March 1, 2012 at 9:39 am
GSquared (3/1/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (3/1/2012)
Revenant (2/29/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (2/29/2012)
I know I say this every time... but...
The alleged shortage is of what it has always been - 21 year olds with 5 years experience of 2 year old technologies who'll work 70 hour weeks for peanuts without making waves.
Absolutely perfect.
And it isn't just in IT either.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_cant_find_workers_meme.php
Places just want workers to appear, magically trained and don't want to pay them what they're worth.
There are legit points on both sides of that argument.
Loss of apprenticeship programs as a primary way to get future skilled workers is a very common "penny wise, dollar foolish" situation in most business sectors.
At the same time, how do you apprentice someone who "graduated high school" or even college, but who can't figure out what an equilateral triangle is, whether 1/10 of a foot is longer than or shorter than 2 X 7/8 of an inch, and can't read a basic instruction manual on operating a machine? (Those basic skills, geometry, addition of fractions, and technical reading, are in short supply in most of our college and high school grads these days.)
Even on this thread, we often bemoan posts by people who can't answer basic DBA interview questions, but do we complain about the fact that many interview questions would block a person from ever getting the experience in the first place, or do we suggest to people that they get a copy of Dev Edition and work things out on their own time, or possibly inflict their n00bness on a charity as a volunteer?
How many of those of us with senior-level technical skills, or even "journeyman" level technical skills, have expressed an interest to an employer, in training some "n00b" on the art of DBAing? Not, "would be willing if they forced me to", not "I'm already overloaded, how could I possibly make the time to train someone who may or may not even be interested after he finds out how much tedium and work it involves?", not "I help out on the forums". Not even, "I would if someone asked me to". I'm talking about making it clear to an employer that you consider it a good idea and would like to manage such an apprenticeship program. I think Jeff has. Who else?
It goes both ways.
(I'm trying to keep this light with things like "n00b" and so on. Don't take any of this too seriously. But it is a point to ponder.)
Most of that really isn't a problem. It is the result of sensationalist reporting about the failures that exist in our educational system. Our system isn't much different in results from Germany or Scandinavian countries and they have great success with apprentice programs and specific job training.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 1, 2012 at 9:41 am
Lynn Pettis (2/24/2012)
Quite an interesting day. I gave my two weeks notice and was basicly told that I would not need to come back. Not that I don't mind, it means not having to drive to Denver for the next two weeks, but now I need to see if my new employer will be able to let me start early. I was going to start on March 12th, but now I'd like to start sooner if I can.Any way, I was offered and accepted a new position with a company in Colorado Springs. It is a full time permanant position so I won't have to carry insurance via Cobra any more. YEA!!
The behavior of your current/previous employer really sucks, but congratulations on the new job.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
March 1, 2012 at 9:46 am
Actually, I'm all about the "apprenticeships" at my workplace. Anytime anyone expresses the slightest interest in SQL Server, I'm offering them my SQL Queries for Mere Mortals book and offering to be available to them if they have any questions. I also schedule training sessions for basic T-SQL 101 and how to navigate our main databases.
I learned SQL because I had a support group behind me. The crew at Tek-Tips (initially) and here both answered silly questions, and I had a computer person at home (server admin) who helped me understand networking, OS / AD setups, and even let me tour his workplace to see live, working server racks and clustered servers. (I didn't get to play with them, of course, but seeing them in person helped me understand what a Server U is and how clustering worked).
If I can pay forward what was given to me, I will absolutely do that because I am a big believer that knowledge sharing is important. My job is safer if I encourage and empower my fellow employees, not so much if I act like my knowledge is sacred and no one else can know what I'm doing.
March 1, 2012 at 9:50 am
Brandie Tarvin (3/1/2012)
Actually, I'm all about the "apprenticeships" at my workplace. Anytime anyone expresses the slightest interest in SQL Server, I'm offering them my SQL Queries for Mere Mortals book and offering to be available to them if they have any questions. I also schedule training sessions for basic T-SQL 101 and how to navigate our main databases.I learned SQL because I had a support group behind me. The crew at Tek-Tips (initially) and here both answered silly questions, and I had a computer person at home (server admin) who helped me understand networking, OS / AD setups, and even let me tour his workplace to see live, working server racks and clustered servers. (I didn't get to play with them, of course, but seeing them in person helped me understand what a Server U is and how clustering worked).
If I can pay forward what was given to me, I will absolutely do that because I am a big believer that knowledge sharing is important. My job is safer if I encourage and empower my fellow employees, not so much if I act like my knowledge is sacred and no one else can know what I'm doing.
