[kstrauser]

> Can you imagine "if you are studying art and want a job as an artist, you'd better be doing drawing and uploading to deviantART in your free time. Otherwise you're just not cut out for this career."

Yes. Yes, I can absolutely imagine judging someone in a partially-artistic field on whether they enjoy making art on their own time. That doesn't apply in every field, sure, and I bet chip designers don't generally go home and make little 8088 clones for fun. But programming is still as much of a craft as an engineering discipline, and I'm suspicious of people who claim aspirations in the field without demonstrating that they actually enjoy it.

In interviews, I ask what projects a candidate has written on their own time. It doesn't have to be on GitHub. It doesn't have to be big. It doesn't have to be generally useful. One of the best responses I got was from a guy who'd been developing his own duck hunting journal for the last decade to track location, weather, etc. I'm not surprised to see that he's the lead engineer at his company now.

[Tarrosion]

I absolutely agree that when hiring an artist, you want that person to be excited about art. I suppose in a nutshell, my thought is: all time is your own time. Choosing to pursue a career in <art | programming | etc> is a monumental investment of your own time into <X>. We ought not judge as terribly different those who spend ~50 hours a week of their own time doing X and getting paid for it and those who spend ~50 hours per week of their own time doing X and getting paid for it and also spend 2 hours per week doing X on the side.

This is particularly true of developers: generally speaking, someone who has the technical ability to be a strong developer could make a good living in finance, accounting, consulting, etc. The very fact that they're applying for a software job rather than something else is a powerful signal that they'd rather spend half their waking hours on software than on something else.

...or am I missing something obvious? - wouldn't be the first time.

[kstrauser]

I don't disagree with you in general, but we're in the context of people starting new careers. A professional <artist | programmer | etc> will have a portfolio of on-the-job work they've done. A recent grad only has the fact that they've graduated and not anything to really demonstrate their aptitude or abilities. I'd be skeptical of such a student who'd never branched out to do something fun during their entire learning time.

But back to the career professional context. I think maybe I've identified the disconnect. Could it be that asking about personal projects is a way of identifying not just a competent developer but an actual geek? Those are different roles with different requirements. For example, you probably don't want to unleash a geek on your legacy business logic maintenance project. They'll probably be bored and end up breaking stuff in the name of optimization or cleanup. Similarly, you don't want "just" a programmer in your R&D team where you genuinely want and need creative innovation.

So maybe both sides are correct: for some jobs, it's completely appropriate to expect personal projects. For others, it shouldn't be expected at all. What do you think?