In my experience in the Silicon Valley, software developers/engineers/programmers almost always have at least a bachelor’s degree from an accredited non-profit university or college, mostly in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) field with CS (Computer Science) and EE (Electrical Engineering) the largest sub-groups.
I have personally never encountered a graduate from controversial for-profit schools like DeVry, University of Phoenix, etc. or a bootcamp. Even developers with a solid work history but no bachelor’s degree seem to encounter a significant prejudice against them.
Yes, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college and made it big in software, but they are rich kids who graduated from elite prep schools and then dropped out of Harvard.
The article has a brief line about a Haskell programmer making $250,000 in the Silicon Valley. It is not clear if the author actually knows of a case like this. If real, it is probably very unusual.
Top software engineers seem to be bringing in a base salary of around $150,000 in the Silicon Valley:
There is always the question of stock options and RSU’s (restricted stock units) and cash bonuses which can sometimes boost the base salary significantly.
Keep in mind the Silicon Valley/San Francisco Bay Area is very expensive with some of the highest home prices and apartment rental rates in the United States. The salaries are still attractive but not nearly as large as they sound if you are from an inexpensive region like Texas.
The bottom line is to be very cautious about paying large sums of money for coding bootcamps or other non-traditional education.
(C) 2017 John F. McGowan, Ph.D.
About the Author
John F. McGowan, Ph.D. solves problems using mathematics and mathematical software, including developing gesture recognition for touch devices, video compression and speech recognition technologies. He has extensive experience developing software in C, C++, MATLAB, Python, Visual Basic and many other programming languages. He has been a Visiting Scholar at HP Labs developing computer vision algorithms and software for mobile devices. He has worked as a contractor at NASA Ames Research Center involved in the research and development of image and video processing algorithms and technology. He has published articles on the origin and evolution of life, the exploration of Mars (anticipating the discovery of methane on Mars), and cheap access to space. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
In the wake of the Brandon Mayfield case (2004) which raised serious questions about the accuracy of fingerprint identification by the FBI, the National Academy of Sciences was asked to perform a scientific assessment of the accuracy and reliability of latent fingerprint identification in criminal cases. Initial results were published in:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Bradford T. Ulery, 7733–7738, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108
Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions
Bradford T. Ulery (a), R. Austin Hicklin (a), JoAnn Buscaglia (b),1, and Maria Antonia Roberts (c)
Edited by Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and approved March 31, 2011 (received for review December 16, 2010)
ABSTRACT
The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. The National Research Council of the National Academies and the legal and forensic sciences communities have called for research to measure the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners’ decisions, a challenging and complex problem in need of systematic analysis. Our research is focused on the development of empirical approaches to studying this problem. Here, we report on the first large-scale study of the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners’ decisions, in which 169 latent print examiners each compared approximately 100 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints from a pool of 744 pairs. The fingerprints were selected to include a range of attributes and quality encountered in forensic casework, and to be comparable to searches of an automated fingerprint identification system containing more than 58 million subjects. This study evaluated examiners on key decision points in the fingerprint examination process; procedures used operationally include additional safeguards designed to minimize errors. Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.
(a) Noblis, 3150 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042;
R. Austin Hicklin (a) Noblis, 3150 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042;
JoAnn Buscaglia (b) Counterterrorism and Forensic Science Research Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135; and
Maria Antonia Roberts (c) Latent Print Support Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135
Whether a 0.1 percent false positive rate is “small” is a subjective value judgement. Would you drive across a bridge that had a 1 in 1000 (0.1 percent) chance of collapsing and killing you as you drove across it? No, probably not.
In addition, the 0.1 percent false positive rate is based on a small sample of less than 1000 test cases, 744 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints. The Federal fingerprint databases such as the ones used in the Brandon Mayfield case have millions of people in them and may eventually have all US citizens (over 300 million people) in them. How does this “small” rate extrapolate when a fingerprint is compared to every fingerprint in the US or the world?
One might wonder why such an assessment was not done a long time ago.
The National Research Council also published a detailed report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward in 2009 addressing the scientific issues raised by the Mayfield case and other questions about the scientific validity of forensic science methods.
