For young people, the job search has never been so miserable(ft.com)
ft.com
For young people, the job search has never been so miserable
https://www.ft.com/content/4b16c325-8758-4b90-bdb5-15536b401606
73 comments
Your comment struck a chord. Take care and wish you all the best.
Thank you. It's not so bad being broke but with a business in hand now.
It's a lot of hard work and effort, but at least I will not depend on a single person I have to beg to please give me a job or please do not fire me.
Maybe this terrible job situation will force many people to try their chances and become their own boss, and I believe that would be the best outcome for society in the long run. Entrepreneurship is the engine of innovation and change.
It's a lot of hard work and effort, but at least I will not depend on a single person I have to beg to please give me a job or please do not fire me.
Maybe this terrible job situation will force many people to try their chances and become their own boss, and I believe that would be the best outcome for society in the long run. Entrepreneurship is the engine of innovation and change.
Meanwhile, the stock market is through the roof, bitcoin rallied spectacularly, the housing market is unreachable to most, and let's just not talk about gold.
And AI hasn't kicked in yet.
At some point, we'll need to throw all the economists into the sea and start realizing what's going on here...
And AI hasn't kicked in yet.
At some point, we'll need to throw all the economists into the sea and start realizing what's going on here...
If one wishes to keep an open mind and explore non-mainstream views of the modern world economy, I recommend the first chapters of The Bitcoin Standard, by Saifedean Ammous, an actual trained economist. He has been interviewed by Lex Fridman if you prefer to hear him in podcast version.
These chapters are not about bitcoin, but the societal shift that happened at the turn of last century when countries abandoned the gold standard to finance their wars. The Keynesian economic policy. The concept of time preference which shifts when the value of a currency is diluted by inflation. How very rich entities are allowed to grow richer simply because they are able to get large sums of money "at the source" before inflation has had the chance to raise prices for all of us, etc.
Very unpopular in this circles where the mention of bitcoin is cause to raise pitchforks, and everybody loves to quote economists that seemingly have no clue what is going on.
These chapters are not about bitcoin, but the societal shift that happened at the turn of last century when countries abandoned the gold standard to finance their wars. The Keynesian economic policy. The concept of time preference which shifts when the value of a currency is diluted by inflation. How very rich entities are allowed to grow richer simply because they are able to get large sums of money "at the source" before inflation has had the chance to raise prices for all of us, etc.
Very unpopular in this circles where the mention of bitcoin is cause to raise pitchforks, and everybody loves to quote economists that seemingly have no clue what is going on.
> At some point, we'll need to throw all the economists into the sea and start realizing what's going on here...
I recommend reading Thomas Piketty if you want some of the more modern works on what is going on with our social economics in the west. It's not exactly a new phenomenon though, wealth inequality is part of the cycle of civilization and it always leads to some form of wealth redistribution. How that happens is historically up to whatever aristocracy is in charge, though with the introduction of democracy it's typically done through very high taxes. Before the Regan Thatcher era an 80% tax on the wealthiest (and this means all methods of income) wasn't uncommon, and they were still the wealthiest.
Anyway. It's going to change eventually. Especially the housing market is going to suck. I'm Danish, I bought a townhouse with my wife for 3m DKK. If it were to follow my parents 30 year increase on their house, we should be able to sell it for 26m dkk by 2050... which isn't going to happen.
I recommend reading Thomas Piketty if you want some of the more modern works on what is going on with our social economics in the west. It's not exactly a new phenomenon though, wealth inequality is part of the cycle of civilization and it always leads to some form of wealth redistribution. How that happens is historically up to whatever aristocracy is in charge, though with the introduction of democracy it's typically done through very high taxes. Before the Regan Thatcher era an 80% tax on the wealthiest (and this means all methods of income) wasn't uncommon, and they were still the wealthiest.
