Free CS Courses – Amazon Future Engineer(amazonfutureengineer.com)
amazonfutureengineer.com
Free CS Courses – Amazon Future Engineer
https://www.amazonfutureengineer.com/free-courses
131 comments
Something I'd like to see massive companies do to is offer lower skilled internships. I had a tough time convincing anyone to hire me coming out of a bootcamp, and I saw a lot of other people in similar situations- even people who I know are much better developers than I am. Internships also tend to require someone to be enrolled in an accredited institution. Offering a simple coding test and a small stipend seems like it would be pretty low risk for a company that has the cash and manpower to run a program like this. Large companies seen uniquely positioned to be able to try something of this size.
There should be a medical residency-style job matching algorithm. Most jobs are way more fungible across companies than corporations would like to think. If a graduate would be almost equally ecstatic to work as an SE-1 at Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, etc...why should they have to apply to each one independently? Of course, the applicant would rank them by preference. If none of them want the applicant, he/she would "drop" to less sought after firms.
Companies on the platform would agree on certain tests the applicant would need to take, and at which institution. They would also agree on the information they all want (in a common app). Interviews would play little to no role in the process, since only technical interviews offer any marginal value according to emprical evidence. If social skills are important, they can be included in an empirically proven test of social skills. Imagine a VR simulation where you are grouped with other applicants, and ML algos are fed dozens of inputs based on your interactions in the simulated environment. Human testmasters can still have input into the process, delivering guided exercises, looking out for algo-hacking, interacting with test-takers, and weeding out anomalies.
Companies on the platform would agree on certain tests the applicant would need to take, and at which institution. They would also agree on the information they all want (in a common app). Interviews would play little to no role in the process, since only technical interviews offer any marginal value according to emprical evidence. If social skills are important, they can be included in an empirically proven test of social skills. Imagine a VR simulation where you are grouped with other applicants, and ML algos are fed dozens of inputs based on your interactions in the simulated environment. Human testmasters can still have input into the process, delivering guided exercises, looking out for algo-hacking, interacting with test-takers, and weeding out anomalies.
From my experience with friends going through the residency match, more people end up unhappy or mediocre about their match rather than happy. I say this as the partner of someone who matched at their number one choice. The day was defined for me by how I felt for all of our friends who didn't end up at their number one (or 2nd-5th choice) and ended up feeling somewhat broken.
I can't assess that analogy without knowing what your friends were dissatisfied with. Was it because they ended up in a different state away from their family? Was it because their coworkers were worse than they expected? Etc...some problems will always exist, regardless of the matching modality. Additionally, people always want more. They often think they can get better when they get exactly what they deserve, along reasonably objective measures of assessment. Lastly, there is selection bias in who you hear from. All the residency announcements I see on Facebook are wildly happy, with exclamation marks and all. I won't conclude from that that everyone is happy with their match, just like I don't believe the reverse.
Increasing matching efficiency reduces transaction costs. Those costs are huge, and they lower our quality of life and the dynamism of our economy.
Our financial markets are very liquid most of the time. An underappreciated fact is that the aforementioned liquidity increases investment and keeps America on top of the world. Our labor markets aren't nearly as liquid. That is why there is a disconnect between how well corporations are doing and how well employees are doing. Both people and corporations would be better off if our labor markets were more liquid. We currently don't have the tools to make that happen. However, they are easy to create. They just need widespread buy-in and agreement on the core problem of inefficient matching in the labor markets.
Think of all the people who would have benefited from internships they never got and better jobs that they never applied for. If they got those internships and got those jobs, not only would they benefit, the whole country would benefit. It is in our collective interest to 1. keep people employed 2. at the best job at the best company 3. that is equal in quality to the person's qualifications. You can bring up the fuzziness and subjectiveness of qualifications and job quality, but let's be real. We all know who from our graduating class can get a job at an SP500 company and who can get a job at a Russell 2000 company. Both would benefit from a common app-style job application for different reasons. Let's stop pretending otherwise, because that hinders innovation and keeps us in the unsatisfactory status quo.
Increasing matching efficiency reduces transaction costs. Those costs are huge, and they lower our quality of life and the dynamism of our economy.