The bottom line is fingerprints are much more accurate than random chance but hardly infallible as used to be widely believed.
(C) 2017 John F. McGowan, Ph.D.
Credits
The fingerprint image is from the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by way of Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain.
About the Author
John F. McGowan, Ph.D. solves problems using mathematics and mathematical software, including developing gesture recognition for touch devices, video compression and speech recognition technologies. He has extensive experience developing software in C, C++, MATLAB, Python, Visual Basic and many other programming languages. He has been a Visiting Scholar at HP Labs developing computer vision algorithms and software for mobile devices. He has worked as a contractor at NASA Ames Research Center involved in the research and development of image and video processing algorithms and technology. He has published articles on the origin and evolution of life, the exploration of Mars (anticipating the discovery of methane on Mars), and cheap access to space. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
I know we all want the U.S. to continue to be the world’s center for innovation. But our position is at risk. There are many reasons for this but two stand out. First, U.S. companies face a severe shortfall of scientists and engineers with expertise to develop the next generation of breakthroughs. Second, we don’t invest enough as a nation in the basic research needed to drive long-term innovation.
Bill Gates
Remarkably, Microsoft appears to have laid off about 35,000 of these allegedly rare, difficult to find STEM workers since 2008, with even more planned layoffs announced a few weeks ago.
Microsoft Layoffs
In January 2009, Microsoft announced planned layoffs of 5,000 employees, about five (5) percent of its workforce over the next eighteen months.
In July 2014, Microsoft announced layoffs of 18,000 employees. Most of these employees, reportedly about 12,500, were part of the Nokia mobile phone division, many in Finland. In 2015 Finland students were ranked sixth (6th) worldwide in math and science compared to the United States twenty-eighth (28th). In 2001 Finland was tops in the PISA international tests. The engineers and other STEM workers laid off by Microsoft would have been educated in Finland’s schools in the early 00’s when Finland was at or near the top.
UPDATE: added September 11, 2017
Remarkably, the same month that Microsoft announced these layoffs of 18,000 difficult to find STEM workers, the New York Times published an op-ed “Break the Immigration Impasse” by Sheldon G. Adelson, Warren E. Buffet, and Bill Gates (New York Times, July 11, 2014, page A25) calling for “immigration reform,” meaning more “immigrants” on dicey guest-worker visas (the controversial H1-B visa is actually a non-immigrant visa) for the technology industry, and again implying a shortage:
We believe it borders on insanity to train intelligent and motivated people in our universities — often subsidizing their education — and then to deport them when they graduate. Many of these people, of course, want to return to their home country — and that’s fine. But for those who wish to stay and work in computer science or technology, fields badly in need of their services, let’s roll out the welcome mat.
A “talented graduate” reform was included in a bill that the Senate approved last year by a 68-to-32 vote. It would remove the worldwide cap on the number of visas that could be awarded to legal immigrants who had earned a graduate degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States, provided they had an offer of employment. The bill also included a sensible plan that would have allowed illegal residents to obtain citizenship, though only after they had earned the right to do so.
(emphasis added)
One is reminded of the definition of chutzpah as “that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan”.
END UPDATE
In July 2015, Microsoft announced layoffs of 7,800 employees, also mostly related to Nokia.
In May 2016, Microsoft announced layoffs of about 2,000 employees, including about 1300 from Nokia.
In July 2016, Microsoft announced layoffs of about 2,850 employees.
In July 2017 (a few weeks ago) Microsoft confirmed reports of planned layoffs without confirming reports that about 3,000 employees would lose their jobs, primarily in sales.
Thus, Microsoft appears to have laid off about 35,000 employees with more cuts likely in the coming year since Bill Gates testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology. Microsoft reported to the SEC that it had about 114,000 full time employees in 2016.
Stack and Rank
Up until 2013, Microsoft overtly practiced a stack and rank employment system where employees were graded on a curve compared to co-workers and “low performers” apparently laid off or fired. This stack and rank system was the subject of a highly critical article in Vanity Fair by Kurt Eichenwald in July 2012 which probably contributed to the decision to shelve the system. It is unclear how many allegedly difficult to find and replace STEM workers were laid off, fired or constructively discharged due to stack ranking.
