[PaulHoule]

It's an interesting question.

There is

http://www.acm.org/

which supports the academic CS establishment but frankly has a "devil may care" attitude about practitioners. CACM is full of hand-wringing articles about the roller-coastering numbers of CS undergrads and they never once get a clue that the undergrads hear rumours about what happens to people in computing once the flush of youth wears off. (It's a general thing that engineers start out with good pay but hit a glass ceiling rapidly)

I used to be a member but I quit because of this. If I had to point to a particular issue it is that the ACM has unquestioning support of increasing H-1B visas.

I am a member of the IEEE Computer Society precisely because they take the opposite side.

Personally it is not a litmus test for me, I see there are two sides of the issue, but when you look at the ACM they are in lockstep with the industry which sees it as a one-sided issue and anybody who questions it is like one of those brits that likes to brawl at football matches.

Anti-professionalism (that is, active opposition and resistance to professionalism) is the dominant paradigm in IT and it creates "market for lemons" situations that has a number of negative impacts on the field, the worst of which is that once you do get the job (well paid or not) you will almost inevitably be forced into malpractice by management and not have anybody to support you.

If there was a simple explanation of the situation it is that computing came along in a time when unions were on the run. Had computers became widespread 20 or 30 years earlier, the situation might be very different.

[o_safadinho]

How does that explain INFORMS for Operations Research?

WWII was the catalyst for a lot of technical research. It spawned the birth of the modern computer with Turing and it also saw the birth or what is now considered modern Operations Research. For example, during WWII George Dantzig (the person that developed the Simplex Algorithm) served in the U.S. Air Force Office of Statistical Control. He only returned to finish his PhD at Berkeley after the was was over. Also a lot of work with Bayesian search started developing around this time to do things like help search for enemy subs.

However INFORMS is very involved in the OR/MS community and multiple times per year they host meetings where one of the goals is to connect grad students with companies.

[dalke]

ACM and IEEE Computer Society also host meetings "where one of the goals is to connect grad students with companies."

When I was in school, the local ACM chapter had meetings which which even helped undergraduates find internships and jobs.

All of the major ACM conferences have a job fair. Most of the minor ones as well.

> "What is it about applying the same techniques to tech that makes them special"

There is nothing special about tech. The same is true for most fields. Where is your central source where you can hire a chemist?

Usually, the potential chemist hire comes to the site, talks to people, gives a job talk, etc.

> "say they HAVE to give these multi-day long technical screens"

The link you gave to AirBNB says it's one day technical screen, and candidates which pass that screen have a followup with four non-tech interviews. It is not a "multi-day long technical screen".

[o_safadinho]

I guess the problem comes that especially outside of tech, they don't have independent technical screens, the company reads your paper.

If we stick with AirBnB here is a posting they made with the AEA (https://www.aeaweb.org/joe/listing.php?JOE_ID=2015-02_111454...).

All of the interviewing takes place at the AEA meeting and the candidate is expecting to have their Job Market paper (a completed technical project that is used for presenting at all of your interviews).

The American Statistical Association has something similar with their Joint Statistical Meeting (https://www.amstat.org/meetings/jsm/2016/employerlist.cfm).

Once I finish grad school I wouldn't do any type of homework for a job interview. If you can't read one of my papers then I just wouldn't be interested.

[dalke]

The job process of hiring a new chemist is more than just reading your papers. And yes, papers, as most people will have published several papers in the process of getting a PhD.

There are references to check up on. There's the ability to present your job talk; the ability to present is an important skill when you work in a company. Some candidates during the interview day might yell at a secretary or send text messages while being interviewed - these are two no-go indicators for most jobs.

Those two examples come from a comment at http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/11/03/job... . Another points out a technical screening question one might ask a chemist:

> If I ask a PhD candidate how many protecting groups they know for nitrogen and they can name ten off the top of their head with pros and cons for each – then that tells me something. If all they can come up with is “Ummmm… Boc?” – well that tells me something too.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2006/01/29/nam... suggests:

> I think I might work up some questions like that for the next time I interview someone. “Here,” I’ll say, handing over a sheet of paper. “SciFinder says that you can do this reaction any of these six ways. Which one would you recommend trying first, and why?”

A recent grad comments about a job interview, with questions "more along the lines of “do you know some basic transformations and how they occur?”

Given that evidence that there are technical screens for chemists, why do you write fields "especially outside of tech ... don't have independent technical screens", and that interviewers only look at one's single paper publication?

You write: "If we stick with AirBnB".

If we stick with AirBNB then re-read the interview process you linked to earlier. Not only does it not do multiple days of technical screening, as you thought, but it says nothing about a homework assignment; which seems to be a particular point of irritation for you.

You appear to have an incorrect interpretation of what you read, and an incorrect interpretation of what happens in other fields. I suggest that means you may need to re-evaluate what you think you know of the topic.

[o_safadinho]

I read the article correctly. They don't call it homework in the article and instead decide to use the term "data challenge". You can call it whatever you want it is the same thing. It is also split in to four parts and takes place over several days. How did I interpret this incorrectly?

