IT needs more brains, so why is it so bad at getting them?
theregister.com
IT needs more brains, so why is it so bad at getting them?::Open-book exams aren’t nearly open enough
You are viewing a single comment
IT needs more brains, so why is it so bad at getting them?::Open-book exams aren’t nearly open enough
I've always wondered if the solution to the hiring fiasco in IT is to have official licenses similar to the way engineers and lawyers have formal credentials.
Most companies do dumb shit like this because is hard to know if you are actually qualified or if you are blowing smoke. Everyone has had that one guy on the team who barely has a clue how to even set up his ide let alone code.
The problem with this would be the same as it is with all licenses and certs. The tests don't match real world practice. The other option is adopting the trades approach and combine that with licensing. Apprentice, journeyman etc.
Like certifications?
Yea, but more formal and less "sell you a boot camp study course" style.
I understand thst even the (law) bar has those courses but it's also a pretty good filter. Law degree + passing the bar is a solid bare minimum. Then adopt a similar approach to trades where you are an apprentice for x years under a master/mentor before you become a journeyman.
The industry has sort of already adopted it but it's not standardized and it's not trustworthy. Calling yourself a senior software engineer means almost nothing. It's the same as "vice president" in financial companies.
I think the trades approach is the way to go. It makes sense as far as training goes imo. And jesus christ anything needs to be done at this point.