The problem with hiring is more general than tech, and is tied to the social stigma with firings and having a proper job history. Over a 6-month stretch, most non-prestigious tech companies could hire better by randomly choosing applicants, and firing bad ones after 6 months.
-
-
Replying to @heathborders @danluu
I've talked to specialist doctors, research scientists, lawyers, licensed professional engineers, accountants, and teachers about how they hire, and it's mostly a game of social capital and referral hierarchy (teachers are the exception).
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @heathborders @danluu
Tech is weird because tech skills are a lot more fungible than other industries because the requirements for being productive are so much less rigorous. I doubt many doctors or lawyers would ever change their speciality, but I've done that 4 times over my 20 year career.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @heathborders
I've been thinking about this — it was fairly easy for me to switch from hardware to software and land in a senior role, I don't think going the other way would as easy? Hard to imagine someone being effective as (for example) a staff+ RFIC engineer immediately after switching.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danluu @heathborders
There are some areas in hardware where I think it would be possible (verification, architecture), but I think it would be pretty tough in most. Conversely, in software, I can't think of any areas where it seems like it would be difficult, although there might be some?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danluu @heathborders
I believe this also applies to other engineering fields v. programming (e.g., ChemE). To me, this is a core part of why it's puzzling that programmers are paid well. Responses to, e.g., https://jefftk.com/p/programmers-should-plan-for-lower-pay … say/imply that programming is particularly hard, but how can that be?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danluu @heathborders
Possibly relevant: investment banking has a history of taking smart (and/or well-connected) young people and paying them a lot. Those people often didn't seem to have any specific skills that constituted a barrier to entry. The hours do seem more unpleasant, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
A friend suggested that management consulting could work much the same for me ("in a way, it's a lot like debate, you might enjoy it, and you could probably get hired"). However I haven't about its hiring processes, beyond his testimony.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Across all sectors, it seems to me as if the most highly compensated skill is management, which is theoretically domain neutral. Also, despite the existence of the MBA, it's something that many people enter after becoming strong in some specific domain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Forgive the disjointed thread here. I suspect there's some kind of analogy or common phenomenon here, but I don't know that I can pin it down.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Some similarities, IMO: * Lucrative * Highest paying firms have elitist culture; incuclate the idea that employees are best/smartest * Actually very easy, anyone can do it * Lots of gatekeeping; bizarre interview rituals allegedly hire for smarts, actually hire for shibboleths
-
-
Replying to @danluu @heathborders
Does it then equally demand explanation that those fields pay so well/should not experience significant pay cuts in the future?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also, this makes me realize that if there's any analogy to management, it's a separate analogy from investment banking/consulting. Management is paid well relative to non-management across industries.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.