What IT Needs
-
@IRJ said:
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
It's the professionals that we have to change, not the companies. We need to remove the availability of workers at $16/hr, not make companies not try to hire them.
That's the real problem, why are SO MANY IT people willing to work at such a low wage when there are so many jobs available out there.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Wow, and to be "certified" by that group they charge up to $350 per year!! That's a racket. If anything, certification needs to be free or very low cost from an organization that we need. It shouldn't be about gouging workers like unions do or trying to make only the affluent really able to consider the field. IT has always been open to those who are smart and willing, that's part of what makes IT great. It isn't like medical where there is a massive cost involved and only those with existing wealth, an incredible willingness to take on crippling debt or those lucky enough to qualify for sponsorship of some sort qualify. It should be open to everyone that knows the material - we shouldn't care about their age or income when showing that they can do the work.
Agreed 100% - while this isn't a small undertaking it should never be funded by those you want to build it for. I was chewing on this (funding) lastnight and I think it can be done easily without a penny from those who it is designed for.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I think that the goal is to keep people from working at $16/hr.
Maybe we can phrase that as fair wages for the skill level involved, numbers just cloud things
-
@IRJ said:
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
SMB cares (or should care) more than any other segment. They're the ones who can least afford to hire a bumpkin
-
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Agreed 100% - while this isn't a small undertaking it should never be funded by those you want to build it for. I was chewing on this (funding) lastnight and I think it can be done easily without a penny from those who it is designed for.
You could get vendors to sponsor, of course, but that has risks. Look at CompTIA and their "neutral" exams sometimes being used as Microsoft advertising platforms. You can refuse to be like that, but it is risky.
Although having big vendors, like Microsoft, Google and Oracle, involved allows for very important input from the companies with the money to do the research.
Getting revenue from the people who hire IT would be best, but they are the ones who care the least.
-
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
I don't think certifying IT would do that. Maybe certifying a department, but because individuals are not often responsible for these things I am not sure how that process would work. That would be a little like certifying a mechanic so that someone doesn't drive too fast. The reality is, the owner of the car is at fault for 99.99% of accidents. The mechanic is rarely the one at fault.
Since IT does not get final decision making power over what they do, having IT licensed does not appear to solve the problem unless you make them like doctors or lawyers where they are allowed to over step the CEO and cannot be fired for doing so.
-
@MattSpeller said:
SMB cares (or should care) more than any other segment. They're the ones who can least afford to hire a bumpkin
True, but that hasn't stopped them up until now. SMB that cares already hires well. SMB that doesn't care, doesn't care.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ said:
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
SMB cares (or should care) more than any other segment. They're the ones who can least afford to hire a bumpkin
How many SMB bumpkins do we see on SW?
haha
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Really?
You should see the applicants SMB gets, many are outright terrifying.
-
@MattSpeller said:
You should see the applicants SMB gets, many are outright terrifying.
I dont' expect the really bad ones to take the time and effort to spend time in professional forums, though. That it is a forum of that nature I assume that a natural "weeding" effect to be happening.
-
In summary of Scott's title post
International non-profit that provides a few key things- Education standards
- Geographically and skill weighted salary estimates
- Lack of outside influence on education (vendor / government neutral)
- Codify titles (define and provide clarity on what titles mean)
- Work with educators to create more meaningful programming
- ???? add as you see fit, lets boil this down a bit
-
Don't forget International. I think that that is critical.
-
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
I don't think certifying IT would do that. Maybe certifying a department, but because individuals are not often responsible for these things I am not sure how that process would work. That would be a little like certifying a mechanic so that someone doesn't drive too fast. The reality is, the owner of the car is at fault for 99.99% of accidents. The mechanic is rarely the one at fault.
Since IT does not get final decision making power over what they do, having IT licensed does not appear to solve the problem unless you make them like doctors or lawyers where they are allowed to over step the CEO and cannot be fired for doing so.
That is a good point. I think doctors and lawyers are only allowed to report to other doctors and lawyers, which makes sense. Maybe the model would be engineers, who can be held liable for buildings or bridges that collapse.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
-
@Nic said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
You mean just because I know how to do a virus removal, know a couple of commands at the command prompt, and have heard the word "Linux" before, I'm not made for IT?! NONSENSE!
-
@Nic said:
Maybe the model would be engineers, who can be held liable for buildings or bridges that collapse.
That's specifically civil engineers, not general engineers like mechanical or electrical. I don't think IT should be held accountable like that because IT doesn't get enough say in the process. If they did and were accountable, we'd refuse to implement anything not warranties by a vendor and not totally overkill because it would be a cover our asses situation. It's very important that we be able to take on business risk as part of the process. Otherwise, we actually do harm rather than good.
