Someone needs to realise that employing 100 cheap junior people to deliver a software project is not going to work. You end up with <20 developers + 80 people overhead (PM/QA/etc) and communication overhead will kill any productivity. Better to hire 10 people that know something and just pay each of them 10x.
If you read the article you would have learned that they are choosing to train these people in a boot camp style environment. It seems the education system is failing in producing solid software developers.
I am struggling with a similar scenario right now. My oldest is struggling/coming to grips with attending a University where he wants to study Cyber Security but will spend at least two years learning about Geography, History, art appreciation, peoples of culture and two years of other courses that are loosely relevant to the Cyber Security Industry and dreadfully behind the times.
He took History and Geography and other courses through out HS. How much more do he need to be exposed to it?
This is why our System is failing us and a lot of kids are unprepared. They only way to learn what you want to learn is to do it outside of Academia. Sad but true.
More like HCL is so cheap they don't even want to spend the pittance they give their fresh engineering hires anyway. And besides it's not like they are selling software in the first place. What they are selling is labor, and more precisely warm bodies on their "bench". A live 12th pass kid is just the same as a fresh engineering graduate in that respect. The real tragedy here is how the "journalist" has just parroted HCL's bullshit in their headline.
This. Indian engineers are not bad. There are very impressive Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indonesian etc engineers.
However
$5 per hour engineers are bad. Especially in organisations that seem designed to keep them bad. Indian, Chinese, happen to be overrepresented in that cohort because of living expenses and their numbers.
Managers that hire these folks and expect quality, secure and well-represented software should be held to account, that's all. Not that most companies can produce decent requirements in the first place, and these guys also tend to have a "don't bother me" approach to communications as well.
That 5 usd metric is just random and I just can't agree with you. Everybody has to start somewhere and considering the cost of living in South Asia, $5 per hour isn't all that bad. $5 an hour may be some kind of janitorial level income in the US, but it's not so in India, because of the foreign exchange rate difference. Of course a talented and ambitious programmer can earn much more than that amount if they seek out the opportunities. And you need more than just cs talent to discover and exploit said opportunities.
The point I was making was that companies like HCL don't care about cs talent for most of their hires anyway. They are competing for contracts which require them to show bench strength. Since it's literally impossible show 1000s of top notch engineers just sitting on their rolls jobless, they just hire whoever comes along and after a few months of "training" say shit like, "We have a million engineers just waiting hand in hand to personally work on your project". Of course they also hire some who know what they are doing, but most hires are only for appearance sake. Since if they manage to win a big contract that will easily cover for all the hires and more.
As for the workers themselves, most won't show any interest because they have no idea what impact their work is having. For example they rarely interact with clients. Their metrics for success has nothing to do with quality of work. I can't imagine workers from any culture, including Americans and Europeans, evolving into expert professionals under these conditions.
The $5 metric is just my random number meant to indicate "below this, everything is crap". I agree that $5 is perhaps not the real border price that should be used for this, but hopefully we both agree that there is such a level, and HCL is purposefully going below it to save a buck.
Come on! India produces one of the best engineers in the world. If you look at the numbers, they need people doing run-of-the-mill 'coding' jobs who need not be 'trained' in complex algorithms and software engineering. They can hire school grads, train them to the basic skill set they need and hire them at 30% less salary. No good engineer would like to be hired for 2.5L in these companies.
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 34.9 ms ] threadI am struggling with a similar scenario right now. My oldest is struggling/coming to grips with attending a University where he wants to study Cyber Security but will spend at least two years learning about Geography, History, art appreciation, peoples of culture and two years of other courses that are loosely relevant to the Cyber Security Industry and dreadfully behind the times.
He took History and Geography and other courses through out HS. How much more do he need to be exposed to it?
This is why our System is failing us and a lot of kids are unprepared. They only way to learn what you want to learn is to do it outside of Academia. Sad but true.
However
$5 per hour engineers are bad. Especially in organisations that seem designed to keep them bad. Indian, Chinese, happen to be overrepresented in that cohort because of living expenses and their numbers.
Managers that hire these folks and expect quality, secure and well-represented software should be held to account, that's all. Not that most companies can produce decent requirements in the first place, and these guys also tend to have a "don't bother me" approach to communications as well.
The point I was making was that companies like HCL don't care about cs talent for most of their hires anyway. They are competing for contracts which require them to show bench strength. Since it's literally impossible show 1000s of top notch engineers just sitting on their rolls jobless, they just hire whoever comes along and after a few months of "training" say shit like, "We have a million engineers just waiting hand in hand to personally work on your project". Of course they also hire some who know what they are doing, but most hires are only for appearance sake. Since if they manage to win a big contract that will easily cover for all the hires and more.
As for the workers themselves, most won't show any interest because they have no idea what impact their work is having. For example they rarely interact with clients. Their metrics for success has nothing to do with quality of work. I can't imagine workers from any culture, including Americans and Europeans, evolving into expert professionals under these conditions.