home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8377 comp.software-eng:5236 misc.jobs.misc:8536
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!claird
- From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
- Subject: Hiring, specialization, and so on (was: Software as PE)
- Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
- Distribution: na
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:14:11 GMT
- Message-ID: <C0G87o.80t@NeoSoft.com>
- References: <1992Dec30.125324.27900@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <522322457DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> <1993Jan5.222148.1164@netcom.com>
- Lines: 35
-
- In article <1993Jan5.222148.1164@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
- .
- .
- .
- >In article <522322457DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org writes:
- >>
- >> No electronic engineer has ever advertised himself as expert
- >> only with the "Apex Model 5 Logic Analyser".
- >
- >Software engineers advertise themselves this way because the hiring
- >managers typically hire this way. I would like to see the day when
- >hiring managers put more weight on how good an engineer the candidate
- >is, based on criteria like those in my list above, and put secondary
- >weight on whether the candidate knows how to tweak bit X in operating
- >system Y.
- Of course, that's the way all of us right-thinking persons
- see it, but is history on our side? This is a big topic,
- but are either of these aspects clear to others:
- 1. is there something inherent in software
- work that makes the contractor/high
- turnover/narrow specialization/inade-
- quate training/... constellation more
- probable/profitable/desirable than
- obtains in other engineering domains?
- 2. has the answer to 1. changed in the
- last ten years? How will it change in
- the next ten?
- .
- .
- .
- --
-
- Cameron Laird
- claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
- claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
-