Our highly educated grads on the scrapheap

[Mich the Tester]

The scrapheap can't be all that bad. What with all the plenty cheapness outsourcing these days, you can probably earn more money sifting scrap metal than doing something skilled like IT.

[sasguru]

...doing something skilled like IT.

You guys are all delusional aren't you? Since when has IT required a lot of skill? It's precisely because the barriers to entry are so low that you guys are suffering now.

[lukemg]

It's worse than that, since the numbers of people churning through the system and getting degrees has gone through the roof.
When I were a lad, that there degree were worth a bob or 2, even if you had to work down't pit before you got a job that wanted it.
These days they turf out with a 20k o/draft (yeah I know you could drink yourself one back 'in the day') a 2-bob degree and zero experience or other skills, everyone else has got one, it has the same impact as o-levels.
Whether it will still have the oft quoted impact of 400k over a career is debateable.
Note - 1st class degrees from 1st class uni's are exempt from this, the cream will always be in demand.
Note 2 - I got a virtually worthless poly degree which has had a big impact on my earning ability but wouldn't be worth doglily now.

[Mich the Tester]

Note 2 - I got a virtually worthless poly degree which has had a big impact on my earning ability but wouldn't be worth doglily now.

I have a Poly degree, from what was becoming known as a good poly. Just as polys were starting to get some recognition for the way they gave people real workplace skills, some numpty decided they should all be called ‘universities’ and all the poly gave itself a name that sounds like a US diploma mill. Really, I would have preferred ‘Leicester Polytechnic’ on my degree to ‘De Montfort University’.

[lightng]

Whether it will still have the oft quoted impact of 400k over a career is debateable.

I too wonder about this. I think people who go to do a degree are (on average) more motivated than people who don't. Therefore is it their motivation that earns them the extra and not the degree itself. I wonder if I would have been any worse off if I hadn't have done a degree - somehow I think not.

[Menelaus]

I too wonder about this. I think people who go to do a degree are (on average) more motivated than people who don't. Therefore is it their motivation that earns them the extra and not the degree itself. I wonder if I would have been any worse off if I hadn't have done a degree - somehow I think not.

Truth be told, I only did mine because

(a) I'd no clue what I wanted to do when I left the Army
(b) all of my friends had them

[Mich the Tester]

Truth be told, I only did mine because

(a) I'd no clue what I wanted to do when I left the Army
(b) all of my friends had them

I went to poly to get pissed for a few years at the taxpayer’s expense. I chose geography because it had the best field trips.

[aussielong]

You guys are all delusional aren't you? Since when has IT required a lot of skill? It's precisely because the barriers to entry are so low that you guys are suffering now.

I beg to differ. It depends what you do, in IT.

There is also two distinct tiers of IT work out there. Good stuff that attracts top tier people who could otherwise be lawyers, doctors (20%) and the rest (80%) that attracts those that would otherwise do non-professional roles if it weren't for IT.

C++ development does not have a low barrier to entry - and does indeed require a high degree of skill - otherwise your stuff just will not work (for long) and you will be exposed quickly. Natural selection keeps the standard high and prevents outsourcing to armies of new grads overseas. That said, its dying because of hardware advancements.

Java on the other hand at the low end is very easy to enter and this drags down the average. The pool of Java jobs is bigger than C++ but within that pool only 20-30% of the work would attract top flight devs.

Only the top 20% of IT jobs are worth doing from the point of view of a career. 80% is dull blue collar work without prospects, stressful and not worth the pay.

I'm talking from Dev POV since that's what I do. Having dabbled in Sys Admin, Network Admin for a year back at the start of my career - I would say you find even more cowboys doing those roles than Dev.

My point is, that the top tier IT stuff is highly skilled work done by professionals, its the 80% that drags down the entry level and perception of the job.

[swamp]

I beg to differ. It depends what you do, in IT.

There is also two distinct tiers of IT work out there. Good stuff that attracts top tier people who could otherwise be lawyers, doctors (20%) and the rest (80%) that attracts those that would otherwise do non-professional roles if it weren't for IT.

C++ development does not have a low barrier to entry - and does indeed require a high degree of skill - otherwise your stuff just will not work (for long) and you will be exposed quickly. Natural selection keeps the standard high and prevents outsourcing to armies of new grads overseas. That said, its dying because of hardware advancements.

Java on the other hand at the low end is very easy to enter and this drags down the average. The pool of Java jobs is bigger than C++ but within that pool only 20-30% of the work would attract top flight devs.

Only the top 20% of IT jobs are worth doing from the point of view of a career. 80% is dull blue collar work without prospects, stressful and not worth the pay.

I'm talking from Dev POV since that's what I do. Having dabbled in Sys Admin, Network Admin for a year back at the start of my career - I would say you find even more cowboys doing those roles than Dev.

My point is, that the top tier IT stuff is highly skilled work done by professionals, its the 80% that drags down the entry level and perception of the job.

Most of the Java devs I know are pretty good, and they are bright people. Some though are crap (including some of my current colleagues!) But overall developers do actually have to be capable of developing something. It's all the other hanger-onners who drag down IT. I'm talking testers, sysadmins, infrastructure people, BAs, TAs, PMs, 'architects'. Whilst you can find good ones of these, many are of questionable value or actually no value.

[aussielong]

Most of the Java devs I know are pretty good, and they are bright people. Some though are crap (including some of my current colleagues!) But overall developers do actually have to be capable of developing something. It's all the other hanger-onners who drag down IT. I'm talking testers, sysadmins, infrastructure people, BAs, TAs, PMs, 'architects'. Whilst you can find good ones of these, many are of questionable value or actually no value.

BA - a non-job. Get rid of the job and employ Developers that can talk to the business. ie. "Analyst Programmer" 's. BA takes half the fun out of programming. But they often don't do a good enough job to help me. I need to dig in and understand everything from the source to be able to implement their spec - so many holes. Mainly failed developers.

I have only met one great BA. He was soooo useful. It made programming somewhat boring but we got a lot more work done in the team because of him.