[Novalug] Credentials

William Sutton william@trilug.org
Mon May 11 18:53:59 EDT 2015


and while I agree with Bryan and rich that degrees and certifications 
don't necessarily translate to ability... my advice still is to have at 
least a semi-relevant degree just to get past the folks that think having 
Willy Wonka's golden ticket is important.

William Sutton

On Mon, 11 May 2015, Bryan J Smith via Novalug wrote:

> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rich Kulawiec via Novalug
> <novalug@firemountain.net> wrote:
>> Viewed from the hiring side:
>> Degrees in technical fields (anything STEM-related) are nice but not
>> strictly necessary.  (One of the smartest system admins that I've ever
>> known holds a degree in philosophy.)
>
> Why hold a degree at all then?  Seriously?!
>
> I mean ... why not hire more technologists without _any_ degrees?
> That has long been my argument.
>
> I mean, let's flip this ...
>
> I hold an EE with a Computer option.  I'm honestly _tired_ of HR
> departments deciding for me and my clients what is "the best" degree
> for IT.  I'd much rather have a non-degreed IT professional than
> someone with an alleged "better" degree.
>
> Why?
>
> Because I need _qualified_ and _experienced_ technologists around me.
> I'd rather have guys with 4-5 more years of experience.  I'd rather
> have guys who had to work for a living, had challenges in their life
> and otherwise weren't affluent and didn't have an easy way through
> college.
>
> Or at least give me a college grad who worked throughout college,
> ideally in a technology field, which usually meant they were at least
> studying something STEM related.  Why?
>
> Because I'm honestly tired of people with *0* understanding of
> semiconductor layout, usually with an Arts degree, telling me what is
> the most "optimal" processor design.  At least people with experience
> and/or some STEM background know WTF they are talking about.
>
> I.e., I really dislike it when people read something, and don't
> understand it, but regurgitate it like they've had 3 years of
> calculus-based physics and engineering analysis that could.
>
> We need more experienced, knowledgeable technologists, not artsy
> drones that claim to understand life better than others, and will use
> that attitude to override either solid experience and/or a solid STEM
> background where you cannot avoid applying calculus to the problems.
>
> Furthermore ...
>
> Understand my best friend has 20 years experience in HR, a BA Business
> major.  We talk about this regularly.  He recognizes what an
> engineering learns compared to other degrees.  He agrees with me ...
> no sense in requiring _any_ degree for a technology position.  Because
> this "any degree" attitude is non-sense, and removing solid
> candidates.
>
>> Certifications are okay but I'm meh about them.  FAR too many are just
>> cash cows and propaganda engines for the vendors.  (This is especially
>> true in the security area.)
>
> Even most vendor-agnostic programs are still about the cash cow of training.
>
> But in the Linux world, we have ...
>
> - LPI -- vendor-agnostic, but does not make money on training, and ...
> - Red Hat -- 100% hands-on testing, more costly (like CCIE, $1K/day),
> but like a "hands-on interview"
>
> And that's how I look at it.  LPI avoids the pitfalls of the training
> cash cow, and Red Hat loses money on exams because of the sheer cost
> of hands-on testing (subsidized by training, which is not much, enough
> to keep it going), but has built a program where employers can say,
> "well, at least I know they could pass a day-long, lab-based
> interview."
>
>> Breadth of experience helps a lot: someone who has had their paws on
>> OpenSolaris and NetBSD and Fedora and HPUX and Debian is not going to
>> be stuck for long if I put them in front of FreeBSD or Mint.
>
> True.
>
> In fact, I've had this same argument with the anti-systemd -- or
> probably to characterize them more accurately, "I've never used
> systemd, and I never will" -- people lately.  People who are systemd
> experts tend to also be Upstart experts, and have a lot of SysV init
> customization in their background.
>
> I really look for people who aren't "anti-" anything.  You want
> flexible people, even when they disagree with a technology
> implementation.
>
>> Depth of experience helps too.  Someone who has some clues at multiple
>> levels starting with silicon and working up, and from global networks
>> and working down, is better positioned to see the big picture.  (E.g.,
>> someone who's spent their entire academic and professional career coding
>> and thus working at just one level may not have this.)
>
> Define "starting with silicon and working up."
>
> PET PEEVE:  A lot of CS people claim to be "silicon knowledgeable,"
> but that's really not the case, especially from the EE perspective.
> Same goes for learning 2G level Assembler, as 3G languages like C --
> especially in the age of superscalar designs -- you get the _same_
> level of basic computer organization.  I think we focus on the _wrong_
> things.
>