Our financial markets are very liquid most of the time. An underappreciated fact is that the aforementioned liquidity increases investment and keeps America on top of the world. Our labor markets aren't nearly as liquid. That is why there is a disconnect between how well corporations are doing and how well employees are doing. Both people and corporations would be better off if our labor markets were more liquid. We currently don't have the tools to make that happen. However, they are easy to create. They just need widespread buy-in and agreement on the core problem of inefficient matching in the labor markets.
Think of all the people who would have benefited from internships they never got and better jobs that they never applied for. If they got those internships and got those jobs, not only would they benefit, the whole country would benefit. It is in our collective interest to 1. keep people employed 2. at the best job at the best company 3. that is equal in quality to the person's qualifications. You can bring up the fuzziness and subjectiveness of qualifications and job quality, but let's be real. We all know who from our graduating class can get a job at an SP500 company and who can get a job at a Russell 2000 company. Both would benefit from a common app-style job application for different reasons. Let's stop pretending otherwise, because that hinders innovation and keeps us in the unsatisfactory status quo.
All of the residency announcements I saw on Facebook were also wildly happy, but I know for a fact that some of the people who posted those were literally in tears before that and put themselves together to post a "happy" announcement. Personally, I like the idea of having the option to choose whether or not to accept an offer.
I'm not so sold on the idea that a match system will improve labor liquidity. How do you negotiate wages? Medical residents are stuck with the salary of the site that they matched at. When you enter the match, you cannot simply choose not to accept the job "offer" you are given.
I'm not so sold on the idea that a match system will improve labor liquidity. How do you negotiate wages? Medical residents are stuck with the salary of the site that they matched at. When you enter the match, you cannot simply choose not to accept the job "offer" you are given.
I just don't think the cost/benefit is there. These people would take more training (more time of "more skilled" engineers"). They already have way too many competent applicants for the "more skilled" internships.
Internships are more about fostering talent than making money off of intern labor. It makes sense to have something at the start of the talent pipe as well as towards the end of it.
AWS does have lower skilled internships; at least certain populations. At least in Premium Support. For example, AWS has a program while they'll take military vets and teach them the tech to work in Premium Support.
And then once you have your foot in the door at Amazon, there's a host of programs that will teach you to code and become an SDE. I even knew a guy who worked in a warehouse that was using internal programs to become an SDE.
And then once you have your foot in the door at Amazon, there's a host of programs that will teach you to code and become an SDE. I even knew a guy who worked in a warehouse that was using internal programs to become an SDE.
> Something I'd like to see massive companies do too is offer lower skilled internships.
or how about train? companies are part of the problem they complain about. companies do not value onboarding or training their own workforce. training smart people on the job is the best way to ensure success for both the company and the individual.
if these companies are so advanced and full of smart people and apparently think they know something about education, you think hiring would be much easier if they adjusted their hiring instead of looking for people that are carbon copies of themselves.
or how about train? companies are part of the problem they complain about. companies do not value onboarding or training their own workforce. training smart people on the job is the best way to ensure success for both the company and the individual.
if these companies are so advanced and full of smart people and apparently think they know something about education, you think hiring would be much easier if they adjusted their hiring instead of looking for people that are carbon copies of themselves.
If this course doesn't focus almost entirely on leetcode style problems, than it's pretty bunk for actually getting into Amazon.
Amazon's OA is significantly worse than even it's big competitors regarding the required leetcode grind. I don't think there's a Software Engineer who was hired in the last several years at Amazon who wasn't grilled on a few leetcode medium (and likely, a hard or two) style problems.
Moreover, if you're good enough to get into Amazon and deal with it's reputation for horrible WLB, back-stabbing and political culture, bad pay (for a "FAANG"), horrible vesting, mediocre benefits, and working for a literal vampire, than you can (and should) go work for one of it's competitors who will pay you and treat you strictly better. Microsoft, Google, Apple, the unicorns, and even Oracle OCI all fit the bill. Microsoft will give you easier leetcode questions and a 20 hour work week. Oracle OCI certainly will pay you better (their whole schtick is to poach Amazon Employees for their own cloud).