Anyway. It's going to change eventually. Especially the housing market is going to suck. I'm Danish, I bought a townhouse with my wife for 3m DKK. If it were to follow my parents 30 year increase on their house, we should be able to sell it for 26m dkk by 2050... which isn't going to happen.
Interesting that you begin your comment with Piketty and end with housing value. A Brookings study on Piketty's work indicates that most of the re-concentration of wealth that Piketty finds is actually driven by increases in housing prices: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deciphering-the-fall-and-.... By contrast, non-housing capital income is on a secular decline since WWII.
> If it were to follow my parents 30 year increase on their house, we should be able to sell it for 26m dkk by 2050... which isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Why not?
That would be 3,5 million euros... I don't think inflation will be that substantial... Or market to stay that level weird to that point.
2050 is still a long way. It'd be slightly below 16% per year (considering the house was bought in 2024, it might've been bought earlier).
That sounds on the unlikely side, but definitely not in the "isn't going to happen" territory!
That sounds on the unlikely side, but definitely not in the "isn't going to happen" territory!
What's so funny about Piketty is that he probably reached the same conclusion as marxist theoricians did; the surplus value that workers have to forfeit to their bosses drives wealth accumulation and that process is simply theft. But he was probably like "No way I can say that, they gonna think im crazy" and reverted back to a boring social-democratic conclusion.
Piketty, Varoufakis, they had their "occupy" moment... Sadly, nobody gives a shit about these guys anymore. Piketty joined the socialist candidate Benoit Hamon's campaign during France's 2017 presidential election. Hamon scored 6.36%, an extremely low number.
Stock market: investors like that companies are correcting for the over-hiring that peaked in 2021 - lower costs & higher productivity.
Housing prices: have barely increased since late 2022 in most major cities (falling in cities like Austin). Still, you're right, they're unreachable for most.
Gold: it's not the traditional safe haven investment it used to be. Its correlation with stock prices is much higher than it was in the old days.
Bitcoin: I will never understand!
Housing prices: have barely increased since late 2022 in most major cities (falling in cities like Austin). Still, you're right, they're unreachable for most.
Gold: it's not the traditional safe haven investment it used to be. Its correlation with stock prices is much higher than it was in the old days.
Bitcoin: I will never understand!
A "stock market boom" built on killing jobs is not a booming economy. That's why any politician who brags about or defends this morally indefensible "boom" is going to be in trouble politically.
I wouldn't call it morally indefensible for companies to make layoffs after the hiring irrational exuberance that occured in 2021. They're trimming fat.
I would use that label for a Private Equity firm leveraged buyout, followed by a complete gutting of employees, then a quick flip for profit.
I would use that label for a Private Equity firm leveraged buyout, followed by a complete gutting of employees, then a quick flip for profit.
>At some point, we'll need to throw all the economists into the sea and start realizing what's going on here...
"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it". —Jeff Bezos <https://sports.yahoo.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-explains-2123...>
"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it". —Jeff Bezos <https://sports.yahoo.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-explains-2123...>
Inflation in everything but wages, information, and technology. Inflation adjusted wages are relatively flat compared to inflation elsewhere, while information and tech are deflating.
The wave of super cheap EVs hasn’t even hit yet, and as you say AI hasn’t really hit yet. Solar power will soon be the cheapest source of power in history and it’s still falling.
This has been going on for about two decades.
How does this end? A bunch of superintelligent superconnected homeless cyborgs? Borg living in cardboard boxes pushing shopping carts around?
The wave of super cheap EVs hasn’t even hit yet, and as you say AI hasn’t really hit yet. Solar power will soon be the cheapest source of power in history and it’s still falling.
This has been going on for about two decades.
How does this end? A bunch of superintelligent superconnected homeless cyborgs? Borg living in cardboard boxes pushing shopping carts around?
When economists throw Keynes in the bin where he belongs and accept that inflation is not because of lack of spending, but because of an ever expanding money supply.
Not gonna happen anytime soon, governments love Keynesian economics.
