Where am i likely to end up working?

Media999

Hi Folks,

I just need some advice from people with work experience. Just finished my first year of a software development degree. Averaged 80% across all subjects so im doing alright and will have no problem graduating i assume.

Whats likely to happen towards the end of the course jobwise? Ive heard theres huge demand for programmers and current 4th years are already being offered jobs. What kind of work am i likely to get? I hear people say things like theres huge demand but whats the reality?

Anyone here recently graduate that would like to share what happened or what they have learned?

RealistSpy

Hey,

I just graduated with a first class honours and 2 things:

1. Have a portfolio of your work outside college - i.e. set-up a github account.
2. Get work experience when you get the chance.

Most companies want experienced graduate believe it or not. Majority of jobs in web development and testing.

Good luck and keep up the good work.

Mister Man

I hear the dole awaits :pac:
I'm kidding.
Big demand for developers, but most require experience. Might be worth taking on some freelancer work if possible? Build yourself a little portfolio and have a little client base from that. Also get some pocket money! Once you're applying for a job, get some of your clients to wright you a little reference.
Work experience over the summer might also be a good idea. I'm sure a few companies would be happy to take on a free set of hands in exchange for some learning, and a good reference. It'll be tough working for no money, but in the long run it helps. I know a guy doing architecture stuff in college. He got some work experience this summer. Hates working 9-5 Monday-Friday for no money, but he's sticking it out as the experience itself is really important in the future.
I wouldn't worry too much though. Even without experience, you could probably still get a decent job.

He Who Dares Wins

I would recommend getting a certification from Sun over the summer if you have the time, I think they can be done as a FAS course. Great to have on your CV.

caff

He Who Dares Wins wrote: »

I would recommend getting a certification from Sun over the summer if you have the time, I think they can be done as a FAS course. Great to have on your CV.

you mean Oracle.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

You need to do 2 things,
1. Have an interesting degree project (not a web app with a database!)
2. get in contact with recruitment agencies who deal with software and IT.

In interviews for your first job, they will talk about your degree project, as for a lot of graduates, its the first time they have developed a large chunk of code entirety by themselves or small group.

Dont worry about not having experience, graduates are not supposed to have lots of experience. Lots of interviewers will ask a few "open" questions, where there may lots of answers, and you are not supposed to know the answer, but they want to hear your chain of though as to how you might solve it.

jgh_

There seem to be a bunch of graduate jobs around too...Keep your eyes open and have a github account with some stuff in it.

He Who Dares Wins

caff wrote: »

you mean Oracle.

Apologies.

CuLT

I'm going to offer an alternative perspective.

Don't bother talking to recruiters; all the interesting jobs are ones you'll get by going to developer events, meeting other people building software. Engine Yard (I work for Engine Yard) host a bunch of developer events in Dublin. Check this calendar for a list of them.

Go to Pub Standards next Thursday.

Intercom also host a weekly "code kata" amongst other things.

Figure out companies you think you'd like to work for and apply directly to them. If they've got job listings, great, if they don't, send an email asking them if they'd interview you.

FWIW, I've never once been recommended to get a technical certification by anyone I've ever worked for or with.
I'm not saying it's not worth getting, but everything has an opportunity cost - do what you enjoy doing and the rest will follow. If that means getting a certification from Oracle, cool, go for it.

Don't "end up" somewhere. Go out and find somewhere.

ChRoMe

CuLT wrote: »

Don't bother talking to recruiters; all the interesting jobs are ones you'll get by going to developer events, meeting other people building software.

Yup, and those people building software will have outsourced their recruitment to a 3rd party, because it makes business and financial sense.

CuLT's advice is romantic but not very practical. Its also absurd to claim that you can judge how pleasant it will be to work in a company without any understanding of the internal structure and processes.

CuLT

No company I've ever worked for, or would want to work for, outsources their recruitment to a "third party." Why bother working for a company where you're not treated as one of their most valuable people?

Ask Eamon Leonard (VP Developers, Engine Yard).

Ask Ciaran Lee (CTO, Intercom).

