Protecting for the Future -Career Change?

Pete Gossett said:

z31maniac said:

But, learning to code or something similar isn't exactly something you do in a couple of months. 

Not that you’re wrong, but I landed my current gig(that I’ve been at over 6-years) by downloading a free copy of SQL Server & playing around at home with it for a couple weeks’ worth of evenings, and passing a pre-employment test with the help of several GRMers. Most everything since then I’ve learned via Google. So it is possible, though definitely not the norm. 

Edit: in reply to salary questions above, iirc I started around $36k, which was a couple grand less than I’d previously been earning(in a shrinking field). Though I’m now well beyond that(and what I’d previously earned).

You can learn by doing, but you also end up with holes in your knowledge. I've been in software development in one form or another for over 20 years, and I learned by experience and screwing around with stuff and (in later years) Googling. I'm still coming across stuff that I don't know but that I would have learned as a first-year CompSci student. You can get away with it, but like any field having a good solid grasp of the fundamentals ends up being important if you want to be really good. And by "really good" I mean "not easily replaced by India".

GameboyRMH said:

SVreX said:

This is kinda odd.

That's the way it works.  Most of us care a little bit about job placement.  Skills are supremely hard to measure in a reasonably objective manner, and don't matter that much.  Most positions with most companies are about character, aptitude,personality, and "fit".  That's what connections try to offer.  Skills can be taught.

I suppose the reason is that I'd rather earn a job on merit than schmooze my way into it by knowing the right people, and on the flipside of that I wouldn't like to be in a job where my personal off-hours relationship with anyone could affect my career prospects. I'd think job history would be a good measurement of skill, character, and aptitude at least. Connections are hardly any guarantee of any of those traits. Hiring on skill would produce a more meritocratic system while hiring on connections produces a more aristocratic system, and I suppose having suffered under one of the world's most aristocratic job markets throughout my entire "career" so far makes me dislike the concept of "connections" even more, to me it feels like a well-understood but largely unscrutinized euphemism for words like nepotism, favoritism, and corruption.

"Skills can be taught" also doesn't apply to jobs that require a tertiary education, that's not something employers will pay or wait for.

I don't think you're quite getting it. It's not like you are going to be hired into a professional job with no skills or experience. My current gig, I believe there were 12 people that went through the initial contact and preliminary interview. 

I was asked to apply, because one of my friends that works here had recommended me on LinkedIn from a previous job. His boss saw this, and they asked me to apply. So it's not as if I'm not qualified to be doing the job, but I knew someone here that I had worked with before and could recommend my work.

They don't even consider people for my title without a 4 year degree and 8+ years of experience.

As for the software boot camps, I suspect the boot camps are teaching specifically what these companies want in regards to skills and programming languages. Then they can help make better fits for a students strengths and weaknesses for a particular company.

I agree with z31maniac.

Gameboy, skills and connections are not mutually exclusive.  They compliment each other.

If the job application said, "Everyone must wear a blue suit to the interview", we would all think that was stupid.  But if the employer requires it, the bottom line is that your skills are meaningless.  If you don't wear a blue suit, you will not be considered.  Even if your skills are extraordinary.

Same thing with connections.  If you don't have any, you may not get the opportunity to have your skills assessed.

Its the way it works.  Doesn't matter if we like it or not.

I was talking to a friend who's CTO for a very technological company about how they found staff. His primary tool is referrals by current staff, in large part because that current staff then has some skin in the game! Think of those connections as the initial interview that takes place over time. You don't recommend your bro because he's your bro, bro. You suggest someone who's going to be good because otherwise you have to suffer the consequences.

I got one of my jobs via a fairly tenuous connection. I got the name of the right person to contact through a friend who worked in another division of the massive company, and then basically told this person why he needed to hire me even though he wasn't looking for someone. So there was a connection used for the initial contact, but it was my skills/history/ability that got me the job.

My son recently went through a boot camp style training program for sales people for tech startups.  Cost him $14K for a 6 month program.  But the program offered apprenticeship placement as part of the program.  Apprenticeships last 6 months and pay $15 per hour, with a high likelihood of being hired at the end. (over 96% conversion rate)

That means that after one year, he has a solid opportunity for a permanent position starting at $30K with all the training he needs.  Net spent, $0.  

He could have chosen a 4 year college program.  4 years of his life, $50- $160K net spent, no promise of employment, likely still lacking the training needed, possibly starting at minimum wage.

Boot camps are not a bad way to enter a career.

SVreX said:

I agree with z31maniac.

Gameboy, skills and connections are not mutually exclusive.  They compliment each other.

If the job application said, "Everyone must wear a blue suit to the interview", we would all think that was stupid.  But if the employer requires it, the bottom line is that your skills are meaningless.  If you don't wear a blue suit, you will not be considered.  Even if your skills are extraordinary.