Not gonna happen anytime soon, governments love Keynesian economics.
Keynes gets the blame for policies he never would have supported. He advocated counter cyclic spending: deficits during recessions, surpluses during booms. That and the idea of monetary velocity are his biggest insights.
What we do isn’t Keynesian. We run deficits in recessions and deficits in booms and make them bigger and bigger. This has consistently happened under both major political parties (yes including Trump) since the 1980s.
What we do isn’t Keynesian. We run deficits in recessions and deficits in booms and make them bigger and bigger. This has consistently happened under both major political parties (yes including Trump) since the 1980s.
> How does this end?
War, unfortunately.
War, unfortunately.
> At some point, we'll need to throw all the economists into the sea and start realizing what's going on here...
The REAL insiders know very well what's going on, but it's one of the best kept secrets among them: QFS is coming (almost there now), and they know it.
But since they (the old, evil central banks) can't control it - because it's not FIAT anymore, but asset backed - they are literally desperate now, because they are losing control...
This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is enough information out there that can confirm this. In a few months from now (after the total collapse of the old financial system and the complete stock market crash), we will be wiser...
The REAL insiders know very well what's going on, but it's one of the best kept secrets among them: QFS is coming (almost there now), and they know it.
But since they (the old, evil central banks) can't control it - because it's not FIAT anymore, but asset backed - they are literally desperate now, because they are losing control...
This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is enough information out there that can confirm this. In a few months from now (after the total collapse of the old financial system and the complete stock market crash), we will be wiser...
...and just as a side note: a conspiracy is a felony (not a theory).
So, the REAL problem is not an eventual "deep state" (secret societies do in fact exist, and they are called "secret" for a reason): the real problem are the "deep asleep" people around the world, not wanting to wake up to the truth...
HN is one of the worst places in this regard...
So, the REAL problem is not an eventual "deep state" (secret societies do in fact exist, and they are called "secret" for a reason): the real problem are the "deep asleep" people around the world, not wanting to wake up to the truth...
HN is one of the worst places in this regard...
I can understand ATS is dehumanizing, but to frame it like in the article does little to solve the problem. The article does not even highlight the actual problem as to why companies have such automated processes.
Number of applicants per job have increased manifold in recent years. No matter how many recruiters you hire, they can at max look at ~200 (20-30 per hour) resumes per day (assuming they don't work on anything else). On many entry level roles on LinkedIn, the number of applicants are more than 10,000. You need an automated system somehow. There is also a tendency in this demographic to compare against their peers and wanting the same jobs, perks, etc. while they may or may not want to make an effort towards it. Not sure if that is possible in the short run.
Number of applicants per job have increased manifold in recent years. No matter how many recruiters you hire, they can at max look at ~200 (20-30 per hour) resumes per day (assuming they don't work on anything else). On many entry level roles on LinkedIn, the number of applicants are more than 10,000. You need an automated system somehow. There is also a tendency in this demographic to compare against their peers and wanting the same jobs, perks, etc. while they may or may not want to make an effort towards it. Not sure if that is possible in the short run.
Can say that the situation of my friends in southern Europe is beyond depressing even if they have already years of experience.
My gf with a law degree, having worked at a tribunal, and now in a bank for more than 5 years can find literally nothing. Ghosting after ghosting.
My friends who have chemistry degrees are in similar situation, just nobody answers for months and months.
My gf with a law degree, having worked at a tribunal, and now in a bank for more than 5 years can find literally nothing. Ghosting after ghosting.
My friends who have chemistry degrees are in similar situation, just nobody answers for months and months.
My perspective as someone that crossed over from medicine is that the software industry suffers from two current problems: lack of licensure and wild expectations.
The standard hiring process has grown into a monstrous time sink on both sides, and it is purely because there is no quality filter on job applicants. Contrast this with hiring in the medical field, which can be as simple as giving them your name so they can verify your licensure status. I know that the velocity of change in the software industry makes it difficult to maintain an agreed upon standard of knowledge, but in my mind until you have a more robust centralized certifying authority, this will continue to be an unsolved problem.
