[mathattack]

IMHO... You can't get a crew of experienced software engineers without starting with hordes of novices. It's just not a field where you can say, "Pass the entrance exam, get some mentoring, and come back in 6 years with experience." It's a field that you need to explore and find if you have the passion. (And I hate the word passion)

So it might take 20 novices coming out of these feeders to find 10 who become decent junior programmers, to get 5 who stick it out to become decent intermediate programmers, to get 1 who becomes a rock star.

But is this so bad? What's the downside? Everyone who falls off along the way becomes someone with tools to make themselves more productive in whatever they do in life.

And what's the alternative?

[Cthulhu_]

> And what's the alternative?

I think the author gives an alternative in the form of his pilot training; intense training before being allowed to write code (= a proper and full education, instead of a course), and pair programming (= co-pilot) with an experienced or non-novice pilot (developer).

The big corporate world doesn't tend to agree with this though, two people doing one job seems like a waste of money and time to a lot of managers that don't know any better.

[mathattack]

Do you think this is the solution? Would it work in any environment? Start-up for instance?

One could argue that training a programmer should be like training a doctor - once you get over the initial hurdle of getting into Medical school, it's all about a long period of learning and mentorship.

My impression is that great programmers can come from unlikely sources. It's ok to cast a wider net for people, when the worst thing that happens is that they're more skilled for their efforts.