Same thing with connections.  If you don't have any, you may not get the opportunity to have your skills assessed.

Its the way it works.  Doesn't matter if we like it or not.

My problem is that connections are a blue suit that isn't available for just anyone to pick up off the shelf. You need to have grown up with or been born to the right people to get that blue suit, or at the very least do some social climbing which I personally find distasteful, not to mention exhausting as an introvert. Maybe my experience with "connections" is atypical but that's how it seems to work by me. My sister once went to an interview that consisted entirely of idle talk prying into who she was related to or good friends with.

Yes this is how it works, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

SVreX said:

My son recently went through a boot camp style training program for sales people for tech startups.  Cost him $14K for a 6 month program.  But the program offered apprenticeship placement as part of the program.  Apprenticeships last 6 months and pay $15 per hour, with a high likelihood of being hired at the end. (over 96% conversion rate)

That means that after one year, he has a solid opportunity for a permanent position starting at $30K with all the training he needs.  Net spent, $0.  

He could have chosen a 4 year college program.  4 years of his life, $50- $160K net spent, no promise of employment, likely still lacking the training needed, possibly starting at minimum wage.

Boot camps are not a bad way to enter a career.

When I think about it, I did do a "boot camp" style program back in 1996 or so. I'd forgotten because it was only useful for - get this - making a connection. It was for multimedia development so it was all about how to use Macromedia Director and to code in the specific language (Lingo) used there. I was a better coder than anyone else in the class, which led me to getting a contract job through one of my instructors while I was still in school. That rapidly turned into a full time position and by the time my boot camp was done, I was past my coding instructors in capability and was tutoring most of my classmates. We ended up hiring a lot of those classmates and they performed well enough. The program boasted a 100% success rate in terms of students passing the course and for getting jobs, but it did so by lowering the bar for graduation and by shoveling those students out into a (at the time) very hungry industry. Problem was, they only knew Lingo for programming.

That four year program gives you a good theoretical knowledge that you can apply to any language or coding situation. The boot camp gets you a set of shiny skills in a very specific area of the industry that will get you in the door, but may not take you any further unless you have the ability to extend your capabilities and pick up the theory elsewhere. I'm talking about coding specifically here, tech sales are likely very different. But it's similar to the automotive industry - Ford doesn't hire development engineers that just have a UTI certificate, but dealerships do hire wrenches with that background. Do you want to be a development engineer or simply spinning wrenches?

I think code bootcamps are a good way to determine if one has an aptitude for software development, but IMHO you'd need the additional foundation from studying CS if you want a long term career in software development.

I've hired someone who went through a bootcamp and he did OK in the specific role he applied for, but unless he'll invest in additional education, his career prospects would be very limited.

GameboyRMH said:

SVreX said:

I agree with z31maniac.

Gameboy, skills and connections are not mutually exclusive.  They compliment each other.

If the job application said, "Everyone must wear a blue suit to the interview", we would all think that was stupid.  But if the employer requires it, the bottom line is that your skills are meaningless.  If you don't wear a blue suit, you will not be considered.  Even if your skills are extraordinary.

Same thing with connections.  If you don't have any, you may not get the opportunity to have your skills assessed.

Its the way it works.  Doesn't matter if we like it or not.

My problem is that connections are a blue suit that isn't available for just anyone to pick up off the shelf. You need to have grown up with or been born to the right people to get that blue suit, or at the very least do some social climbing which I personally find distasteful, not to mention exhausting as an introvert. Maybe my experience with "connections" is atypical but that's how it seems to work by me. My sister once went to an interview that consisted entirely of idle talk prying into who she was related to or good friends with.

Yes this is how it works, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

I don't even know what you mean by "social climbing is distasteful." Or having grown up with or been born to the right family. 

Join professional organizations, go to networking events, join groups like the Rotary Club, etc. 

I’m gonna try not to go too far down this rabbit hole, but I think it is a mistake to use “introvert” as an excuse for not following some very basic guidelines that work. 

I find being “politically correct” distasteful too. I still do it, because it’s what is required for success. 

Would you avoid writing a resume because you find it distasteful?

I’ve gotten 2 separate jobs because of my GRM connections. While I don’t consider this crowd very high on the social strata, I’m not too proud to use whatever friends and connections I have to further my own success. Even if my friends are “friends in low places”, they are still connections, and they still work. 

I’ve been involved in the hiring process for hundreds of people in my career. I’ve never hired someone just because they had great skills. In fact, I fired the most highly skilled tradesman on my job site last week. He was arrogant, and hard headed, and refused to wear his PPE. I told him no thank you, I could do without him. We are doing fine since he left.  Frankly, I don’t care about his skills.