The second problem is that I have met several devs that have quite frankly ludicrous expectations surrounding compensation and the work needed to obtain it. At least in the US, virtually any other job that pays you over 150k TC by 25 years of age demands rigorous hours and likely low wages prior to that. Comparing to my colleagues in medicine and my friends in law and finance, it became a joke how shockingly disconnected expectations in the software world have become. Like others have said, the FAANG salary scale has contributed to exuberant behavior. I've had enough conversations with smug recent grads on what falls below their inflated standards of worth to know that the miserable job market is a badly needed correction for the better.
The standard hiring process has grown into a monstrous time sink on both sides, and it is purely because there is no quality filter on job applicants. Contrast this with hiring in the medical field, which can be as simple as giving them your name so they can verify your licensure status. I know that the velocity of change in the software industry makes it difficult to maintain an agreed upon standard of knowledge, but in my mind until you have a more robust centralized certifying authority, this will continue to be an unsolved problem.
The second problem is that I have met several devs that have quite frankly ludicrous expectations surrounding compensation and the work needed to obtain it. At least in the US, virtually any other job that pays you over 150k TC by 25 years of age demands rigorous hours and likely low wages prior to that. Comparing to my colleagues in medicine and my friends in law and finance, it became a joke how shockingly disconnected expectations in the software world have become. Like others have said, the FAANG salary scale has contributed to exuberant behavior. I've had enough conversations with smug recent grads on what falls below their inflated standards of worth to know that the miserable job market is a badly needed correction for the better.
Employers may imagine the system is efficient. In fact, it is a wasted opportunity. Every time someone applies for a job, there is a chance to build that company’s reputation.
Couldn’t agree with this more. I’ve heard some stories about companies rejecting candidates too late in the process to be professional. It’s like they don’t think we talk about them.
Couldn’t agree with this more. I’ve heard some stories about companies rejecting candidates too late in the process to be professional. It’s like they don’t think we talk about them.
[deleted]
I graduated in 2007 and decided to take a low paying IT job that I stuck with for 2 years. It was demoralizing but it luckily led me to web development. I think it’s important to remember that there are lots of options available early on if you lower your standards and expectations. The job was rough, a lot of self learning but it prepared me well for what was to come.
2007 was a couple economical eras ago. I started around the same time, and it is impossible to compare then and now. Even post-global financial crisis, the job market was not as dire.
It would be great to see some statistics on this. All I see is anecdata, some people saying it is abysmal, some saying it's fine if you're good. It's hard to compare to eg 2008, when I wasn't even in the market.
Fwiw, I'm not really looking, just the usual back burner. There's lots of HH enquiries, but it all ends with ghosting.
Fwiw, I'm not really looking, just the usual back burner. There's lots of HH enquiries, but it all ends with ghosting.
"While ministers debate reducing benefits to boost incentives"
It really takes some brass balls to float this as a solution to the 'problem' of incentivizing people to work, and keep a straight moral face. How about increasing wages to something livable, maybe via extending benefits into employment?
It really takes some brass balls to float this as a solution to the 'problem' of incentivizing people to work, and keep a straight moral face. How about increasing wages to something livable, maybe via extending benefits into employment?
‘Never’ is a long time. There were far worse times in (recent) history, but currently I see many companies rather hiring no one than a graduate/junior. At least in my field (which is common here; saas dev, fullstack), I have too pick between paying a graduate a very large amount of $, much to close to a medior or even senior, to skip over them. I would love to hire someone like me when I was a graduate: I didn’t have much costs so I worked for very little and was eager so I worked hard and tried to soak up everything. It seems these are different times and as a small company, I simply cannot take the risk for the salaries people are asking with zippo experience.