Ask Ciaran Maher (former CTO Daft.ie, Boards.ie, Adverts.ie).

Ask Justin Mason (creator of SpamAssassin, lead developer at Swrve).

Ask Patrick Collison (cofounder, Stripe).

Ask anyone running a team at Amazon.

And if you think you can judge how pleasant it will be to work at a company simply based on "internal structure and processes" (what does that even mean?) then you're having a laugh.

If you've given up, fine, but don't inflict your pessimism on new graduates. It's unpleasant to see.

ChRoMe

CuLT wrote: »

No company I've ever worked for, or would want to work for, outsources their recruitment to a "third party." Why bother working for a company where you're not treated as one of their most valuable people?

Ask Eamon Leonard (VP Developers, Engine Yard).

Ask Ciaran Lee (CTO, Intercom).

Ask Ciaran Maher (former CTO Daft.ie, Boards.ie, Adverts.ie).

Ask Justin Mason (creator of SpamAssassin, lead developer at Swrve).

Ask anyone running a team at Google or Amazon.

And if you think you can judge how pleasant it will be to work at a company simply based on "internal structure and processes" (what does that even mean?) then you're having a laugh.

If you've given up, fine, but don't inflict your pessimism on new graduates. It's unpleasant to see.

"Why bother working for a company where you're not treated as one of their most valuable people?" - I'm not referencing the difference between a contractor and permie, as you appear to be?

Google doesn't do their own recruitment, its handled by contractors on site! My brother in law is a recruiter there.

Internal structures and processes are exactly what they sound like. Does the company have a largely flat or hierarchical management structure etc. Does the development team use TDD,SCM,CI, etc etc

Regardless of all of that, the most important thing is for someone starting out is to not restrict their opportunities, which is the reason I disagree with your post.

Kudos

If you live in Dublin I think Cult's approach probably works really well, however living in Limerick made it difficult to make connections with the kind of people he mentioned.

I got my first job after college via a recruiter back in 2009. I had no trouble getting job offers on my own, but by far the best offer I got I received through a recruiter. I moved to Dublin and started going to local tech events and as a result I also work at Engine Yard.

CuLT

Structures and processes are fine to know about, but it's people, not processes, that make a company a good place to work or not. You won't know that unless you know the people, or until you've worked with the company. You won't even know if the processes they namecheck are appropriate or used well until then.

I agree that one shouldn't limit opportunities, but most people I know also have more poor experiences will ill-equipped recruiters than positive ones. I think recruiters are a bit of a solution looking for a problem when it comes to software. So I say ignore recruiters, because you can afford to. For now

ChRoMe

CuLT wrote: »

Structures and processes are fine to know about, but it's people, not processes, that make a company a good place to work or not. You won't know that unless you know the people, or until you've worked with the company. You won't even know if the processes they namecheck are appropriate or used well until then.

I agree that one shouldn't limit opportunities, but most people I know also have more poor experiences will ill-equipped recruiters than positive ones. I think recruiters are a bit of a solution looking for a problem when it comes to software. So I say ignore recruiters, because you can afford to. For now

Eh... if a company was populated with the nicest,kindest soundest people I'd ever met, but they didnt use source control.

There is no ****ing way I'd work there.

CuLT

ChRoMe wrote: »

Eh... if a company was populated with the nicest,kindest soundest people I'd ever met, but they didnt use source control.

There is no ****ing way I'd work there.

This is a false dichotomy, predicated on the idea that "people" means "nice" and not "clever, competent, and pleasant" or any other way you choose to define people.

I do believe you're trolling now.

Edit: Kudos makes a fair point, one may have to move to where jobs are, though things have changed a lot since 2008/2009.

ChRoMe

CuLT wrote: »

This is a false dichotomy, predicated on the idea that "people" means "nice" and not "clever, competent, and pleasant" or any other way you choose to define people.

I do believe you're trolling now.

Edit: Kudos makes a fair point, one may have to move to where jobs are, though things have changed a lot since 2008/2009.

Before you continue to throw around accusations of trolling, how about you attempt to clarify by what you meant? Considering the statement is ambiguous at best.

