I don't know if anyone here has exposure to the recruiting side of things. Friends who have worked recruiting for Facebook have told me of very blatant and direct age discrimination for the older set; regardless of their talent & experience. It's not "dead-end" but there are certainly issues.
Try applying for a job as if you don't have any professional experience. Almost everyone wants Python, Java, and something with 'C' in the name for junior positions. However, in my limited experience, they only (reasonably) expect (somewhat) in depth knowledge of one ecosystem and just syntactic knowledge of the other two. Took me about six hours to learn Python to answer the interview questions.
...he's not saying tech hiring is beyond criticism. He's saying this person's opinionated talk smacks of entitlement. Which it does when compared with the rest of the working world outside of the SF tech bubble.
Article seems not very well written. Even the initial "You might expect a less corrupt exam system to allow ability to shine through regardless of the economic status of the students" doesn't make sense on its face.
Why would I think exam cheating would influence structural problems, advantages and disadvantages, associated with SES levels? Getting rid of cheating doesn't get rid of private tutors, better equipped schools, less distracting home environments, etc.
There were monetary bribes being given to the test proctors. Usually when bribery takes place, it benefits the rich who have money to pay the bribes. Clamping down on bribery would in that case hurt the rich.
Well, it was for a project that deals with distributed low level high performance data processing. Not something a JS or even a typical application level programmer need to know about these days.
but what ng is saying is that if someone is lacks too much confidence they are not useful. His example shows this --- the under confidant but knowledgable person does not contribute their knowledge when needed so they are not useful despite their knowledge.
Could it be argued that not enough care is being taken by the team to solicit the thoughts of the less shouty members? If an organisation didn't want to hire or deal with said folk, perhaps it's a good thing for those looked over?
Research seems to suggest that a more diverse workforce (of all varieties) leads to more successful businesses. And my own personal experience leads me to believe that skilled folk come in some weird and wonderful packages. I know which path I would choose.
Difficulty doesn't make things 'sacred' unless you're obsessed & delusional. It would be difficult to stand on one-leg for 40 hours but it would also be pointless & stupid, not 'sacred'.