On the other hand, senior pay expectations are wildly out of orbit because of some exuberant behavior from the FAANGs during COVID.
It's been extra annoying because they say the compensation range is fine before the interviews and suddenly their pay expectations are 20%-50% higher than the high end of the range after interviews even when they have no other offers and even if they didn't wow us in the interview.
It's been extra annoying because they say the compensation range is fine before the interviews and suddenly their pay expectations are 20%-50% higher than the high end of the range after interviews even when they have no other offers and even if they didn't wow us in the interview.
I guess that depends a little more on location than the junior situation; here (EU), the seniors applying are much more stable salary wise. Much less golden mountains; they just want a job and stability, not dreams and chaos. Most I speak to over 40 want jobs for life, not hop. Raised by inflation yearly and that for the coming 27 or so years until retirement.
Oh for sure it's definitely in the States where everyone has a big head.
Is it possible everyone has a small pocket outside the States?
I didn't mean what I said sarcastically.
Everyone I know elsewhere in this industry who wants a big salary just comes and gets a job here.
Everyone I know elsewhere in this industry who wants a big salary just comes and gets a job here.
Where are you seeing that? A lot of senior roles I'm seeing lately have a salary range of 150k. That used to be the salary of mid-level in my area (PNW)
Not as severe but that's sort of my point. For a brief year or two some companies were offering senior talent insane/unsustainable money and salaries are coming back down.
People still think that they're worth the insane money that FAANGs were paying during the lockdowns that they have since mostly laid off.
It's fairly normal in NY for senior IC hires to be offered 180k-230k plus some equity. I'm seeing candidates who agree to interview being told this range and then come offer time they won't budge below 280k cash and expect big equity.
Sure, Facebook was paying people that two years ago but they are aggressively lowballing people right now and we aren't.
People still think that they're worth the insane money that FAANGs were paying during the lockdowns that they have since mostly laid off.
It's fairly normal in NY for senior IC hires to be offered 180k-230k plus some equity. I'm seeing candidates who agree to interview being told this range and then come offer time they won't budge below 280k cash and expect big equity.
Sure, Facebook was paying people that two years ago but they are aggressively lowballing people right now and we aren't.
As a hiring manager I can understand this view. I'm also in SaaS dev. But in the Netherlands at least most of the raising IT salary demands aligned with inflation, particularly if one includes housing market inflation. People are not going to accept a salary which still won't get them towards homeownrship with dual incomes if they can avoid it.
Can I ask roughly where you are in NL? I'm an immigrant from the US and still trying to get a hold on prices here in regards to salary. My wife and I together make around 7500 gross in the Eindhoven area. Still enough to get ahead if we are conscious of our expenses, but not lavish by any stretch. The country seems to be shifting some and that's always a bit nerve racking when you're one step lower on the social ladder than everyone else.
Are salaries really that much higher in the Holland compared to Brabant? I have ten years of experience as a fullstack dev.
Are salaries really that much higher in the Holland compared to Brabant? I have ten years of experience as a fullstack dev.
Yes, and in NL (I am Dutch) that problem is a lot bigger than in many other places. But if they feel they can avoid it, they should; this might mean no job (for a long time) though. Which is currently the reality. It’ll get better probably but no one knows when so these are choices; earn less with a job or wait?
There is a lot of talent but there is also a bottom line; the gap senior/medior/junior is just not big enough so it makes little sense to hire a junior currently.
There is a lot of talent but there is also a bottom line; the gap senior/medior/junior is just not big enough so it makes little sense to hire a junior currently.
My situation speaks to the exact opposite. I'm currently studying computer science at grad level because I can't find even an UNPAID gig. It is honestly a soul destroying experience.
Hang in there. I was looking at some graphs from the Fed that showed Technology hiring vs unemployment. I think it’ll turn around by June/July.
“I would love to hire someone like me when I was a graduate”
Oh I’m sure. The narcissism is palpable.
Oh I’m sure. The narcissism is palpable.
