My take on how a decade (or more) of using cloud services for everything has seemingly deskilled the workforce.
Just recently I found myself interviewing senior security engineers just to realize that in many cases they had absolutely no idea about how the stuff they supposedly worked with, actually worked.
This all made me wonder, is it possible that over-reliance on cloud services for everything has massively deskilled the engineering workforce? And if it is so, who is going to be the European clouds, so necessary for EU’s digital sovereignty?
I did not copy-paste the post in here because of the different writing style, but I get no benefit whatsoever from website visits.
I went through hiring several times at several companies, being on the interviewer side.
Typically it’s not the talent pool as much as what the company has to offer and how much they’re willing to pay. I referred top notch engineer friends, and they never made it past HR. A couple were rejected without interview because they asked too high of a salary, despite asking under market average. The rest didn’t pass HR on personnality or not having all the “requirements”, because the really good engineers are socially awkward and demand flexibility and are honest on the résumé/CV, or are self taught and barely have high-school graduation on there (just like me).
I’ve literally seen the case of: they want to hire another me, but ended up in a situation where: I wouldn’t apply for the position myself, and even if I did, I wouldn’t make it to the interview stage where I’d talk to myself and hire myself.
Naturally the candidates that did make it to me weren’t great. Those are the people that do the bare minimum, have studied every test question (without understanding), vibe code everything, typically on the younger and very junior side. They’re very good at passing HR, and very bad at their actual job.
It’s not the technology, it’s the companies that hire that ultimately steers the market and what people study for. Job requirements are ridiculous, HR hires engineers on personnality like they’re shopping for yet another sales associate, now it takes 6 rounds of interviews for an entry level position at a startup. VC startups continue to pay wildly inflated wages to snatch all the top talent while established companies are laying off as much IT staff as possible to maximize profits.
I think it was 1996 vs 2002… 1996 we advertised in the Miami Herald for an engineer and got about a dozen applicants, 3 worth interviewing, none worth hiring and had to continue to search through personal networking to fill the role. 2002 we placed a nearly identical ad in the same classified section of the same paper, but by this time the Miami Herald was “online.” We even added the line “only local candidates will be considered.” Within the first week I had over 300 resumes on my desk, half of them from far afield - even overseas, so they were easy to sort… Still, plowing through the remainder, after about 50 quick scans I found one former employee of a company we did regular business with for over a decade, the question to his ex-manager was “if you had the chance, would you rehire him?” That yes shot down the rest of the applications dead - we just didn’t have the resources to even read all the applications, much less sort or answer or interview them.
I can only imagine the flood of candidates applying for every opening today. Take your resume, e-mail it to 30 recruiters, they each apply to 30 positions for you…
I’m here from /all so I can confirm this is happening in non-tech too. Not too long ago, I interviewed to be a product photographer for an industrial manufacturer, and the people who were interviewing me knew nothing about the job I was interviewing for.
They couldn’t tell me what camera they used in house, they couldn’t tell me what editing software they used, they couldn’t tell me about the lights, they couldn’t tell me anything. It’s like if the interviewers said you’d use ‘computers’ but couldn’t tell you which OS they were running.
You were at screening level #1. When I applied for work in Manhattan in 1988 it was like that: 9/10 jobs you applied to weren’t the actual employer, they were agents building a pool of candidates to be able to present to the actual employers at a moment’s notice if the employer should ever actually call asking for candidates.
Today I bet it’s rare to get hired without at least 3 screenings before you actually meet the people you might be working with.
Maybe, but that doesn’t quite track with what I experienced. It was for a fairly well known company that builds industrial tools and machines, and I interviewed at their HQ, so I don’t think it was an agency building a pool.
The screening part sounds right, but I think these guys were doing it in-house.
Isn’t the solution to train people to get past HR? I know it would infuriate me to have to do this but HR needs to be treated as an obstacle. Remember when personality tests first started appearing. There were people teaching how to give the answers HR wanted.
That’s what’s happening, and it’s diminishing the quality of candidates - dramatically. Getting past HR isn’t a valuable skill except for getting hired.
I totally agree with you, but I don’t think this is the specific case. Most of the rejections in our case (which I can see) on the preliminary screening were based on lacking CV skills. Which is stupid in its own way, but at least makes sense assuming we are looking for those skills specifically.
For the rest, the company is a remote company paying good salaries for the European market, I would say slightly above market average in many metrics.
I will sift more into the rejections, but from what I have seen, almost all those who had the screening phone call made it to the interview (I.e., rejections were mostly cv-based).
I have the opposite experience, when I was doing interviews I just skipped the very obviously underskilled people (which, IIRC were in the single digits) and interviewed pretty much everyone.
For context, I’m the main architect and dev of the company I was hiring for. Most of the candidates were horrible.
In 2006 I had a hard time finding C++ programmers in a university town. 9/10 who responded to the ads were just clueless. Of the remainder, we had a simple test - here’s sample code in an IDE that draws a straight line on the screen (you’ll be doing graphics programming in the role) - take that code and turn it into a program that draws a sine-wave in the same space… Everyone put computer graphic on their resume’s, expressed confidence in their ability to perform in the role, deep former experience, but 5/6 who passed the clueless test couldn’t manage that, given unlimited time and resources - the computer has internet access and a browser window open right there beside the IDE- USE IT!!!
Sadly, today we’d probably have to shut off the internet access aspect, or make the test much more difficult. Even AI can draw a sine wave.
A lot of this has to do with recruiters. I’ve been interviewing for a few years at my company such with as many different sets of recruiters, from recruiting firms to our corporate recruiters, to ones we hired ourselves. Our corporate recruiters handed over garbage candidates who we could often tell wouldn’t work out after the first 10 min of the interview, whereas the other two groups of recruiters would do a good job filtering so we’d get than a 50% hit rate on our first round. Unfortunately, we promoted our recruiters once the need for talent dropped (or they moved on to a recruiter firm), and now they’re unwilling to go back to recruiting.
The quality of your recruiter matters quite a bit, so you’ll want to find someone who is experienced hiring a certain type of person so they know what to look for.
Absolutely, but in a big company you don’t get to choose which recruiters you use - corporate just sends you candidates.