patrick.net

Peter P says

I think an intuitive process work better. Unless you are hiring a salesperson, selling is not necessarily a useful skill. Besides, don't forget you may have to work with that person. Work cultural concerns are equally relavant.

I always try to ask unexpected questions, or even questions for which the "expected" answers are wrong answers. You need to probe the mind.

In this case, when I say selling, I mean the candidate presenting his background for the needs of the dept or job function.

And thus, within that context, you can probe the mind for 'tunnel vision', being 'too high level', etc.

But using questions like 'what's your weakness?' with the expectation that the person will respond that 'he works too hard' is a game of theatrics.

Too many people try to say what they think you want to hear in an interview. Sometimes you have to ask multiple questions and interpolate what they really think. Sometimes you have to confront them if the answers are not consistent. Sometimes you may as well ask them to do something impossible and see if they challenge you.

Rin says

In this case, when I say selling, I mean the candidate presenting his background for the needs of the dept or job function.

And thus, within that context, you can probe the mind for 'tunnel vision', being 'too high level', etc.

Perhaps. But the candidate is usually well-coached to answer this. I prefer raw answers. If you let the candidate know as little as possible, don't you get more sincere answers? It will be more difficult for him to game.

Rin says

But using questions like 'what's your weakness?' with the expectation that the person will respond that 'he works too hard' is a game of theatrics.

Ask for a weakness that he thinks you may not like. If he gives crap like "working too hard" ask why he thinks you do not value hard work. It is never about the answers. Always the responses.

Again, I always use "he" as the default personal pronoun. "He" really means "he or she."

Peter P says

Rin says

But using questions like 'what's your weakness?' with the expectation that the person will respond that 'he works too hard' is a game of theatrics.

Ask for a weakness that he thinks you may not like. If he gives crap like "working too hard" ask why he thinks you do not value hard work. It is never about the answers. Always the responses.

Ok, what if I said that my greatest weakness was that I didn't take easier courses to raise my GPA from a 3.6 to a 3.8 because other premeds did that and as a result, now have a better shot at Johns Hopkins.

And thus, the extra coursework was irrelevant to the final game of admissions. Plus, it's not useful for industry and would mostly be applicable to graduate school/PhD admissions but then again, those programs don't expect 3.8s vs medical or law school.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to hear the above but for the most part, that was my only weakness for my entire career. Anything else, about roving deadlines, changes on the fly, etc, were all lies and tall tales. Plus, taking badly about prior managers/directors is a no no.

But that sounded more like academic decisions than strength/weakness. You are just trying to "spin" your "follow your heart not the evil system" strength. You would need to convince me how is that a weakness you think I may not like. :-)

Peter P says

You would need to convince me how is that a weakness you think I may not like. :-)

Ok, so then I'm perfect, have no flaws, and should replace your CEO.

Thus, I'm a megalomaniac with narcissistic personality disorder :-) ! There's a weakness!

I think I may like that answer! :-)

Peter P says

I think computer science departments should not teach languages like Java and C++. Instead, they should pick a statically-typed multi-paradigm language like OCaml, F#, and Scala.

I think computer science programs should have students run all their programs on 30 year old hardware so they really have to understand what's going on to get good performance. way too many people think throwing more power at the problem is always the solution when really what they should be doing is thinking a little harder about what they're trying to do.

and it should also have the students go through some kind of operational support program so they get a complete idea of what it means to write software and design systems. unsupportable software might as well have never been written and the only way they discover it's unsupportable is when they're on the hook for fixing it and dealing with pissed off customers.

We need performant design not just code. Slow computers will not be useful. Instead it is more helpful to make the problems larger with millions of data points as opposed to five.

Peformance nowadays means scalability not saving 3 CPU cycles.

kids need to start small and work up. saying that performance is about scalability is great, but it's a meaningless comment without additional context. what does it mean to scale, and how are you doing it?

throwing more hardware and more power at a problem is one way of doing it, and many times it will work...until suddenly it doesn't work or can't be done because no one wants to go buy another 20 servers and the infrastructure to support those servers.

saving CPU cycles, reducing your IO needs, and shrinking your memory footprint is always a good thing, and it's not something that the kids these days think about because no one forces them to think about it.

Because they really need to think about other things like time to market and maintainability.

