[titanomachy]

As an engineer in the US who's worked at three very different companies, I haven't seen any of the things that this article is complaining about. While most applications had a space to link your GitHub account, I've never had the sense that a company expected me to have open-source contributions. My co-workers don't do open-source work in their free time, or if they do they don't talk about it.

The author also claims that employers don't invest in training and expect us to do it on our own time. Every employer I've had has been thrilled when I used my paid hours to study and master technology relevant to the job. Although it's true that I've never really had much formal "training", no one ever told me to stop learning stuff and just do my job.

I'm sure I've been very fortunate, but I'm curious why my experience differs so much from the author's.

[aeroheim]

From the US as well (Austin specifically) and I think there are some grains of truth in what the author describes, but it's not clear whether the author's viewpoint is influenced by the developers that requested paid mentorship or if it's entirely his own.

I've seen what he mentions in regards to self-improvement. Management under a large engineering company I was previously at would encourage self-learning and improvement, but disregarded it the moment deadlines became a concern or if you requested resources for it (e.g budget for tech conferences). They had a lot of long-time employees who were content with mediocre salaries (due to family, complacency, poor marketability/atrophied skills, etc.), so they literally had no incentive to invest in meaningful training for employees.

In regards to the focus on open-source contributions that he claims, I've found that the credibility and clout that comes with being a prolific contributor really only matter online. It most definitely helps you get your resume in the door, but you're still expected to whiteboard some bullshit like everyone else when it comes to interviews. I'd imagine that the majority of applicants have zero open source contributions and that the companies not only expect but are also okay with that. That was the definitely the experience I had back when I had did interviewing for my team at least.

Of course, it could be possible that what he's describing is more of a trend going on in Europe or Denmark than the US. But I think he has some hits and some misses with his takes.

[belval]

Same experience for me, when interviewing if the candidate is a new grad and has a nice GitHub profile and I can actually look at the code it's great (otherwise what I am hiring on?), but I never passed anyone for not having GitHub contributions.

Likewise, unless I just stop doing my job and flat out refuse to do my tasks I never had issues with learning new technologies on the job. If anything I got congratulated for showing initiative in exploring ways to better our current stack.