Microsoft has been sued over allegedly using stack ranking to discriminate against female employees.
Microsoft like other industry leaders such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon is noted for being extremely picky about who it even interviews for jobs and for a grueling, highly demanding interview process. Nonetheless, Microsoft appears to have had a policy of laying off a certain percentage of these highly qualified STEM workers every year despite repeatedly claiming to have great difficulty in finding these same STEM workers!
Conclusion
Microsoft is not alone in announcing sizable layoffs at the same time that it claims a STEM worker shortage. Many other large STEM worker employers do the same thing. In an exchange on Bloomberg TV in August 2014 interviewer Alix Steel confronted industry funded “immigration reform” PAC FWD.us then chief Joe Green on the inconsistency between numerous layoff announcements and the shortage claims. His answer was especially unconvincing and he soon resigned as chief of FWD.us probably at the behest of his friend and colleague Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
It is difficult to know what to make of this. On a short term quarterly basis replacing a highly experienced and more expensive STEM worker with a less experienced, cheaper, more error prone STEM worker is likely to make the quarterly and sometimes annual earnings numbers look better. However, there is a reason more experienced STEM workers are on average more expensive than less experienced STEM workers. Some problems simply require more experience to solve; two less experienced STEM workers is not always equivalent to one more experienced STEM worker.
I personally don’t doubt that these bizarre hiring and employment practices have seriously negative consequences in the longer term. Many of Kurt Eichenwald’s unnamed sources in his Vanity Fair article on Microsoft’s stack and rank employment system blamed the system for Microsoft’s faltering fortunes. Would Microsoft not have been better off reassigning its highly skilled workers in Finland to new projects?
Nonetheless, despite the STEM shortage claims and despite what seems like common sense, many major STEM worker employers like Microsoft continue to lay off, fire, or constructively discharge large numbers of the qualified STEM workers they claim they want.
(C) 2017 John F. McGowan, Ph.D.
Credits
The picture of Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum 2012 in Davos, Switzerland is from the World Economic Forum by way of Wikimedia Commons. It is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution 2.0 Generic license.
About the author
John F. McGowan, Ph.D. solves problems using mathematics and mathematical software, including developing gesture recognition for touch devices, video compression and speech recognition technologies. He has extensive experience developing software in C, C++, MATLAB, Python, Visual Basic and many other programming languages. He has been a Visiting Scholar at HP Labs developing computer vision algorithms and software for mobile devices. He has worked as a contractor at NASA Ames Research Center involved in the research and development of image and video processing algorithms and technology. He has published articles on the origin and evolution of life, the exploration of Mars (anticipating the discovery of methane on Mars), and cheap access to space. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) shortage claims are claims that there is a current or projected shortage of STEM workers in the United States and sometimes worldwide. These claims are promoted by large employers of STEM workers in private industry, academia, and the government. In the last few years the claims tend to be focused on a particular subset of STEM workers: programmers, software engineers, and other “technology” workers, where “technology” is implicitly equated with “computer technology.”
A high profile example of these claims can be found in venture capitalist Marc Andreesen’s widely cited Wall Street Journal article “Why Software is Eating the World” (August 20, 2011):
Secondly, many people in the U.S. and around the world lack the education and skills required to participate in the great new companies coming out of the software revolution. This is a tragedy since every company I work with is absolutely starved for talent. Qualified software engineers, managers, marketers and salespeople in Silicon Valley can rack up dozens of high-paying, high-upside job offers any time they want, while national unemployment and underemployment is sky high. This problem is even worse than it looks because many workers in existing industries will be stranded on the wrong side of software-based disruption and may never be able to work in their fields again. There’s no way through this problem other than education, and we have a long way to go.
(Emphasis added)
Andreesen is far from an isolated instance of these claims. For example, in his testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology in 2008, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates claimed:
I know we all want the U.S. to continue to be the world’s center for innovation. But our position is at risk. There are many reasons for this but two stand out. First, U.S. companies face a severe shortfall of scientists and engineers with expertise to develop the next generation of breakthroughs. Second, we don’t invest enough as a nation in the basic research needed to drive long-term innovation.
NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE (Chair), Retired Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, MD
CRAIG R. BARRETT, Chairman of the Board, Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ
GAIL CASSELL, Vice President, Scientific Affairs, and Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN
STEVEN CHU, Director, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
ROBERT M. GATES, President, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
NANCY S. GRASMICK, Maryland State Superintendent of Schools, Baltimore, MD
CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, JR., Chairman of the Board and CEO, DuPont Company, Wilmington, DE
SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
ANITA K. JONES, Lawrence R. Quarles Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
JOSHUA LEDERBERG, Sackler Foundation Scholar, Rockefeller University, New York, NY
RICHARD LEVIN, President, Yale University, New Haven, CT C. D.
(DAN) MOTE, JR., President, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
CHERRY MURRAY, Deputy Director for Science and Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
PETER O’DONNELL, JR., President, O’Donnell Foundation, Dallas, TX
LEE R. RAYMOND, Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Irving, TX
ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, F. R. Newman Professor of Physics and Vice Provost for Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
P. ROY VAGELOS, Retired Chairman and CEO, Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ
CHARLES M. VEST, President Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
GEORGE M. WHITESIDES, Woodford L. & Ann A. Flowers University Professor, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
RICHARD N. ZARE, Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor in Natural Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Nearly all of the committee members were current or former top executives, frequently the CEO, of major employers of STEM workers, public and private.
The committee followed up with another report in 2010 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5.” Category 5 is a reference to the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale in which the highest classification Category 5 is reserved for extreme storms with winds exceeding 156 miles per hour.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, like most reports of this type (there are many), called for more STEM teachers, more STEM students, more visas for STEM worker immigrants and guest workers strongly implying a major shortage of STEM workers in the United States.
Ironically the report starts with a claim that appears grossly inconsistent with this, a quote from Nobel Laureate Julius Axelrod (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Preface, Page ix):
Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by one percent of the scientists.
Julius Axelrod, Nobel Laureate
It is manifestly unclear why more scientists and more funding for science is needed if ninety-nine percent accomplish almost nothing. Why indeed not eliminate the nearly useless 99 percent and the 99 percent of funding that they consume? Federal R&D funding is over $100 billion per year. Why not free up over $99 billion to fund other more productive activities? 🙂
STEM shortage claims have a long history
STEM shortage claims predate the acronym STEM by many decades. STEM shortage claims date back at least to the early days of the Cold War, when much of the focus was on physics and physicists. Then, as now, the STEM shortage claims often involve an alleged existential threat to the nation.
In recent years, the STEM shortage claims tend to focus on computer science and software engineering rather than physics, although claims of this type are common for almost all forms of STEM work.
STEM shortage claims have many highly qualified critics
The claims have been questioned and challenged by a large number of academics, journalists and others for many years including Michael S. Teitelbaum (Senior Research Associate at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School), Norman Matloff (Professor of Computer Science at UC Davis), Peter Cappelli (George W. Taylor Professor of Management, Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania), Paula Stephan (Professor of Economics at Georgia State University), Ron Hira (Associate Professor, Howard University), Patrick Thibodeau (a Senior Editor at Computerworld), Robert N. Charette of the IEEE and author of “The STEM Crisis is a Myth,” and many others.
STEM shortage claims are closely connected to, although logically separate from, calls for increased immigration and guest worker visas such as the controversial H1-B visa. The claims are also closely connected to, though again logically separate from, claims that education in the United States is poor both in absolute terms and compared to other nations such as Finland and calls for “school reform” often promoted by extremely wealthy individuals such as former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and others.
STEM shortage claims are confusing
STEM shortage claims are surprisingly difficult to pin down. The crux of the issue is what exactly constitutes a qualified STEM worker (software engineer, scientist,…)?
Many claims seem to imply a shortage of STEM workers with critical basic skills taught at the K-12 level such as basic arithmetic, algebra, AP Calculus, basic programming skills taught in AP Computer Science and other introductory CS courses (or for that matter learned programming a game on your laptop in Python or Java, a popular activity among STEM students who never take AP Computer Science).
Similarly, many older — over thirty-five, even over thirty sometimes — software engineers and other STEM workers report surprising difficulties finding jobs, a fair number leaving the STEM fields every year. Again there is little question these candidates have the K-12 level STEM skills and much more.
