing in multiple people without experience would do.
That said, I think it’s easy to imagine there’s something spectacularly unique about programming which precludes people who want to keep a job from improving at it. I really don’t think that’s true and it’s one of the reasons I shared this in the first place. It would definitely take a high degree of humility and patience to execute any part of this, but I think the main thrust of the post (open hiring to a broader pool of applicants) isn’t far off from something to work toward
Wow. The wrongness in this article is over 9000. What the fuck I don’t even.
The barriers to entry in this industry, if anything, are too low. Of course, I support allowing intelligent, self-taught people in the door. Generally, such people can already get better offers than what the OP describes.
When we lose high-talent people, it’s not because we’re unreasonable in hiring. This industry is far more open than, say, medicine or law. If you have a 130+ IQ and some way of showing it, it doesn’t matter that you only have a year of college; people will take a chance on you. Try that, if you want to become a doctor. We lose high-talent people because, once these people get in the door, they discover that most software shops have shitty cultures: open-plan offices, micromanagement in the name of “Agile”, and widespread sexual harassment. The shitty cultures aren’t the fault of the high-talent self-taught crowd, but the fault of the pedigreed incumbent founder class. The people who had to work hard to get in, especially the self-taught second-career programmers, are really great. The problem with this industry is that the bar, especially for the cultural in-crowd, is far too low. And then we have the snake-oil salesman saying that it’s OK to have a team of 65 talentless hacks because this magic “Scrum” sauce will make them marginally employable for long enough that you can get “acqui-hired” at $2.5 million per head.
Let’s be blunt. Programming isn’t for everyone, and it takes natural talent. Now, there are plenty of people with that natural talent who never get a chance, and that’s worth fixing. It’s a statistical certainty that there’s a 43-year-old waitress out there who, given the chance, could be the next Haskell badass in 10 years. By all means, go out and find her (and fix your fucking culture so you can keep her). Let’s not fucking kid ourselves, though. This isn’t a job that just anyone can do, and it shouldn’t be. Our labor market is already flooded with cheap, young, low-talent ScrumDrone hacks and it’s ugly.
Yeah fuck it man, fuckity fuck fuck fuckk.
(I figured you didn’t swear enough yet)
∫ fuck d fuck = fuck squared over two
(plus a fucking constant)
This rate will increase by $10k every six months as they progress through a two-year program. These raises aren’t arbitrary, they represent the actual value the employee is providing.
This doesn’t indicate that they’ve accounted for the fixed costs of a full-time employee (hiring, insurance, unemployment, office space, equipment, benefits). These costs are the same for a raw junior dev and an expert senior dev.
This article also does not acknowledge the fact this strategy is going to have expensive and difficult firing.
This was definitely the part of the article that seemed most short-sighted or at least most lacking in an understanding of business operations.