Amazon is rightfully shamed as being "not good enough to stay in the FAANG" because they treat their engineers so badly. I guess the only reason to work for them is that they need a lot of Java devs for AWS and many places are slowly abandoning Java - but even then - there are so many java shops around still that you shouldn't have trouble finding work.
I suppose COVID may change things a bit but we should be telling aspiring engineers the truth about Amazon.
Amazon's OA is significantly worse than even it's big competitors regarding the required leetcode grind. I don't think there's a Software Engineer who was hired in the last several years at Amazon who wasn't grilled on a few leetcode medium (and likely, a hard or two) style problems.
Moreover, if you're good enough to get into Amazon and deal with it's reputation for horrible WLB, back-stabbing and political culture, bad pay (for a "FAANG"), horrible vesting, mediocre benefits, and working for a literal vampire, than you can (and should) go work for one of it's competitors who will pay you and treat you strictly better. Microsoft, Google, Apple, the unicorns, and even Oracle OCI all fit the bill. Microsoft will give you easier leetcode questions and a 20 hour work week. Oracle OCI certainly will pay you better (their whole schtick is to poach Amazon Employees for their own cloud).
Amazon is rightfully shamed as being "not good enough to stay in the FAANG" because they treat their engineers so badly. I guess the only reason to work for them is that they need a lot of Java devs for AWS and many places are slowly abandoning Java - but even then - there are so many java shops around still that you shouldn't have trouble finding work.
I suppose COVID may change things a bit but we should be telling aspiring engineers the truth about Amazon.
The python course is asking for a lot of personal information, for something free to do while we're all isolating.
> free online computer science classes for any student or teacher affected by school closures due to COVID-19 in the US.
I would imagine they need the information to verify that requirement.
I would imagine they need the information to verify that requirement.
This is US only: I think that's an important distinction to make.
The supply of developers is not going to outstrip demand for quite some time, especially as automation continues to eat low-skill jobs.
When are we going to be able to go back to apprenticeships? When we abandon privately held businesses?
Over and over it seems like we've reached peak STEM career grooming and then there's more
Optimistic take: oh that's nice more educational materials
Cynical take: Damn they really want to pay Software Engineers less.
Cynical take: Damn they really want to pay Software Engineers less.
“Anyone can learn to write code. Very few can write good code.” -Former Tech Lead
Strive to write good software via intelligent design and collaboration with your peers and you will continue to make great money.
Strive to write good software via intelligent design and collaboration with your peers and you will continue to make great money.
Even fewer can write good code in a timely manner.
I can write good code, but it takes me a long time.
I can write good code, but it takes me a long time.
And stay away from flavour of the month dominated domains.
They can't find enough engineers at the rates they currently pay. The realistic take is probably somewhere in between.
Is it true that Amazon has the worst pay/conditions among FAANGs?
It's the same take.
They're not going to stop until they can hire programmers out of high school and pay them 35k. That is the goal here.
Hey, by the time they're a senior, they'll be making 70k!
Hey, by the time they're a senior, they'll be making 70k!
Well... one of two things is true: that's either possible, or it's impossible. If it's possible, then no amount of us being upset or disappointed in it is going to change things - we'll be the last generation of well-compensated programmers, and probably the last generation or programmers who don't do that job while studying for a "better" job on the side. If it's impossible, they'll continue to smash things and thrash around like a bull in a china shop, leaving devastation and destruction in their wake as they demand to have their way for decades and centuries to come, making our lives miserable the whole time (or they'll come to their senses and realize they were being unreasonable, but my money is on the former).
So no student loan debt and making 70k after 4-5 years, whats the downside? Especially if they can work from home.
I highly doubt they will be making 70k after 4-5 years if programmers can be competent out of a high school education.
Agreed. If we flood the market with programmers, the bar will most likely be raised... or salaries will simply decrease. To be clear, I still agree with teaching STEM as much as possible and bringing on the flood.
So, like they do in Europe?