> E.g., understanding substrate layout and the various ways, at the
> junction-level, to simplify an instruction set to work optimally --
> let alone write the compiler for it -- does _not_ really help you much
> in technology today.  Especially considering the fact that the only
> people who can understand it have at least a BSEE, as a BSCS won't cut
> it (much less a BACS).  Furthermore, at least a MSEE specialty is
> often required to comprehend the sheer clockless async timing these
> days (which is beyond me).
>
> Going the opposite way ... learning gate-level and assembler is _not_
> very applicable today either.  Designs are utterly _different_ than
> they were even in the early days of RISC, which most BSCS majors don't
> study correctly either.
>
> The only place it might is if you're doing FPGA.  That is the one
> place, if you're actually writing code to program into FPGA-based
> ASICs, would be usable, such as in the security or trading industries.
> In that case, yes, a BSCS would be useful, because you don't have to
> go lower.
>
>> Expertise in the flavor-of-the-moment isn't that useful.  Sufficiently
>> smart people can learn any piece of technology, whether it's BGP or
>> Python or postfix, on the fly.  E.g., someone who has extensive experience
>> with CVS will have no problem learning git.
>
> If you're going to go there ...
>
> I'd _strongly_ argue that engineers study how to describe _any_ system
> with a series of equations.  That's why it's effective from everything
> from analog (yes, the world is still very much analogy) such as EM
> Fields to microeconomic systems.
>
> So ... explain to me again why _any_ degree is required for
> technology?  As I said, even my best friend -- in HR -- quickly
> learned to agree with me, and stop requiring any degree for any
> technology position.
>
>> I don't play quiz time with interviewees.  I look for problem-solving
>> ability: can they grasp a problem, ask questions designed to delineate
>> its scope and scale, narrow the range of plausible solutions, and
>> maybe even figure out that this is the wrong problem to be working on?
>> Many problems present their own solutions if they're sufficiently
>> well-defined; conversely, poorly-defined problems lead to non-solutions.
>> I don't care all that much about published code: some of my best stuff is
>> (unfortunately) locked up, theirs might be too.  If I look at code at all,
>> it's strictly for readability and lack of cleverness.  (Unreadable, clever
>> code is buggy, insecure code.)   Laziness is a virtue: someone who will
>> spend an hour searching the 'net for code that does 90% of the job (and
>> then augments it for the other 10%) is probably going to outperform
>> someone who spends a week writing code.
>> I look for clues that "established wisdom" isn't.  These are people
>> who will be capable of solving problems that others can't even perceive.
>> Writing ability is pretty high on my list, too.  (Not that mine is all
>> that great!)
>
> It can be a blessing and a curse.  ;)
>
> I'm extremely detailed, which means I'm very sought after for
> difficult clients, where my documentation saves us when things break
> down to contracts and other terms.
>
> Unfortunately I'm detailed to the point other technologists think I'm
> "talking down to them" or "trying to look smart," when all I'm doing
> is being detailed and complete, which is always redundant and _never_
> assumes people know anything.
>
>> Diversity is not just a buzzword.  The presence of myriad viewpoints
>> brings fresh/different/new approaches to old problems.
>
> But diversity at the expense of _basic_ and _minimal_ skillset is not
> good.  That's why STEM tends to be one of those fields where people
> are both color and sexually blind.
>
> Sadly, women were originally sought after for STEM before post-WWII.
> Then the whole "father knows best" non-sense started.  Women were
> often called "computers" because of their methodical approaches.
>
> I could say it's related to management intervention of and for
> technology, and that might be why.
>
>> You get what you pay for.  Well-qualified hard-working people deserve to
>> be compensated appropriately.  It does no good to try to save $10K/year
>> by hiring a lesser candidate, because they'll incur $30K/year in costs.
>> By contrast, a great candidate might save you $320K in one afternoon
>> three years from now (perhaps by convincing you to do something or by
>> convincing you NOT to do something), thus justifying everything you've
>> ever paid them.
>
> But ...
>
> If you're a business manager looking to save money for 18 or even as
> little as 6 months, and get promoted, not caring what happens 24+
> months down the road, you're going to do it.  You saved money.
>
> The best, technology example of this is the proliferation of MS
> Office, a product that has constantly been incompatible with itself
> over 5+ years -- and that includes 2007, 2010 and 2013 -- all
> different "transitional" formats not compatible with each other, much
> less the ISO Office OpenXML 2008 spec.
>
> Business leaders don't see that, because they only care about 60 or