We always had a good mix of graduates and experienced devs, it’s in the last years that the prices jumped too much to keep that working. Nothing to do with emotions or narcissism.
I was made redundant a couple months ago and this market is the roughest I’ve experienced since entering the workforce in 2011.
I can imagine it being a huge pile of suck for folks without some decent experience under their belt.
I can imagine it being a huge pile of suck for folks without some decent experience under their belt.
Is it actually worse compared to post 2008?
Not even remotely as bad, these articles are rage-bait.
Where’s the market cash along with the Don and gloom talk. It kind of feels like a bubble.
Moved to part where it is going up due to cut cost, or investment in something different... That is AI chip orders and AI company hiring...
Those AI companies should be hiring, as they are getting massive investment and someone needs to do some work there. Or what am I missing?
Those AI companies should be hiring, as they are getting massive investment and someone needs to do some work there. Or what am I missing?
[deleted]
Definitely not
Looks like FT's memory span is pretty short. Today doesn't even get close to the misery of job-hunting in 2003 or 2008. That's why I stopped taking these news outlets seriously.
Here I was thinking I was alone
And now imagine how it's for old people changing careers.
Yeah, better don’t. Some of my 50+ (which I am too) are basically suicidal after being let go or after quitting during covid or taking the wrong bet starting a company before covid. The number of burn outs because of job hunting is staggering when I look around.
A friend of mine is trying to change careers to software development at 42 after being a musician his whole life. He's a smart guy but it's going to be a rough road.
[deleted]
> pages and pages of jobs, most requiring at least three, even five, years of experience.
> recent graduate with a degree in cyber security
College is the problem! It should provide job relevant skills and education! Instead students are forced to study irrelevant garbage.
If this guy studied himself, he would save money, and had a few years of relevant experience by now.
> recent graduate with a degree in cyber security
College is the problem! It should provide job relevant skills and education! Instead students are forced to study irrelevant garbage.
If this guy studied himself, he would save money, and had a few years of relevant experience by now.
> recent graduate with a degree in cyber security
This is part of the problem, not college in general - at least for this example. Cybersecurity is not an entry level career, and the degrees that focus on it are of dubious value to someone trying to become a security analyst/engineer/architect. Experience wins out over everything else.
Even worse for this young man is that any of the entry level jobs he might be trying to get have hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants. To get experience he would have needed to try and get a part time job while going to school (or work for the school itself doing something relevant to his desired career, many colleges employ students for A/V and tech support).
None of that is an issue with the college education, and even if he had been provided with "relevant" skills (assuming he wasn't) that wouldn't have given him any advantage over the sheer numbers that he's up against. There's plenty of companies that require a bachelor's degree at minimum for any kind of salaried position, and college is overall very useful for rounding out people to be better citizens, better voters, better community members, and better workers - the societal value is nothing to sneer at.
I tried to drop out of college in 2008-2009 and work to get some experience - all it did was drive home the fact that not having a degree was holding me back from starting a real career and not just working a job. Hiring and promotions went preferentially to people with degrees. Eventually I got a degree (in Economics) and then worked my way to being a Security Engineer at a FAANG company, but I wouldn't have gotten here without that BA because the intermediary steps were roadblocked by the need for a degree.
Does it make sense for some people to skip college and go straight into the workforce? Absolutely, but you can't assume to know beforehand who that's going to work out for and who it isn't'. Right now the subject of this article is unemployed but being support by his parents, that's exactly the type of person that should consider going to college because they have the necessary support network to weather a hiring market like the one we have now.
This is part of the problem, not college in general - at least for this example. Cybersecurity is not an entry level career, and the degrees that focus on it are of dubious value to someone trying to become a security analyst/engineer/architect. Experience wins out over everything else.
Even worse for this young man is that any of the entry level jobs he might be trying to get have hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants. To get experience he would have needed to try and get a part time job while going to school (or work for the school itself doing something relevant to his desired career, many colleges employ students for A/V and tech support).