When pressed about these obvious inconsistencies, spokesmen for STEM employers will generally begin to claim they mean a shortage of very specific skills such as years of paid experience developing first person shooter apps for the iPhone (IOS) in Objective C (C++ on Android won’t cut it!) and often that they mean a shortage of the very best STEM workers — along the lines of the elite one percent in the Axelrod quote from the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report above. Often, years of specialized experience in narrowly defined skills and being the very best are implicitly conflated in these revised STEM shortage claims.
What do the STEM employers really want?
Yet, do the employers actually want either the candidates with years of specialized experience or the very best or both as they claim? There are some high profile rejections of candidates who would seem to meet these criteria such as Facebook’s infamous turndown of Brian Acton who went on to found WhatsApp which Facebook then acquired for $19 billion.
In recent years, many employers are noted for quizzing candidates about introductorydata structures and algorithms taught in college CS courses rather than advanced specific skills learned on the job. This has spawned a large number of interviewpracticebooks, courses and programs such as Gayle Laakmann McDowell’s Cracking the Coding Interview.
It is difficult to see how these introductory questions would reliably identify the specialized skills learned on the job such as iPhone app programming that are often listed in job descriptions and cited in defenses of STEM hiring practices.
UPDATE April 30, 2021: These algorithmic coding interviews test knowledge of the implementation of introductory data structures and algorithms that those of us who develop advanced algorithms such as video compression, speech recognition, touch processing, or data analysis rarely implement in the real world. Most modern programming and languages such as C++, Python, R, MATLAB, and many others include data structures such as linked lists, trees, hash tables (also known as associative arrays or dictionaries) as built in language features or components of standard libraries always included with the language. Similarly the searching and sorting algorithms often used in coding interviews are built into modern programming languages, libraries and tools. Experienced developers reuse code and rarely re-implement these data structures and algorithms which date to the 1960’s or earlier.
Can these tests really identify the very best candidates either? More likely they identify candidates who have spent many hours drilling on the questions in books like Cracking the Coding Interview.
STEM shortage claims are highly questionable. For sure, there is no shortage of K-12 level STEM skills in the United States and probably world wide. Indeed, the actual hiring practices of STEM employers suggest they are often not interested in the specialized skills they claim to seek when confronted about refusing to hire, laying off, or firing seemingly highly qualified engineers and other STEM workers.
Is the real problem a STEM worker shortage or excessively picky, irrational, discriminatory and ultimately costly hiring and employment practices?
John F. McGowan, Ph.D. solves problems using mathematics and mathematical software, including developing gesture recognition for touch devices, video compression and speech recognition technologies. He has extensive experience developing software in C, C++, MATLAB, Python, Visual Basic and many other programming languages. He has been a Visiting Scholar at HP Labs developing computer vision algorithms and software for mobile devices. He has worked as a contractor at NASA Ames Research Center involved in the research and development of image and video processing algorithms and technology. He has published articles on the origin and evolution of life, the exploration of Mars (anticipating the discovery of methane on Mars), and cheap access to space. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
Someone broke into my storage locker in Mountain View (best known as Google’s home town) over the past weekend. I was notified but was not able to take a look until this morning. Fortunately, so far, nothing appears to have been taken or damaged. I don’t of course keep anything valuable, important, or that I cannot afford to lose in my storage locker.
About a dozen lockers, several neighboring lockers on the same floor and several on another floor with the same locker numbers for that floor, were reportedly broken into at the same time.
Many boxes were thrown about and cut or torn open, but nothing appears (so far) to have been taken or damaged. Supposedly the most common motive for locker break-ins is to get personal financial records related to bank accounts and other financial accounts as a step to gaining access to the money in the accounts. I don’t keep any personal records like that in my locker for that and other similar reasons.
While it does not look like I was personally targeted, it still leaves an uneasy feeling! One cannot be sure. 🙁
The picture below shows the boxes strewn about when I opened the locker this morning. They were neatly stacked and packed together in one corner before. Many of the smaller boxes and some of the larger ones were torn or cut — mostly cut — open.