What a nasty way to refer to someone offering free educational resources.
their comment was in no way "nasty", it's a bit of a sideways comment to imply so, and you are completely ignoring the real motivation behind something like this and the problems with company's complaints on having a supposed shortage of STEM candidates.
the whole STEM "crisis" is born out of companies wanting people already trained to do the job they want them to do rather than training them. and more specifically, companies want software engineers already trained specifically how they want.
movements like this have had a detrimental effect on other roles that society needs. so yes, someone is offering free educational resources, but that someone is a massive multinational corporation whose scale drives them to seek benefits from society, and not the other way around. and amazon's size and influence yields them a lot of power. there is also a larger societal problem in that we cannot solve humanity's problems through technology alone, which STEM efforts completely ignore.
the whole STEM "crisis" is born out of companies wanting people already trained to do the job they want them to do rather than training them. and more specifically, companies want software engineers already trained specifically how they want.
movements like this have had a detrimental effect on other roles that society needs. so yes, someone is offering free educational resources, but that someone is a massive multinational corporation whose scale drives them to seek benefits from society, and not the other way around. and amazon's size and influence yields them a lot of power. there is also a larger societal problem in that we cannot solve humanity's problems through technology alone, which STEM efforts completely ignore.
> their comment was in no way "nasty"
'Grooming' implies it's comparable to sexually coercing minors.
'Grooming' implies it's comparable to sexually coercing minors.
Agile stories are in a really weird spot lexically then.
Or a expert training his protege. Or a leader preparing his successor. Or a mother cleaning up her child. Or a cat licking its butt.
"Grooming" is frequently used to describe preparing someone for a promotion or otherwise high-profile position (e.g. "Groomed for leadership").
Examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=wsj+%22groomed+for%22&rlz=1C...
Examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=wsj+%22groomed+for%22&rlz=1C...
It just means to prepare. Someone decided to use the word to mean "to prepare: minors for sex when they are older". Obviously this second definition came later.
Perhaps best not to use this word at all to describe what someone is doing since it has such an extreme alternate meaning?
Every noun and every verb is a euphemism for sex. The solution is to drop the taboo around sex talk, not eviscerate the language.
That’s a rare and contextual meaning. You also groom snow to make it suitable to ski on.
Bad idea.
Where do we stop? We will very quickly run low on words.
Where do we stop? We will very quickly run low on words.
I used the word grooming because it implies a power imbalance, not because I wanted to compare child sexual abuse to sponsored education programs.
If it's used in a story about grooming minors for sex, then yes.
If it's used in the sense of grooming someone for a leadership role then no.
Most readers are aware that words have multiple connotations, and use the surrounding context to understand what is meant.
If it's used in the sense of grooming someone for a leadership role then no.
Most readers are aware that words have multiple connotations, and use the surrounding context to understand what is meant.
[deleted]
Not really. Grooming is a term that can refer to many things. One of those is a bad thing. Doesn't mean we have to throw the word away.
Should I then be worried about the "pet grooming service" van that I see in my neighborhood now and then? Seems improbable.
Yes, that is one definition. There are others.
no it doesn't, especially in this context. what are you talking about?
FYI: That's a common meaning in the UK, not USA. HN is a US site.
"Amazon Future Engineer" is a remarkably poor name for your free CS educational resources.
I don't think so - they're saying you could work for them if you wanted to and it's an achievable goal. For a lot of people the idea of working at somewhere like Amazon probably seems an insurmountable challenge if they don't have access to quality education. Try to see the good in things and not be a cynic.
I helped a friend out with his Amazon application. I had never applied for a position there before. I thought I was a competent engineer, but their questions were crazy and made me realize that there's a lot I still have to learn.
I don't see anything wrong with the title. It's a harder interview than most.
I don't see anything wrong with the title. It's a harder interview than most.
Coming from Amazon themselves, it seems like they're preparing you specifically for a job at Amazon and not with transferrable skills.
Perhaps Amazon should look inward and focus on its image a little more and perhaps people would be a little less cynical.
I agree with trying to see the good in things. But as the saying goes, fool me five hundred times...
It’s from Amazon. It’s in their interest to promote themselves.
dqpb(4)
JeremyBanks(14)