[coliveira]

All of these things could be easily overcome with better training. The way I see it, the software industry in the US invests close to nothing in training and expects to receive "talented" developers by just selecting a small proportion from a large pool of candidates. This is a lazy and irresponsible way to create a workforce. The time and effort they spend in interviewing could be very well spent on teaching best practices to new employees, so they would be much more productive, instead of just expecting that they somehow "grok" these concepts from the get go.

[ZanyProgrammer]

I think the implication is that you're supposed to learn all of that on your own. That's at the very minimum-you're supposed to eat, breathe, and shit hacker culture and programming in your spare time.

[zeroxfe]

> All of these things could be easily overcome with better training.

I think 1, 2, and 4, requires lots of real world experience in addition to training.

> The time and effort they spend in interviewing could be very well spent on teaching best practices to new employees

Assuming that just teaching best practices is all that is required, which I strongly disagree with, a lot of companies (especially startups) don't have the time or the resources to burn on extensive training. The marketplace is fiercely competitive, and they typically need people on the ground right away.

> the software industry in the US invests closing to nothing in training

Many large tech organizations (Google, Microsoft, etc.) invest a huge amount in training. The time it takes for a new hire at Google to get productive is usually about 6 months to a year. All still, they have a high hiring bar that focuses on very strong fundamentals. (They also work very closely with universities and colleges on direction, curriculum, and funding.)

[coliveira]

Your arguments clearly contradict each other:

"The marketplace is fiercely competitive, and they typically need people on the ground right away."

" The time it takes for a new hire at Google to get productive is usually about 6 months to a year."

It cannot be both ways as you please. Either these companies are investing in training or not. If they are, then things like requirements gathering, creating specs, and providing tests should not be something difficult to do. This is a very important part of the job, but is not a part that requires super-intelligence.

Everything points to the fact that these companies do not invest in training and are just trying to select a small number of people out of a large pool.

[zeroxfe]

> Your arguments clearly contradict each other

They don't. It's kinda disingenuous to pick phrases out of context to make a point.

But let me clarify anyway:

- smaller companies typically cannot afford to train, they need people on the ground right away.

- larger companies typically do train. Almost every large company I've worked with has dedicated training groups, programs, and staff.

- experience is more valuable than training, which almost all companies filter for

[coliveira]

These phrases came directly from the context of your arguments, so they are not out of context.

You first point proves what I'm saying. Your second point is doubtful, because large companies are the ones that spend the most time in useless interviewing. The training you're eluding to is tool training, which is essential in a place like Google where the programer has to spend most of his time working on closed technology.

Also, saying that companies filter for experience is not correct. Interviews at most tech companies (especially the large ones) is done to eliminate large numbers of people based on the solution of narrow-minded programming questions. These questions rarely correlate with experience, in fact most people that are just out of college can do so well or better in these questions than an experienced engineer.