I guess the answer is perhaps those jobs are obsolete but does it matter? All that does is push out the history majors when the engineers take the business jobs.

I have a lot of respect for history/philosophy folks. Just not economics majors.

There was a time when I was a history major and economics/finance is a much tougher major than you might think!

jessica says

All that does is push out the history majors when the engineers take the business jobs.

This is already starting. Here's my post from another thread on women in the sciences ...

Here's one from the MIT class survey (http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/GSS2011.pdf). Realize, MIT is a top tier STEM focused college, not a liberal arts place like Dartmouth or Swarthmore. If you total up the number of recruits from Finance & Management Consulting positions (i.e. Morgan & Stanley, JP Morgan, McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain, Deloitte, Citigroup), you'll see that those careers make up 40+% of MIT graduates (these are students who're not attending grad programs). You'll find similar results for the past number of years of surveys. Then, collate that with my personal anecdotes (of women leaving the sciences, even if they'd studied it in school) ... if STEM work was so great then why is it that even from MIT, an engineering school, as oppose to Wharton or London School of Economics, the monied professions attract a serious volume of candidate placements?

omgbacon says

saving CPU cycles, reducing your IO needs, and shrinking your memory footprint is always a good thing, and it's not something that the kids these days think about because no one forces them to think about it.

Peter P says

Because they really need to think about other things like time to market and maintainability.

Extra time spent writing tight efficient lean code that is easy as possible to understand will reduce your time to market by reducing the test/fix cycle dramatically and increase your maintainability in the process. Bloated sloppy techie geekie gee whiz this is cool code or slap it together any way you can to get it out the door code doesn't. That's what I've always found to be the hardest thing to teach not very experienced coders. You will spend a hell of a lot more time tweaking code than writing it in the first place. Going back and figuring out how sloppy code works time and time again takes forever.

bob2356 says

Extra time spent writing tight efficient lean code that is easy as possible to understand will reduce your time to market by reducing the test/fix cycle dramatically and increase your maintainability in the process.

bob2356 says

You will spend a hell of a lot more time tweaking code than writing it in the first place. Going back and figuring out how sloppy code works time and time again takes forever.

Those are lessons I have learned the hard way!

freak80 says

Those are lessons I have learned the hard way!

I was lucky. The first place I worked, back in the days when bits counted, was obsessive to the point of anal retentive about clean code. Later when I got assigned to get some horror show code working that came from a company that cut and ran on a project I really learned why.

freak80 says

Those are lessons I have learned the hard way!

Unfortunately right now that's the only way those lessons are ever learned, and that's why experience matters a lot.

If people aren't writing clean code to begin with, and you're swapping out developers project by project because you're "Agile" and see programmers as fungible commodities what you end up with after a few years is a giant mess of spaghettified crap where the only thing you can be certain of is that touching any part of it will have results that no one can predict.

Managers and BSAs don't know because they usually aren't technical enough and even if they are they don't deal directly with the code. The developers who are there don't know enough and are usually new enough that they're not going to rock the boat...and if they do know enough they're not making any noise because they've long since given up trying to push through any change that would make things better because they know the only thing anyone cares about is time to market and new features.

It's like one of the first rules of IT: beware of bandaids. If you don't do it right the first time you most likely will not get a chance to fix it later. Design your bandaids to break in the short term. You get one chance to get it right.

omgbacon says

what you end up with after a few years is a giant mess of spaghettified crap where the only thing you can be certain of is that touching any part of it will have results that no one can predict.

Sounds like the global economy.

omgbacon says

The developers who are there don't know enough and are usually new enough that they're not going to rock the boat...and if they do know enough they're not making any noise because they've long since given up trying to push through any change that would make things better

I'm not in software, I'm a mechanical engineer. But I see the same phenomenon in my field.

People, this is a good thread/topic, can we keep it going?

There are still good companies to work for, if you like working for someone.

However, it is not possible to escape human nature. So I think it is not possible to fix the system. Either you insist on doing the right thing and lose or you play politics and win temporarily.

bob2356 says

Extra time spent writing tight efficient lean code that is easy as possible to understand will reduce your time to market by reducing the test/fix cycle dramatically and increase your maintainability in the process. Bloated sloppy techie geekie gee whiz this is cool code or slap it together any way you can to get it out the door code doesn't. That's what I've always found to be the hardest thing to teach not very experienced coders. You will spend a hell of a lot more time tweaking code than writing it in the first place. Going back and figuring out how sloppy code works time and time again takes forever.