CuLT

Ok, here's an expounding: all activities, processes, structures and form within a company exist as a result of the people who have and do work there. A company is the sum of its humans, from a potential employees perspective.

Whether a given acronym, like SCM or TDD reflects cargo culting or an attitude is down to those people. Maybe "agile" means a ball and chain that restricts their development process instead of enabling adaptability. Maybe TDD means a bunch of weird and pointless unit tests. I'm saying a tool is only as good as the workman using it. A hammer doesn't fulfil its purpose if you're busy hitting your own hands.

Therefore, the people are more important than the processes. Processes can be learned, or changed, when you've got good people.

ChRoMe

CuLT wrote: »

Ok, here's an expounding: all activities, processes, structures and form within a company exist as a result of the people who have and do work there. A company is the sum of its humans, from a potential employees perspective.

Whether a given acronym, like SCM or TDD reflects cargo culting or an attitude is down to those people. Maybe "agile" means a ball and chain that restricts their development process instead of enabling adaptability. Maybe TDD means a bunch of weird and pointless unit tests. I'm saying a tool is only as good as the workman using it. A hammer doesn't fulfil its purpose if you're busy hitting your own hands.

Therefore, the people are more important than the processes. Processes can be learned, or changed, when you've got good people.

Thats nice........ still manages to completely fail to specify what you mean by "people" though, is it "nice" or "clever" etc etc.

Media999

OK so im likely to end up in testing or web development.

How advanced does a Degree project have to be? We havent even discussed that yet in college.

c_man

Media999 wrote: »

What kind of work am i likely to get?

We has a thread about people's current role a while back, that you might find interesting - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056940630

Dave!

FWIW as a still-wet-behind-the-ears developer: I've had 4 'real' jobs since finishing college. 3 of them I got by applying directly to the companies (they had ads online), and 1 (my current one) I got through an agency.

2 of the 3 I got directly were pretty horrible, 1 (in Australia) was good, although it was more of a support role than a development one.

The one I'm in now (which I applied for through an agency) is an excellent place to work, and I actually like going into the office!

I also had a handful of interviews, which an agency arranged, shortly after finishing college. I didn't get the jobs in the end, but the agency can't be blamed for that. Another agency was arranging an interview for an interesting Ruby role for me during my last job change, but I had to turn it down because I was offered the other job.

In short: I don't know why someone just starting out in their career would decide to cut off an extra path by which they may get a job. Employers may use agencies for a variety of reasons, e.g. the company I'm working for only has 1 person as the 'HR department', so I imagine having to sift through hundreds of CVs, many of which will be from unqualified people, is a bit of a nightmare. Why not outsource that? Once the agency sends on the best candidates, then the company's recruitment process (various interviews, technical test) takes over.

Incidentally we use other methods for recruitment too: referrals are important, networking by hosting/attending events, and we do some direct advertising also.

Media999

Dave! wrote: »

FWIW as a still-wet-behind-the-ears developer: I've had 4 'real' jobs since finishing college. 3 of them I got by applying directly to the companies (they had ads online), and 1 (my current one) I got through an agency.

2 of the 3 I got directly were pretty horrible, 1 (in Australia) was good, although it was more of a support role than a development one.

The one I'm in now (which I applied for through an agency) is an excellent place to work, and I actually like going into the office!

I also had a handful of interviews, which an agency arranged, shortly after finishing college. I didn't get the jobs in the end, but the agency can't be blamed for that. Another agency was arranging an interview for an interesting Ruby role for me during my last job change, but I had to turn it down because I was offered the other job.

In short: I don't know why someone just starting out in their career would decide to cut off an extra path by which they may get a job. Employers may use agencies for a variety of reasons, e.g. the company I'm working for only has 1 person as the 'HR department', so I imagine having to sift through hundreds of CVs, many of which will be from unqualified people, is a bit of a nightmare. Why not outsource that? Once the agency sends on the best candidates, then the company's recruitment process (various interviews, technical test) takes over.