Hear, Hear. This is the same reason I try to document everything I do so others can understand it and mentor anyone that wants to learn what I can teach. I'm always happy to learn from others, so I feel I should teach when I can as well.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 1, 2012 at 10:35 am
I agree that we need to pass along our knowledge to others in our field of work. But the mentoring has to be a two way street, the person needing the mentoring has to want it. I'll be honest, at one of my previous employers I worked with a SQL Server 2000 MCDBA. It wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. He may have been very good at the one thing he had to do before I got there, which was managing 60+ SQL Servers with replication for the SIS system, and no it wasn't SQL Server Replication, the application itself did the replication.
When they centralized the database, he was out of his realm. When asked to do other things, he couldn't do them but he refused to ask for help and ignored suggestions on how to do things. He also insisted that our employer provide him with the training he needed to work in the changing environment. We got some of the training, but it didn't really help him because he never asked questions or sought out ways to do things.
He asked me once how I stayed current and what he needed to do as well. I told him I had SQL Server installed at home and tried to spend several hours each day working with it, learning how things worked and how to make things better. I answered questions of the forums, it allowed me to work with problems I might not see in our own environment and figure out solutions.
He didn't like the advice. He had excuses, like I have young kids at home, I go to bed early, etc.
If employers are going to take the time to establish apprenticeship programs, they need to be sure of two things. One, the people participating in the want to be there. Two, that they give the people doing the mentoring time to do it in addition to their normal job duties, not on as time allows basis.
March 1, 2012 at 10:38 am
Jack Corbett (3/1/2012)
Lynn Pettis (2/24/2012)
Quite an interesting day. I gave my two weeks notice and was basicly told that I would not need to come back. Not that I don't mind, it means not having to drive to Denver for the next two weeks, but now I need to see if my new employer will be able to let me start early. I was going to start on March 12th, but now I'd like to start sooner if I can.Any way, I was offered and accepted a new position with a company in Colorado Springs. It is a full time permanant position so I won't have to carry insurance via Cobra any more. YEA!!
The behavior of your current/previous employer really sucks, but congratulations on the new job.
It may suck, but it sure is nice having this week off and not having to drive 130 miles a day for 10 days.
I am really looking forward to Monday. We'll see how many times I fall on my face as I hit the ground running. As I have said, they have high expectations of me. I am going to try hard to not let them down.
March 1, 2012 at 10:45 am
Lynn Pettis (3/1/2012)
Jack Corbett (3/1/2012)
Lynn Pettis (2/24/2012)
Quite an interesting day. I gave my two weeks notice and was basicly told that I would not need to come back. Not that I don't mind, it means not having to drive to Denver for the next two weeks, but now I need to see if my new employer will be able to let me start early. I was going to start on March 12th, but now I'd like to start sooner if I can.Any way, I was offered and accepted a new position with a company in Colorado Springs. It is a full time permanant position so I won't have to carry insurance via Cobra any more. YEA!!
The behavior of your current/previous employer really sucks, but congratulations on the new job.
It may suck, but it sure is nice having this week off and not having to drive 130 miles a day for 10 days.
I am really looking forward to Monday. We'll see how many times I fall on my face as I hit the ground running. As I have said, they have high expectations of me. I am going to try hard to not let them down.
From what I have seen here on SSC, you have NO worries about letting them down. Just stay cool and remember the old saying
"Haste makes waste" and you will be fine
March 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm
GSquared (3/1/2012)
There are legit points on both sides of that argument.
I think there are actually three different things here, and I don't think there's two sides to any of them.
(1) someone with a decent CS education, a decent brain, no serious handicaps (blindness, deafness, dislexia), and willingness to put hard effort into learning should be able to become marginally competent in a new programming language and marginally useful in a new environment in a day or less, and be capable of making a valuable contribution within a week, so employers who insist that the lowest grade of developer must have years of experience of the specific development tools that the company currently uses but are prepared to pay only $25k per annum (and no non-money benefits that are not required by law) to these people are being silly - anyone with years of development experience who is willing to work for that (even in the current market) is presumably incompetent so if anyones succede in hiring on that basis they have almost certainly shot themselves in the foot (or maybe somewhere more painful).
(2) an employer who requires 5 years experience in using a product whose first alpha-release was only 2 years ago, plus in-depth experience of a dozen other products with at least two years using each, a degree is required, and the salary offered is maybe a bit on the low side for high-scholl graduate with a year of hobbyist experience in IT is obviously creating his own purely imaginary skills shortage.