None of that is an issue with the college education, and even if he had been provided with "relevant" skills (assuming he wasn't) that wouldn't have given him any advantage over the sheer numbers that he's up against. There's plenty of companies that require a bachelor's degree at minimum for any kind of salaried position, and college is overall very useful for rounding out people to be better citizens, better voters, better community members, and better workers - the societal value is nothing to sneer at.
I tried to drop out of college in 2008-2009 and work to get some experience - all it did was drive home the fact that not having a degree was holding me back from starting a real career and not just working a job. Hiring and promotions went preferentially to people with degrees. Eventually I got a degree (in Economics) and then worked my way to being a Security Engineer at a FAANG company, but I wouldn't have gotten here without that BA because the intermediary steps were roadblocked by the need for a degree.
Does it make sense for some people to skip college and go straight into the workforce? Absolutely, but you can't assume to know beforehand who that's going to work out for and who it isn't'. Right now the subject of this article is unemployed but being support by his parents, that's exactly the type of person that should consider going to college because they have the necessary support network to weather a hiring market like the one we have now.
If years of experience count only from performing similar job, and there are no entry level positions available, there is no way get that initial experience.
The purpose of education is education itself acquiring work skills is a side effect.
Colleges can't and shouldn't chase the latest industry fad, they should teach the fundamentals of whatever field and give you a mind apt to absorb and process more specific information.
Colleges can't and shouldn't chase the latest industry fad, they should teach the fundamentals of whatever field and give you a mind apt to absorb and process more specific information.
I think the best version of universities would be specifically for studying what the workforce doesn’t invest in and we’d have respected vocational schools (and ideally trainee positions) as the default choice for people just looking to get a job.
When I started at university, it was because I wanted to learn things about computers and computing that I didn’t think an employer would pay me to learn. I added courses in philosophy and economics out of curiosity and avoided course that appealed to workplace relevance (primarily because I don’t want half the questions to be about what’ll appear on the exam).
And with a sample size of one, all of that is useful to me.
For everything that is wrong with academia, I’d put more of the blame on company administrations minmaxing for quarterly gains refusing to post trainee positions guiding people from school to the workforce. And the housing market pushing up entry salary expectations, and internet job boards for opening up an oversized funnel of applications for any junior position.
When I started at university, it was because I wanted to learn things about computers and computing that I didn’t think an employer would pay me to learn. I added courses in philosophy and economics out of curiosity and avoided course that appealed to workplace relevance (primarily because I don’t want half the questions to be about what’ll appear on the exam).
And with a sample size of one, all of that is useful to me.
For everything that is wrong with academia, I’d put more of the blame on company administrations minmaxing for quarterly gains refusing to post trainee positions guiding people from school to the workforce. And the housing market pushing up entry salary expectations, and internet job boards for opening up an oversized funnel of applications for any junior position.
Yes, and companies should pay for it rather than students! Let the market decide what is "job relevant"!!
In all seriousness, maybe an institution like this would not be a bad idea, alongside universities rather than as a replacement.
In all seriousness, maybe an institution like this would not be a bad idea, alongside universities rather than as a replacement.
You describing bootcamps essentially.
Education is not training for work. It has much more significant value beyond being something that launches a junior career,
As someone who “made it” without a formal degree: oh come on. If nobody opens doors for you, it takes a lot more than just intellect and grit to establish yourself. While I don’t have many good things to say about the established education systems, it’s beyond naive to act like “just do it on your own” is a scalable approach. Even today, some doors will stay closed for me, simply because I will always have to justify why I have no formal degree (and the doorkeepers are not incentivized to even listen since the pool of candidates is big), and some of those doors are highly interesting.
I'm in a similar experience as you, but as my career grows longer into the decades I realize that it takes just as much mental fortitude to stay working in this field as it did for us to break into it from the unusual path.
