why, it's enough to make a cynic think that all the ceos running their mouths about the "shortage" of software engineers (software engineer defined as someone in the top quintile of developers who wants to live in CA for far less money than available elsewhere considering COLA and will therefore struggle to afford a home and who comes in with detailed knowledge of the systems in place at future employer and does not require much, if any, training)... were merely concerned with reducing the bargaining power of the handful of people that meet their filter. Naw, couldn't be.
I thought I was alone in getting bummed out over this. I've had nothing but negative experiences interviewing with Silicon Valley Internet companies. What kind of super-humans are they looking for?
I love writing software but some days I hate my profession. I'm seriously considering getting into a different career (where knowledge capital doesn't degrade as fast) and code for fun (as a hobby). The problem is I'm in my mid-30s. Starting over has a very high opportunity cost.
From my experience, companies in the Valley & SF don't value the same types of engineers that are valued in every other part of the US.
What kind of super-humans are they looking for?
These companies are looking for what you may consider a needle in the haystack; someone with an extremely narrow tech focus. You may think that this person doesn't exist and the company is crazy, but they actually aren't. They will eventually find someone who matches the job description to a T, even if they have to pay for that individual's relocation.
Bay Area companies also do not generally value engineers with business skills, communication, or even social skills. I used to think code monkey was just a fun description of an engineer. But, I've found in the Bay Area, companies really want what I would consider to be a very 1-dimensional employee.
In my college years I was told by a CS professor that if I didn't have experience with many programming languages and operating systems, then I had no business calling myself a computer scientist. Yet, at a recent meetup in SF for a specific programming language, the speaker asked for a show of hands for those individuals with experience in another, relatively popular language. Only about 1% of the room raised their hands. I was pretty shocked and wondered where those people would be, career-wise, in a few years.
I mean if you are a decent programmer in some language it doesn't seem like it's a big jump to another. At least with popular web languages today. Even if you have no experience, I'm sure you could pick it up in no time.
It took me over two years, and I ended up in a pure software engineering position. I couldn't get anyone to even call be back over EE positions, because everyone wants fairly narrow specialists for everything except entry level, college hire positions.
Interesting - perhaps because I see so many EEs in software or consulting I don't think as much about hardware. I can see how the field can get specialized very quickly, and the first post-college job is critical.
A friend of mine is an EE doing something with chip production. Through a bit of bad luck, poor timing and lack of foresight, he ended up in a career cul de sac where he basically is stuck due to the technology that he is an expert in.
Basically, he'll get laid off in the next 2-3 years, and he'll need to start at a lower scale and work his way up again with another semiconductor company, or do something else.
He can always go back to grad school to retool also, no?
This is an issue in many technical fields, software too. An old friend's dad did his Phd thesis in vacuum tubes. If you can't stay current in your current job, you have to find a way on the side. Or do something else. But EEs are in MUCH better shape than liberal arts majors. Their major at least signals that they're smart, good at math, and can work hard.