(3) employers can't afford to teach things that should have been learned at home pre-school, or to provide the education that should have been delivered in the first few years of grade school, and nor can they afford to pay teenagers who took no workshop options at high school at the rate they would pay a qualified fitter, and anyone who thinks they can is (a) certainly an idiot and (b) probably a politician with and axe to grind.
I can't see two sides here. Or rather I can see two sides: the sane side, which agrees with all three statements, and the lunatic side which disagrees with one or more of them.
In the reference Stefan provided you could find someone arguing that someone who asserted no 1 above was thereby asserting the falsehood of no 3, and someone else arguing that the truth of number 3 implied the falsehood of number 1, and each believeing he ws right and the other was wrong, although it's a corollary of ordinary 2-valued logic that if either of those two were right both would be. I don't know why people (other than politicians, lawyers, and government bureaucrats, for whom it is just natural) are so bloody-mindedly, wilfully, stupid.
Tom
March 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm
L' Eomot Inversé (3/1/2012)
(1) someone with a decent CS education, a decent brain, no serious handicaps (blindness, deafness, dislexia), and willingness to put hard effort into learning should be able to become marginally competent in a new programming language and marginally useful in a new environment in a day or less, and be capable of making a valuable contribution within a week,
I'm not sure I completely agree with this one. I do think that language is syntax, and programming is pattern, but I find more and more people that struggle to differentiate those. Whether it's a lack of confidence about unfamiliar terms, or lack of training, I'm not sure.
I do think that someone unfamiliar with a CS language ought to be able to start making some contributions in a week, but there's more to the language to building in a team. They have to learn the environment, structure/architecture, etc.
Perhaps what I see is that there are few "decent" educations out there anymore.
(3) employers can't afford to teach things that should have been learned at home pre-school, or to provide the education that should have been delivered in the first few years of grade school, and nor can they afford to pay teenagers who took no workshop options at high school at the rate they would pay a qualified fitter, and anyone who thinks they can is (a) certainly an idiot and (b) probably a politician with and axe to grind.
I can't agree with this completely. While employers can't afford to teach everything, all too often they err on the side of not teaching much of anything. Teaching doesn't always result in a complete loss of profit. It often comes down to making some smart investments in people, and taking a chance at times. You can't do it all the time.
Do employers need to pay more? I have the perfect answer: it depends. It depends on how much more, it depends on who they get, how many people can they get, or can they offer other benefits instead. Can they reach other people, who may not hear about the job, and be a better fit, or work for a lower, or even more reasonable, wage.
It's not simple supply and demand. That's a straw man from econ that doesn't hold up in the real world. There's way too much friction to make it a simple analysis.
March 2, 2012 at 7:21 am
To Steve's point, I've heard thusly:
Q: "What if I train my people and they leave?"
A: "What if you don't, and they stay?"
I think if you want people you don't have to train, then you have to pay them accordingly. If you want the people you have to be competent, then you have to train them, regardless of where they are starting. If you refuse to train them because it's too elementary, but you don't fire them, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
March 2, 2012 at 8:14 am
L' Eomot Inversé (3/1/2012)
GSquared (3/1/2012)
There are legit points on both sides of that argument.I think there are actually three different things here, and I don't think there's two sides to any of them.
(1) someone with a decent CS education, a decent brain, no serious handicaps (blindness, deafness, dislexia), and willingness to put hard effort into learning should be able to become marginally competent in a new programming language and marginally useful in a new environment in a day or less, and be capable of making a valuable contribution within a week, so employers who insist that the lowest grade of developer must have years of experience of the specific development tools that the company currently uses but are prepared to pay only $25k per annum (and no non-money benefits that are not required by law) to these people are being silly - anyone with years of development experience who is willing to work for that (even in the current market) is presumably incompetent so if anyones succede in hiring on that basis they have almost certainly shot themselves in the foot (or maybe somewhere more painful).
(2) an employer who requires 5 years experience in using a product whose first alpha-release was only 2 years ago, plus in-depth experience of a dozen other products with at least two years using each, a degree is required, and the salary offered is maybe a bit on the low side for high-scholl graduate with a year of hobbyist experience in IT is obviously creating his own purely imaginary skills shortage.
(3) employers can't afford to teach things that should have been learned at home pre-school, or to provide the education that should have been delivered in the first few years of grade school, and nor can they afford to pay teenagers who took no workshop options at high school at the rate they would pay a qualified fitter, and anyone who thinks they can is (a) certainly an idiot and (b) probably a politician with and axe to grind.
