On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:26:31 -0600 Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> writes:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>
> > Personally, I advise businesses to maybe offer a puzzle to
> candidates
> > applying for a programming position. Nothing stressful; email them
> > some (time-respecting, relatively simple) programming puzzles and
> ask
> > them to maybe solve one of them. (After all, would you hire a
> juggler
> > without seeing them juggle?)
>
> At this point in my career, if I was confronted with a "puzzle" to
> solve, I would be out the door in a heartbeat.
>
> I find this kind of interview trick to be offensive. How many
> interviews
> for other professions involve a "puzzle" during an interview? Do
> lawyers
> have to get up and stage a mock defense of a client? Do doctors have
> to
> perform surgery to demonstrate their knowledge? Do architects have
> to
> design a house?
I think the main difference between computer programming and "real" professions like medicine, law, or architecture, is that the latter professions are all regulated and one cannot become a practitioner in them without being licensed. To become licensed to practice medicine, law, etc. one not only has to pass state licensing exams but one has to have had met whatever formal educational and professional training requirements set down by the states, usually on the basis of criteria laid down by professional societies in those fields. Therefore, supposedly anyone who has jumped the hoops required to become a licensed practitioner in those fields, is assumed to be qualified unless there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. And sometimes not even then.
None of these things is true concerning computer programming, software engineering, or web development. The only set educational or training requirements for securing a position in this field is whatever requirements an employer thinks might be desirable. A computer science degree is often considered to be desirable, but plenty of employers, if not most employers, will consider candidates with almost any sort of a science or engineering degree, or even a liberal arts degree, providing the candidate has some applicable technical experience. And it should be noted that there are lots of gainfully employed programmers who have no degrees at all. Anybody can hang out their shingles as a software engineers or web developers, and if they can find someone willing to pay them a salary, who is to gainsay otherwise? Therefore, it is not too surprising that employers might want to test candidates or otherwise seek proof that a candidate has the skills that she claims to have. After all, anyone can claim to know Java or PHP or C#, and they might have even taken courses in those languages and perhaps have even held past jobs where they supposedly used these languages, but it does not mean that they can actually code workable software in those languages.
Now in fact there have been attempts by some people within the software engineering field to reshape the field to make it more like a traditional profession. Usually, the engineering profession is taken as a model, and in fact the widespread adoption of the term "software engineering" was promoted by these folk. Some of these folk have also pushed for the establishment of licensing requirements for people who wish to call themselves "sofware engineers." To my knowledge, only Texas and California provide for the granting of Profession Engineer (P.E.) licenses to software engineers. Steve McConnell in his book, *After the Gold Rush* argued for the professionalization of software engineering along the lines just described.
>
> I can see providing my portfolio to an employers, but interview
> gimmicks
> like you describe is a clear warning bell for me that I'm not going
> to
> be treated professionally when I'm actually working for the
> employer.
>
> Chuck
>
> --------------------------
> Bread and Roses Web Design
> serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists
> http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>