It's not an entirely accurate graph, the basic idea is that by having a different hiring manager from your actual manager you start at point 0 on how much someone can contribute and succeed. The interview and starter project process can actually be viewed as part of an on-boarding process.
I definitely see the value in this consistency. But do you think that over time the two lines will ever intersect? Maybe hiring manager == actual manager just gives a head start, but it's more about finding the right manager for the developer?
Good thing you guys aren't a Canadian company, lest you be fined into non-existence. Seriously, folks, call your employees what they are. Programmers, DBAs, Sysadmins.
I personally appreciate the work that Heroku has done with PostgreSQL, but I'm ate up when I see technology companies (whom are employers of the previously listed titles) refer to their employees as 'engineers'.
Yes, many companies are guilty of it. It comes down to ego inflation. "Engineer" lends an air of prestige and esteem, but it's a title that's undeserved by most who use it in modern times.
Of course, this gets severely down-voted because many people on HN and similar sites think of themselves in this fashion, and their ego takes a hit when they run across a comment such as mine.
I don't think it has anything to do with ego inflation.
To me "engineer" evoques a specific methodology and state of mind that is shared by all engineers, whether they build bridges, sewer systems or software. It emphasizes that your job is to create solutions to real-world problems - and that writing software is just one part of that job.
This is really backwards thinking. The regulation of 'Engineer' has not grown to support the concept of the modern world. The laws in Canada were enacted as a result non-qualified people designing bridges and buildings that fell over. At the time almost all 'Engineering' actively had a life safety component, the same is far from true today.
Those fields that still life safety components are of course regulated, primarily through PE licensing but there certain is no reason not to properly use the term 'Engineer' when its due.
For what its worth my degree is in electrical engineering and have never even considered getting a PE license, its not applicable in the fields I work in.
I have a degree in Computer Engineering, but I've never got a PE license either. The important thing is that I don't ever call myself an Engineer. I am a programmer, or developer, or whatever; calling myself an Engineer would be dishonest.
I don't think it's backwards thinking so much as an important distinction between how Canada uses the word "Engineer" and how much of the rest of the (English speaking) world does.
I don't see how calling yourself an 'Engineer' is dishonest, adding 'Professional Engineer' or 'PE' to your title would be dishonest as those terms have regulatory meaning.
'Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize improvements to the lives of people.'
Regardless of the formal designation of 'PE' or other designation many people do fit the term 'Engineer'.
The real issue is that some limited jurisdictions have decided that 'Engineer' must equal 'PE'. That doesn't make the use of the term 'Engineer' improper outside those jurisdictions nor does it make the choice to equate the two concepts universally correct.
Though I understand and largely agree with your argument, the reason why I don't call myself an Engineer is that I know that people may not understand the distinction.
I legally cannot call myself a "Professional Engineer". In order to prevent unintentionally misleading people, I stay as far from the word "Engineer" as possible.
I suppose it's not really dishonest. I depends more on the individual's intentions.
My job title is Software Engineer where I work (well that's what it says on my desk), and honestly I find it to be a little silly. Maybe because of what I grew up associating "engineer" with; my father is an engineer / manager for a power plant, which feels like 180 degrees away from what I do. But in the end it's just words, I couldn't care less what you call me as long as I'm being paid to code!
I think it's more of a cultural difference. "Engineer" just doesn't mean the same thing south of the border; it means more like "developer", or perhaps "technical employee".
I can't open the link either. But your link doesn't seem to refer to the same article. Google's cache is from November 30th, and the article was posted today.
Cool article. Once the starter project is done, what are the main criteria you apply to make a hire/no-hire decision? Does the hiring manager make the decision alone, or does the team debate the person?
Have you found any skills that are harder to evaluate through starter projects than through traditional whiteboard interviews?
Hiring comes down to the team or employees that have talked to the candidate. Everyone gives their feedback and a number rating to the hiring manager. Its up to the hiring manager to then take that info and know whether its a unanimous yes or if there's reservations from individuals and pass.
If this is really the hiring process they use, it must be seriously limiting their candidate pool. At least it seems like it'd be hard to find anybody with a full-time job who would be able to devote some unknown number of days to do real work for a company as part of the interview process. Finding good people who are additionally willing to do it for free must be even harder.
I guess it'd be fine if you just want to hire consultants, students or the unemployed. Am I misunderstanding something about that post?
It's not an unknown number of days. It's 1-2 days.
Major companies with good hiring processes (Microsoft, Google) require 1-2 full days of your time for the interviews, so it's not different time-wise. The difference is that instead of talking to several people for 1hr each, you spend the time coding.
If you ask me, coding is better as a way of judging if someone knows how to, you know, code.
23 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.2 ms ] threadGood thing you guys aren't a Canadian company, lest you be fined into non-existence. Seriously, folks, call your employees what they are. Programmers, DBAs, Sysadmins.
I personally appreciate the work that Heroku has done with PostgreSQL, but I'm ate up when I see technology companies (whom are employers of the previously listed titles) refer to their employees as 'engineers'.
Of course, this gets severely down-voted because many people on HN and similar sites think of themselves in this fashion, and their ego takes a hit when they run across a comment such as mine.
To me "engineer" evoques a specific methodology and state of mind that is shared by all engineers, whether they build bridges, sewer systems or software. It emphasizes that your job is to create solutions to real-world problems - and that writing software is just one part of that job.
Those fields that still life safety components are of course regulated, primarily through PE licensing but there certain is no reason not to properly use the term 'Engineer' when its due.
For what its worth my degree is in electrical engineering and have never even considered getting a PE license, its not applicable in the fields I work in.
I don't think it's backwards thinking so much as an important distinction between how Canada uses the word "Engineer" and how much of the rest of the (English speaking) world does.
'Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize improvements to the lives of people.'
Regardless of the formal designation of 'PE' or other designation many people do fit the term 'Engineer'.
The real issue is that some limited jurisdictions have decided that 'Engineer' must equal 'PE'. That doesn't make the use of the term 'Engineer' improper outside those jurisdictions nor does it make the choice to equate the two concepts universally correct.
I legally cannot call myself a "Professional Engineer". In order to prevent unintentionally misleading people, I stay as far from the word "Engineer" as possible.
I suppose it's not really dishonest. I depends more on the individual's intentions.
Have you found any skills that are harder to evaluate through starter projects than through traditional whiteboard interviews?
I guess it'd be fine if you just want to hire consultants, students or the unemployed. Am I misunderstanding something about that post?
Major companies with good hiring processes (Microsoft, Google) require 1-2 full days of your time for the interviews, so it's not different time-wise. The difference is that instead of talking to several people for 1hr each, you spend the time coding.
If you ask me, coding is better as a way of judging if someone knows how to, you know, code.