I'm specifically talking about other technical fields that are highly mathematical and that have a lot in common with Computer Science.The fields that I specifically mentioned were Statistics, Economics, Actuarial Science and Operations Research. I mentioned all of the fields that I'm talking about in the original post and in sever of my replies. You are harping on something trying to correct a point that I'm not even trying to make and your response actually helps to further prove my point. You could be correct about the Chemistry thing. I didn't study Chemistry and I don't want to be a Chemist and I didn't mention the subject anywhere in my OP, so I don't really care about the interview process for hiring a Chemist.

For example, with Economics (one of the fields that I actually mentioned), presenting your "Job Paper" is actually part of the interview process. You make your presentation and everybody that has arranged an interview with you can come by and hear your talk. They can read your paper before hand so they have time to think questions well ahead of time. The American Economics Association provides one platform for all interested parties to come together and hash things out instead of me having to try and go to 10 separate interviews.

With Actuaries (another field that I actually mentioned) there is no need for you to quiz me to see if I actually know how a Poisson Process o GLMs work because that is taken care of by the exam process. If somebody passed the Statistical Models exam then you know that they at least meet the industry agreed upon minimum competency level for knowledge of specific Statistical Models.

[dalke]

I apologize. It was I who was mistaken. I overlooked that the basic question takes place at home.

This is, I think, equivalent to the FizzBuzz problem that was going around a few years ago. I can see how it can be called homework. I assume it's a screen because a lot of people apply who have no clue on what data science is actually about. If my assumption is correct, the it should take no more than 15 minutes or so, since it's supposed to be "easy."

You write now "and takes place over several days". Earlier you wrote "multi-day long technical screens with multiple homework assignments." These are two different, though related things. My response was to your first description, not your updated description.

Here are the differences I see. 1) the AirBNB text says "We send a few datasets to them and ask a basic question; the exercise should be easy for anyone who has experience." The use of 'the exercise' looks like it's one homework assignment, while you say it's "multiple homework assignments". This is a minor point, but still a difference.

2) the AirBNB text says that the in-house challenge is a day long ("They then have the day ... At the end of the day"). That is the main technical screen. The remaining day is a non-technical screen. I agree that it's a multi-day long process, but only one of those days is for technical screening. This is why I disagree with your initial characterization of "multi-day long technical screens", though I agree with your new characterization of "takes place over several days".

> "I'm specifically talking about other technical fields that are highly mathematical and that have a lot in common with Computer Science. ... so I don't really care about the interview process for hiring a Chemist."

I was addressing your earlier statement "What is it about applying the same techniques to tech that makes them special and some how harder to measure?"

In comparing your two sentences, I'm confused. You first imply that CS is "tech" and somehow special, and different from statistics and the other fields. But now you say they have a lot in common? What does "special" even mean then?

Most of CS, by the way, has very little mathematics in it. Surely less than chemistry does. Why do you think CS is "highly mathematical" when most CS departments require only basic calculus, discrete math 2, and perhaps an intro. statistics course? (Some specialized subfields of course require more mathematics.)

I'm "harping" on the topic because you think CS is somehow special, when my experience from physics, chemistry, and bioinformatics says that the CS hiring method is pretty standard.

I believe the hiring process in mathematics is also similar to the science fields I just listed, and different from what you have described.

For example, http://www.siam.org/pdf/news/1847.pdf describes the process for "recent PhDs who are looking for positions at undergraduate-focused schools". It includes a strong teaching component, so the interviewees are expected to put together a talk with "the daunting task of showing that you can connect with an audience of undergraduates and non-specialists while simultaneously making it clear that you’re a serious mathematician, knowledgeable about your area and with substantial work to your credit."

http://blogs.siam.org/how-and-why-to-ask-good-questions-duri... says "In the U.S., the typical interview for a PhD-level position lasts a full day or more, including a one-hour seminar and one-on-one meetings with researchers and/or faculty as well as managers/administrators." This is also different than your description of "You make your presentation and everybody that has arranged an interview with you can come by and hear your talk."

Am I incorrect? Is there a centralized system, perhaps at SIAM, for mathematics papers and job finding which is similar to what you describe for economics?

[PaulHoule]

The problem is not that students have a hard time finding entry level jobs.

The problem is that computing careers tend to be dead end jobs in the long term.

Like seriously, you get hired into Google and where are you going to go? Become a product manager? Really? Academics get to look like they are doing positive when they are running something just as exploitative as the Thoroughbred racing industry.

Job fairs are also as much as a part of the problem as they are part of the solution. For instance, Google and Facebook are far more likely to send recruiters to the moon than they are to send them to a historically black college.

[dalke]

When you say "the problem", do you mean the OP's problem? Or the problem you have with the ACM or IEEE? Or the problem with CS as a career? Because I thought we were talking about the OP's problem.

You know, people can have an entirely good life without having to climb a career ladder. Going back a tech-generation, and thinking of a friend, after you work at NeXT and AutoCAD, you go to a small plastics manufacturing company and with team of two others, manage their IT systems. It pays well, has good benefits, is 10 minutes commute, has diverse challenges, and he loves that they make actual physical things. What's wrong with that?

Also, http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0505/Google-sends-i... : "In an effort to assist in Silicon Valley's diversity problem, Google has sent some of its engineers to historically black colleges to shake up the system."

As far as I know, Google has not yet sent anyone to the Moon.