That is true. But it is counter-intuitive. How do you spin that to your overload (boss or investor)?

Everyone wants things to be done right. Yet they prefer to be comforted by ongoing progress. Frequently, they have their own overloads to please.

Those with both ability and humility are rare. And they usually have better things to do than dealing with you.

Peter P says

Those with both ability and humility are rare.

Aside from the humility part, I see myself as that type of person & if I were to do it over, I'd have started out as a Patent Agent/Attorney or Doctor, and have never worked in a field dominated by MBA-management consulting types. S&E work, by default, has been co-opted by short term thinkers.

The whole world has been co-opted by short-term thinkers. Can't blame them though. Things are happening increasingly faster and the fear of missing out (aka greed) takes over.

Here's another point on taking your tech career to TX ...

If you buy a reasonable home there for ~$220K... if you're from the northeast or Cal, most likely, you already have this money (ok, perhaps up to 50+% of it) saved up somewhere. Thus, it's an automatic low monthly overhead.

As the economy goes through more gyrations and then, if/when the big finance jobs in Manhattan take the big haircut, which then sets off a wave of a ~20% drop in national housing prices, this precipitation now finally takes formerly *immune* urban/suburban zones of Boston, NYC, SF, and LA down together, as the stupid International REIT types (a.k.a. foreign speculators-investors) may finally call it a day on real estate, instead gobbling up all the liquidity in the high price cities as today.

Well, if you were in TX this whole time, your risk at -20% (unlikely, as TX prices are low in terms of Mortgage to Monthly Income), is $220K to $176K, at most a $44K loss or some $750 per month of rent over a five year period. That's probably your worst risk and is worth it. I'm confident that I could recover $220K in Dallas, SA, Austin, or Houston if the worst happens.

I really have to wonder how profitable offshoring is anymore. I have been in tech all my working life and knew when people were really proud of their products. You could wake someone from deep slumber and he would know how to fix any deep problem you throw at him in his area.

There was much less need for management and talented people were greatly valued. But offshoring changed that and now the only thing of value is paper pushers and their endless quest for "status meetings." Offshore firms have high turnover and people quit and leave for different firms, taking their knowledge with them. Onsite has a huge army of co-ordinators, leads, managers, directors and VPs. I even knew of one VP with only one employee reporting to him! These people just spin wheels and are powerpoint experts and masters of spin/projection.

Then they give projects to vendors who bring in an army of people with no business knowledge in that company and they are in charge of everything and escalate up anything that does not get done according to their spreadsheet . There is an army of people who sit in meetings all day and ask for status. Sometimes there are multitude of people asking one person for status.

When it was just employees, there was much more cohesion and people knew what they were doing or at least who was responsible for what. Nowadays it has become a game of musical chairs and no one knowing or worse no one caring anymore. After you have been through a reduction in force and been forced to teach your replacement, it is difficult to care about it as much as before-especially when this army of consultants are stepping on your foot every step of the way.

Today's kids are like that for a reason. They see their parents pouring their heart and soul into their work and getting shafted in the end and then the govt(republicans)-call them lazy and unwilling to work. What will motivate the kids to repeat the same thing again?

Ok lost my point! But on profitability -I really don't know. Several teams I know that were offshored now has double, triple or even quadrapuled their strength-with plenty of onsite consultants serving as co-ordinators. I really don't think you get massive profits-that is when you compare to the old days, with lean/thin management and good, motivated, solid workers-who actually cared for the company.

lostand confused says

Onsite has a huge army of co-ordinators, leads, managers, directors and VPs. I even knew of one VP with only one employee reporting to him! These people just spin wheels and are powerpoint experts and masters of spin/projection

What you're describing is the world of MBA-ology. This is the reason why any smart person, instead of working in tech, will opt for a licensed/protected profession like Patent Law, Pharmacy, Medicine over fields controlled by BS artists.