The half life of software engineers is quite short. Even some of the brightest minds I met who went to some of the best schools ended up just being tourists in this industry -- flushed out and disillusioned after only a few years.
The half life of software engineers is quite short. Even some of the brightest minds I met who went to some of the best schools ended up just being tourists in this industry -- flushed out and disillusioned after only a few years.
I’m not just thinking about software engineering. There are lots of interesting positions which require any degree just as a basic requirement, especially in emerging fields, strategic roles, and generally in big companies. Maybe they’ll consider me qualified after I’ve built my own company, but if they encode the degree as a hard requirement the screening AI will just ditch my resume.
I don’t plan to stay in software for the rest of my life. Currently, my company develops knowledge engineering solutions, but in 5-10 years, I’d like to get some fresh air.
I don’t plan to stay in software for the rest of my life. Currently, my company develops knowledge engineering solutions, but in 5-10 years, I’d like to get some fresh air.
I started blog and Github project, in a year I had a good job. It takes a lot, but there are much more efficient way.
College takes a lot of time and money. If you do this early in your career, it will hobble for decades.
Imagine you spend 30k on education, spend 3 years and get kicked out in final year, because you disagree with teacher. Or someone makes complain.
> Even today, some doors will stay closed for me, simply because... no formal degree
Degree is only needed for higher positions, those are not accessible to young people anyway. You can always get degree latter, it gets so much easier and cheaper, when you have experience . For me it was just a formality, I spend maybe like 200 hours total for my masters.
College takes a lot of time and money. If you do this early in your career, it will hobble for decades.
Imagine you spend 30k on education, spend 3 years and get kicked out in final year, because you disagree with teacher. Or someone makes complain.
> Even today, some doors will stay closed for me, simply because... no formal degree
Degree is only needed for higher positions, those are not accessible to young people anyway. You can always get degree latter, it gets so much easier and cheaper, when you have experience . For me it was just a formality, I spend maybe like 200 hours total for my masters.
These doors are closed for political reasons.
Nobody wants to explain why the CTO who fucked up big had such a CV.
Nobody wants to explain why the CTO who fucked up big had such a CV.
In 2020 my boss, and CEO suddenly passed away to cancer. I found myself (CTO) having to run an entire company, while I was already dealing with personal issues. I rose to the occasion, did the best I could while also I explored the possibility of selling the company, which felt the most sensible option given the context (which I am not going to explore here). After a year of the most intense work I have done my entire life, the majority partner (and inheritor of the boss' shares) decided they didn't want to sell after all. Then everything imploded, I went on a massive nervous breakdown and burned out to cinders. Months later, in later 2021, I left because I literally felt I would die of exhaustion. It was necessary to take a very long break.
After 18 months of a sabbatical and working on my health, things started to look up, and I was starting to get bored. I have been working as a software engineer for 17 years, as employee and later consultant, and as a fully self-taught person I believe I am pretty darned good at it. What follows is 6 months of fruitless job search. Hundreds of CVs sent to no response. People telling me "it's the market", "it's your resume", "it's because you have too much experience", "it's because of Brexit". Silly phrases to explain the state of tech job search. In 6 months of job search, I felt I was crashing back into a second burnout and needed a change.
For the past year and a half I have been working on launching a business because it's the only avenue left to me, and only chance to avoid going through the meat grinder again. With crappy jobs on Upwork at $50/h, some underpaid consulting here and there, and UK universal income I have managed to keep a roof over my head, launch a business but still far from being financially secure. It is fucking exhausting, yet somehow job search is even worse than that.
If a person with this much experience like me is unable to find a bloody job, I loathe to imagine what juniors go through.
If I hear one more person say "the economy is not so bad" I'm gonna force them to look for a job the good old way, through the cosmic joke that job boards are.
Something is utterly broken in hiring, in recruitment, in the entire job market and no one is at the wheel. "The economy is not so bad, look at this chart", they tell you.