I can't see two sides here. Or rather I can see two sides: the sane side, which agrees with all three statements, and the lunatic side which disagrees with one or more of them.
In the reference Stefan provided you could find someone arguing that someone who asserted no 1 above was thereby asserting the falsehood of no 3, and someone else arguing that the truth of number 3 implied the falsehood of number 1, and each believeing he ws right and the other was wrong, although it's a corollary of ordinary 2-valued logic that if either of those two were right both would be. I don't know why people (other than politicians, lawyers, and government bureaucrats, for whom it is just natural) are so bloody-mindedly, wilfully, stupid.
Honestly, all three of those strike me as being little more than strawman arguments. I don't see them addressing the points that:
a) There are a lot of people looking for work, many of whom have valid credentials/qualifications for the field they work in, and many of whom have been a very long time without work or working below their skill and ambition
b) There are a lot of jobs going begging for qualified people
c) There are a lot of employers with exaggerated ideas of what "qualified" means (this doesn't negate (c), it modifies it)
d) There are a lot potential employees with exaggerated ideas of how qualified they are (undereducated, underskilled, undermotivated, inadequate work-ethic, whatever)
All four of those are statements that can be validated through a slight amount of research. Those are data points on a situation of high unemployment in the US:
8.1% if you count just those still on unemployment benefits
~13% if you count people unemployed and looking for work, but who no longer qualify for benefits
~16-17% if you count people who have quit looking, both on and off benefits
~21% if you count people who are "underemployed" (skilled factory worker flipping burgers, et al) as well
~23% if you add in people who took "early retirement" because they couldn't find work
(Those numbers are as best I can remember them. Don't count them as confirmed. Especially since I got about 3 hours of sleep last night and "best I can remember" may be a bit fuzzy right now.)
On Stefan's disagreement with my point about education being poorly done in many/most cases, I'm basing my assertion about that on both my experience of high school graduates and degreed people that I know, plus on well-documented issues of national education standings, with the US paying the most per student-hour of any developed nation, and getting very, very low results on many/most subjects on standardized tests, et al. Media sensationalization of it? Absolutely! But I still know that we could/should get better results for our money, except for (mostly) political barriers on that point.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 2, 2012 at 8:33 am
jcrawf02 (3/2/2012)
To Steve's point, I've heard thusly:Q: "What if I train my people and they leave?"
...
Then they didn't want to be there and they weren't good fits. Or you're a crappy place to work.
Fix those things and the training won't be as much of an issue.
March 2, 2012 at 8:37 am
GSquared (3/2/2012)
a) There are a lot of people looking for work, many of whom have valid credentials/qualifications for the field they work in, and many of whom have been a very long time without work or working below their skill and ambitionb) There are a lot of jobs going begging for qualified people
c) There are a lot of employers with exaggerated ideas of what "qualified" means (this doesn't negate (c), it modifies it)
d) There are a lot potential employees with exaggerated ideas of how qualified they are (undereducated, underskilled, undermotivated, inadequate work-ethic, whatever)
The other item I think you're missing is that there's a lot of friction as well. People don't hear about jobs (want ads have become too fragmented now that they're not in the paper), or they aren't near a job they can take. Those two things cause a lot of problems. Not easy to sell your house, uproot a family, etc., especially when you have no idea if they new job works out better.
In terms of educations, it does seem that we are doing a poor job in many cases. Personally I think we need to allow for more blue collar people, as well as more college graduates, but we need to force them all to work harder, no matter what their goals/abilities. If you want to stop at Algebra I, fine, but you need to know it well, and you need to also understand finance, banking, etc. at a competent level. You want to be an artist, fine, but understand how to run your own small business, and work hard at your craft.
Long hours ought to be part of your schooling and training in any field.
March 2, 2012 at 8:49 am
GSquared (3/2/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (3/1/2012)
GSquared (3/1/2012)
There are legit points on both sides of that argument.I think there are actually three different things here, and I don't think there's two sides to any of them.
(1) someone with a decent CS education, a decent brain, no serious handicaps (blindness, deafness, dislexia), and willingness to put hard effort into learning should be able to become marginally competent in a new programming language and marginally useful in a new environment in a day or less, and be capable of making a valuable contribution within a week, so employers who insist that the lowest grade of developer must have years of experience of the specific development tools that the company currently uses but are prepared to pay only $25k per annum (and no non-money benefits that are not required by law) to these people are being silly - anyone with years of development experience who is willing to work for that (even in the current market) is presumably incompetent so if anyones succede in hiring on that basis they have almost certainly shot themselves in the foot (or maybe somewhere more painful).