I've been through a lot of what you'd stated and as a result, I'm done with tech. I want to make money with this hedge fund contract work and then, attend medical school, and work 3-4 days a week seeing patients and perhaps do some research on the side for my own intellectual stimulation. The corporate world is a total and complete joke.

There are MBAs and there are MBAs. They are not all created equal.

The most effective people I've met in my career are street-hardened entrepreneurs with a top-tier MBA and an FU attitude.

Rin says

What you're describing is the world of MBA-ology. This is the reason why any smart person, instead of working in tech, will opt for a licensed/protected profession like Patent Law, Pharmacy, Medicine over fields controlled by BS artists.

Why would anyone want to be in a protected profession? How interesting will that be? Isn't it better to take risks? Unless you intended to become a Nietzschean Last Man.

lostand confused says

Today's kids are like that for a reason. They see their parents pouring their heart and soul into their work and getting shafted in the end and then the govt(republicans)-call them lazy and unwilling to work. What will motivate the kids to repeat the same thing again?

Well said, lostand confused. When people complain about younger workers having no work ethic, they mean they have no serf ethic. They won't work for work's sake, if at the end of the day, they can't afford to provide for themselves and their families. They saw that BS with their older relatives, and they know bosses have no loyalty to them as employees, so they have no loyalty to their bosses.

So workers have begun their transformation from dogs to cats. Eventually, they will purr. :-)

Peter P says

Why would anyone want to be in a protected profession? How interesting will that be? Isn't it better to take risks? Unless you intended to become a Nietzschean Last Man.

This is case, the Ãœbermensch is simply a survivor, who's got meaningful work into his 50s/60s and beyond, as a consultant in lieu of full retirement. I'd hardly call that a Superman nor even a Batman.

I think we all know that without *protection*, every tech worker is vulnerable to the mass layoffs and when they strike at ages 45 to 55, it could in fact be one's last job. When DuPont hacked off 2K R&D headcount in the Delaware Valley, a lot of ppl had to leave the field altogether, as many were deemed too specialized (another pseudonym for too old), to re-start in petrochemicals in Houston, Dakotas, or Alberta. Plus, alternate peer companies like Dow, Glaxo, Merck, etc simply don't create enough jobs to absorb mass layoffs in their more mature industries.

Since I'm in my 30s, I have a sense that a lot of us in the same cohort have a false sense of security, as we tend to get the lion's share of headhunters approaching us. But realize, it's a type of Fool's Gold as the actual resource pooling comes from MBA types and in another ten years, when Ho Chi Minh City (notice, I didn't mentioned either India or China) has a huge software testing and automation "value added" depot, many of us could be on the payment, begging and pleading with some data center in San Antonio to let us in. At that point, those positions would have been filled by other 30-somethings and you know the rest.

It is always harmful to have a sense of security. You can only be protected to a certain degree. It is always possible (or even likely) that an external shock can bust the most fortified career. Isn't it better to exploit the changing world instead? Channeling Nassim Taleb, this is a question of robustness vs anti-fragility.

Rin says

This is case, the Ãœbermensch is simply a survivor, who's got meaningful work into his 50s/60s and beyond, as a consultant in lieu of full retirement. I'd hardly call that a Superman nor even a Batman.

An Ãœbermensch will never settle with survival alone.

IMO, Batman is much closer to being an Ãœbermensch (artist-tyrant). No offense to fans, but Superman is just someone who wears his underwear outside. :-)

Peter P says

An Ãœbermensch will never settle with survival alone.

In medicine, as well as other endeavors, the best work usually goes uncompensated. In other words, you have a cool diagnostic utility, insurance doesn't reimburse you, but you do it anyways, because you're already being paid for the 30 hours you put in for 'consultation'. Your patients get better treatment and pencil you in, as the doctor to go back to but still, you only get your fixed wages but your career satisfaction goes up.

In engineering, since you already have a 40-45 hours weekly slate of tasks (mostly related to CYA for someone above you, nonsense meetings, etc), then that extra work +10-12 hours is just a burden to your 50-something body. Forget it, just leave the field and let some other idealist do the extra work, just to get laid off.

While I think being in a protected field may not be satisfying, I do not necessarily believe that one should stay in engineering.

I think full retirement will be elusive. At best, you must work to protect your nest eggs. This is a dynamic world and it is becoming increasingly so. You must always react anyway.