> even 36 months of retention.  Engineers have to have multi-decades of
> document retention, which explains why Boeing -- the #1 documentation
> producer in the world -- was one of the first sponsors of OASIS (the
> defacto XML standardization entity) standardization of OpenOffice and,
> subsequently, the ISO standardization.
>
> Business managers don't often look at 36+ months later.  Engineers have to.
>
> Otherwise Boeing is building F-15K's for the Koreans using MS Office
> 97 under Office 95 using virtualization and other hacks, because they
> cannot read -- much less edit -- old documents.  And yes, that is a
> real-world, 1st-hand example.  ;)
>
>> People with balanced lifestyles tend to thrive; workaholics will
>> eventually burn out.
>
> Unfortunately there is still a small portion of Americans who tend to
> try to push others harder than is even legally, much more ethically,
> allowed.
>
> I learned this back in 2002, and quickly became a very, very
> effective, self-employed consultant.  Unfortunately I had to
> "re-learn" this in not only 2012, but again in 2014, and now I'm back
> to being self-employed for a reason.  ;)
>
>> Professionals require offices with doors, windows, privacy and quiet.
>
> That's an absolutism, and I will not subscribe to such.  What works
> for some does _not_ work for all, far from it.
>
> Employers should be more interested in ensuring the _effective_
> productivity of their employees.  This means _trusting_ employees to
> define those parameters for them, of which, most will and, more
> importantly, save them money.
>
> I don't need an office with doors, windows, privacy, etc...  I have no
> problem, and have had no problem, working in a crowded room on a
> project that is behind, on a deadline.  I've excelled at such.  Of
> course, I won't lie ... I was often "rewarded" with my own, private
> office as a result.  But even then I requested a cube in the "heart of
> the action."
>
> The key is that employees should have already proven their worth, or
> they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.  So the employer
> should heed their notices, which are made with considerations for the
> employer and profitability.  Employees who bicker over little things
> will expose themselves soon enough.
>
> My #1 issue my last few years has been the high turnover in
> management, the ones gone who recognized I was a "cheap bastard" that
> saved the company money, only to be replaced by those who say, "you
> need to pay for your own, work-related travel when the customer won't
> pay for it."  WTF?!
>
>> On the jobhunter side:
>> Potential employers who don't respond to *every* resume submission
>> are inconsiderate and rude.  C'mon, how difficult is it to task someone
>> with writing a suitable email?
>> Employers who play buzzword bingo with resumes instead of actually
>> reading them (and the accompanying cover letters) are missing out.
>
> And yet ... it's become quite industry-wide to do so.  ;)
>
>> Playing "stump the interviewee" is a great way to add more stress to
>> the process and is a game that interviewers can always win if they wish...
>> so what's the point?
>> Y'know, we can often tell when you've hardwired the job for a candidate
>> who's already in-house.
>
> At the same time ... they want to see how you respond to adversity.
>
> Here's the deal ... how a potential employer conducts the interview
> says a lot to me about them.  I say ... give me your worst, and I'll
> just ignore the opportunity.  I'd rather them do that in the interview
> than after I've been hired.  ;)
>
>> Don't ask my salary history.  What X paid me to do Y has absolutely
>> nothing to do with what you're going to pay me to do something else.
>> Besides, it's none of your damn business.
>
> I've had the benefit of being self-employed most of my career, so it's
> always been a pay cut when I've moved to a salary.  So it can work in
> your favor too.  ;)
>
>> If you want a candidate who's an Apache HTTPD expert and a routing
>> expert and a Solaris expert and a database expert and a Perl expert
>> and a Java expert and an IPSEC expert and a DNS expert and a crypto
>> expert and and and...then you should recognize (a) there may not actually
>> be anyone on this planet with that skillset but (b) if there is, you'd
>> better be prepared to pay them extremely well.
>
> They are free to still ask.
> And they are free to still have the req open 5 years later too.  ;)
>
>> Professionals require offices with doors, windows, privacy and quiet.
>
> Again, absolutism.  What works is what the employee recognizes, and
> what the employer trusts to know.
>
> Besides, in this day'n age, most people work from home more and more.
> How do you apply that in your same statement?
>
>
> -- 
> Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
> **********************************************************************
> The Novalug mailing list is hosted by firemountain.net.
>
> To unsubscribe or change delivery options:
> http://www.firemountain.net/mailman/listinfo/novalug
>



More information about the Novalug mailing list