(2) an employer who requires 5 years experience in using a product whose first alpha-release was only 2 years ago, plus in-depth experience of a dozen other products with at least two years using each, a degree is required, and the salary offered is maybe a bit on the low side for high-scholl graduate with a year of hobbyist experience in IT is obviously creating his own purely imaginary skills shortage.
(3) employers can't afford to teach things that should have been learned at home pre-school, or to provide the education that should have been delivered in the first few years of grade school, and nor can they afford to pay teenagers who took no workshop options at high school at the rate they would pay a qualified fitter, and anyone who thinks they can is (a) certainly an idiot and (b) probably a politician with and axe to grind.
I can't see two sides here. Or rather I can see two sides: the sane side, which agrees with all three statements, and the lunatic side which disagrees with one or more of them.
In the reference Stefan provided you could find someone arguing that someone who asserted no 1 above was thereby asserting the falsehood of no 3, and someone else arguing that the truth of number 3 implied the falsehood of number 1, and each believeing he ws right and the other was wrong, although it's a corollary of ordinary 2-valued logic that if either of those two were right both would be. I don't know why people (other than politicians, lawyers, and government bureaucrats, for whom it is just natural) are so bloody-mindedly, wilfully, stupid.
Honestly, all three of those strike me as being little more than strawman arguments. I don't see them addressing the points that:
a) There are a lot of people looking for work, many of whom have valid credentials/qualifications for the field they work in, and many of whom have been a very long time without work or working below their skill and ambition
b) There are a lot of jobs going begging for qualified people
c) There are a lot of employers with exaggerated ideas of what "qualified" means (this doesn't negate (c), it modifies it)
d) There are a lot potential employees with exaggerated ideas of how qualified they are (undereducated, underskilled, undermotivated, inadequate work-ethic, whatever)
All four of those are statements that can be validated through a slight amount of research. Those are data points on a situation of high unemployment in the US:
8.1% if you count just those still on unemployment benefits
~13% if you count people unemployed and looking for work, but who no longer qualify for benefits
~16-17% if you count people who have quit looking, both on and off benefits
~21% if you count people who are "underemployed" (skilled factory worker flipping burgers, et al) as well
~23% if you add in people who took "early retirement" because they couldn't find work
(Those numbers are as best I can remember them. Don't count them as confirmed. Especially since I got about 3 hours of sleep last night and "best I can remember" may be a bit fuzzy right now.)
On Stefan's disagreement with my point about education being poorly done in many/most cases, I'm basing my assertion about that on both my experience of high school graduates and degreed people that I know, plus on well-documented issues of national education standings, with the US paying the most per student-hour of any developed nation, and getting very, very low results on many/most subjects on standardized tests, et al. Media sensationalization of it? Absolutely! But I still know that we could/should get better results for our money, except for (mostly) political barriers on that point.
Actually, on point b), not so much
While some companies say they have lots of openings, the data says otherwise.
I'm basing my disagreement with you based on scientific studies I've read that control for poverty and poorly funded schools. When that's controlled for, our students are just as good as any in the world. Even if we're paying "the most per student-hour", those dollars are not apportioned equally with the majority of the money going to students in well-off districts. Our results aren't "very, very low" on standardized tests and standardized tests aren't a very good way of determining student results anyway.
If you want to improve school scores, fund poor schools better. If you really want to improve school scores, get rid of poverty.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 2, 2012 at 9:12 am
Actually, on point b), not so much
While some companies say they have lots of openings, the data says otherwise.
I'm basing my disagreement with you based on scientific studies I've read that control for poverty and poorly funded schools. When that's controlled for, our students are just as good as any in the world. Even if we're paying "the most per student-hour", those dollars are not apportioned equally with the majority of the money going to students in well-off districts. Our results aren't "very, very low" on standardized tests and standardized tests aren't a very good way of determining student results anyway.
If you want to improve school scores, fund poor schools better. If you really want to improve school scores, get rid of poverty.
Just a nitpick... if you define poverty as a certain yearly income relative to the national average income... the only way to get rid of poverty is to force everyone to have the same yearly income. Since that is how the US measures poverty... you'll never get rid of it.
Viewing 15 posts - 34,546 through 34,560 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply