If they were applying in the tech industry you would. Might as well lump in metallurgist, chemist, materials scientist, and sheet metal workers because we do this in the tech industry. Everyones a generalized set of specialists rolled into one.
I don't think so. There would always be a need for specialists.
Maybe full-stack engineers would have an easier time finding employment(as requiters keep on piling up those needs-to-know requirements), but some shops will always value someone who's shit-hot at one specific thing in particular, as opposed to merely competent at a lot.
Why wouldn't they? There are probably loads of people here who don't work in tech whatsoever. (e.g. myself: a holder of degrees in English and classical piano; a student and part-time shop assistant. Programming/tech/science related interests are only a hobby.)
I believe I have posted this before, but one of the big problems with this industry is the mashing of a whole bunch of different roles into the same bucket.
I used to be an electrical engineer. In the traditional engineering world there are mechanics/assemblers (high school with maybe a vocational certificate program), technicians (two-year Associates or vocational degree), engineers (Bachelor's or Master's degree in a specific, relevant discipline), and researchers (Ph.D.+ in a specific, relevant discipline).
In the Valley-oriented tech industry, the first three all get squashed into "software engineer". It's often not clear what a company needs, even to the company. Some companies seemingly don't care; Google, for instance, seems to hire all software engineers to the same bar then sorts them internally into the mechanic/technician/engineer bins based on what teams will take them. I think hiring is going to remain fundamentally broken until companies start making an explicit distinction between these roles when they open reqs and interview candidates.
Now, I'm not saying my former industry's way of doing things is all good. I have effectively left it for good by virtue of not having touched a circuit card or JTAG debugger professionally in 14 years. I do think this industry could learn from the separation of roles, though.
Because tech lies at a difficult crossroads between the applied and the theoretic. You build a building, you have an architect, and engineer, a foreman, etc. With applications, you have to be all of them at once. That just isn't whats taught at universities, based on many candidates I've encountered.
I have a hard time believing this would be the norm at a sufficient number of companies that it would justify picking up one of these degrees. Knowing technical skills when applying to technical companies seems like a safer bet.
I expect there will be many "technology switcher" applicants and am working to have diverse skill sets represented -- including those of us who've been developing for awhile.
I think people with a lot of experience in a different industry can certainly move into tech. Moving into a direct programming role might be hard, but handling project management, specification and requirements gathering, technical documentation, quality assurance, and legal aspects are some great areas that both of those people could contribute to.
Maybe it's time to accept that sufficiently scaled companies need to hire more specialized roles, rather than having a single job title responsible for an array of technical specializations?
In that field, it seems typical to have both engineers and technicians working on projects. Engineers are responsible for design, and have degrees; Technicians do assembly and maintenance, and only need on-the-job training.
I’ve often wondered what our industry would look like if we adopted a similar distinction. In which case, bootcamp graduates would be a natural fit for a technician role.
Add “scientific fields” as chemistry, physics, biology and the “ologies” are certainly technical fields. Lack the union card in these fields and you’re a technician.
I have a pretty good tech job, my title includes the word “engineer” but I don’t think that is deserved. My coworkers seem to view this as a prestigious position but I’m not convinced.
From my perspective this not much different than building pickups in Detroit in the 60s. I bet that seemed like a pretty awesome job back in the glory days.
In reality most technologists are in manufacturing and we will eventually be replaced by robots.
reply