Incidentally we use other methods for recruitment too: referrals are important, networking by hosting/attending events, and we do some direct advertising also.

Hoping to go to Australia myself so wouldnt mind a bit more info on that. Is there plenty of jobs there? Would it just be a matter of uploading CVs, getting any job then heading over?

Or would i just head over and live off savings until i get work there?

fergalr

The thread has wandered into discussing whether or not to use recruiters.

Some part of the argument arises because developers are not a homogeneous group of people.
They aren't even tightly distributed. Its important to acknowledge that the best strategy for one developer might not be the best for another.

Recruiters, who are typically not highly technically skilled themselves, are thus not very good at assessing technical ability.
This results in an information asymmetry between the developer looking to get hired, and the recruiter attempting to assess them. Certain things tend to happen in markets with information asymmetries.

Different developers are affected in different ways; probably those with most to lose try and find alternative ways of getting hired.


Example: lets say you are one hundred times better than everything else at Algol. You dropped out of school and spent 25 years in your parents basement coding it, and are now brilliant at it.
And now you really want to get paid really well for all those years you spent unemployed on your own mastering Algol.

Whatever hope you have about getting paid for your skills if you are interviewed by an Algol expert, there's pretty much no way a recruiter would decide to pay you commensurately with your skills.

Honestly, the recruiter will probably not even put you forward for an interview, because all your signals look so bad.

We all kind of know this. Probably, if you are a small Irish Algol shop, and really need to hire someone to write Algol for you, you aren't even going to bother with a recruiter.


Its like cars.
If you are trying to sell a second hand car, and you're car is in brilliant condition because you've driven it really carefully, and you want its value, you've got a problem.
If you are trying to sell a car that you've driven pretty hard, you'll probably get close to its value.


How useful recruiters are for an individual developer depends on a whole bunch of factors.
How common is the job?
How similar or different are they from the market average?
Whats the correlation between the developer's signals and their skill?
etc.


Basically, you can't really give 'one size fits all' advice that says either 'use recruiters' or 'ignore recruiters'.
It depends a lot of the developer and their interests.

ChRoMe wrote: »

Yup, and those people building software will have outsourced their recruitment to a 3rd party, because it makes business and financial sense.

CuLT's advice is romantic but not very practical.

Hiring an employee is one of the most leveraged things a business can do.

Consider if an employee stays with the company for a couple of years. If it takes weeks of founder time to get a slightly better employee, then thats probably a good tradeoff, right, because of that leverage?

Also, that employee is probably going to be leveraged in turn - they'll end up hiring other employees, making key technical decisions etc.

ChRoMe wrote: »

Google doesn't do their own recruitment, its handled by contractors on site! My brother in law is a recruiter there.

Obviously, if you are Google, with 50k employees, it doesnt scale to have Larry and Sergey still interviewing everyone. They still have an expensive interviewing process, though; I am guessing that they are using recruiters just to get 'input flow' of candidates, rather than to do much of the discrimination?

I guess it depends on the size of company you are talking about.

Dave!

Media999 wrote: »

Hoping to go to Australia myself so wouldnt mind a bit more info on that. Is there plenty of jobs there? Would it just be a matter of uploading CVs, getting any job then heading over?

Or would i just head over and live off savings until i get work there?

Actually I struggled quite a bit to find work in Sydney. I mostly applied for jobs through Seek, and I didn't apply for I.T. jobs exclusively either (even manual labour, warehouse work, etc). I must have applied for about 100 jobs, tailoring my CV where appropriate and including cover letters too, and I only got 1 interview (and that's the job I got!).

I'm not sure whether it was the lack of experience (as a recent graduate), or possibly the fact that I'm Irish/on a working holiday visa, but certainly I struggled to find work. The two friends I went over with found it difficult to find work initially too, in I.T. and retail respectively, but we all did in the end.

I'd say you'll be okay, but just make sure you have a good bit of cash behind you.

Dave!

Incidentally as has been mentioned previously - you should focus on putting together a portfolio of extra-curricular work that you've done. A GitHub account, open-source contributions, StackOverflow posts, a personal/portfolio website, personal projects that are online, a technical blog, etc.

I didn't have much, and my college grades weren't great, but I did have a personal website that I built. Nothing particularly fancy, but it had a portfolio of the front-end stuff I had done (HTML/CSS/JS), and the PHP/MySQL mini-projects I had been working on. Any time I learned how to do something kinda cool, I just added it to another section of the site.

It was on the strength of this that I got my first two jobs (college was discussed a bit, but not a whole lot), and then I added some more personal projects to discuss in the interviews for the next couple of jobs. College wasn't discussed.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

CuLT wrote: »

Don't bother talking to recruiters; all the interesting jobs are ones you'll get by going to developer events, meeting other people building software.

I have to disagree with that. Why limit your options by not talking to a recruiter? When you sign up with a recruiter, they will give you a call to see exactly what kind of job you want, and will keep you updated when a role comes up that may be of interest.

fergalr wrote: »

Honestly, the recruiter will probably not even put you forward for an interview, because all your signals look so bad.

generally speaking, the recruiters will be given a list of credentials that the potential candidate must have, i.e. a 2.1 L8 degree, and or x number of years experience. You can say you have been coding for 20 years in your parents basement, but at the end of the day, thats just your word, how does an employer know you are not lying on your cv? They would soon find out in an interview that you are lying, but why take that risk? from experience, if you are under qualified for a job, you have a better chance of getting it through a recruiter, as they will know more about you than the person in the company that sees that you dont meet the credentials for the job based on your cv.

fergalr

Chana Big Cartoonist wrote: »

generally speaking, the recruiters will be given a list of credentials that the potential candidate must have, i.e. a 2.1 L8 degree, and or x number of years experience.

Yes, recruiters have to be told to look for signals, because recruiters are unable to evaluate quality directly.

Chana Big Cartoonist wrote: »

You can say you have been coding for 20 years in your parents basement, but at the end of the day, thats just your word, how does an employer know you are not lying on your cv?

I don't really see how 'candidates may lie on their CV' is used as an argument in favour of recruiters.

Sure, candidates who lie outrageously on their CV are a problem.

But they are a bigger problem with recruiters, because recruiters are not in a position to realize a candidate is lying.

In reality, probably only few people will actually lie outrageously, if they know they will be caught out at interview, and basically get themselves blacklisted.

As such, the cost of interviewing them, say with an initial phone screening, isn't so high.

How does involving recruiters help solve that problem?

If anything, you still have to do the phone screening, and you lose the upside from the people who are highly skilled, but have poor signals, who would do very well in the phone screening, but who the recruiters have discarded.

Chana Big Cartoonist wrote: »

They would soon find out in an interview that you are lying, but why take that risk?

You take the risk in order to find someone good.

Its an economics problem.

If you are willing to pay 1 million dollars a year per programmer, you can easily get very good programmers.
Just put an ad in the newspaper saying 'hiring 10 algol programmers at $1m/year each' and the best programmers will find you.

But that's not what employers are trying to do.
Employers are trying to find programmers of a certain quality, at a certain price range. Employers want to maximise the value they get, which is a function of quality and price.

Sometimes the best way to do this will involve using recruiters, and some times it wont.


If you want to find a particularly good value programmer then you are trying to find people who are mispriced by the market.

Good developers with poor signals are often underpriced, because recruiters aren't able to tell how good a developer is.
That's why you risk interviewing them, to get good value, because good developers are worth so much to your company.

Chana Big Cartoonist wrote: »

from experience, if you are under qualified for a job, you have a better chance of getting it through a recruiter, as they will know more about you than the person in the company that sees that you dont meet the credentials for the job based on your cv.

If a tech company is doing a worse job than the recruiter at selecting people for interview, the company is probably pretty stupid.
The company should have vastly more information than the recruiter about how to select candidates, as the company knows the domain.

It makes some sense for a company to use recruiters in order to increase the number of candidates the company is exposed to.
Or, if the company is looking for staff of a particularly standard value.

(Although probably the company is being stupid here, too, as its relatively cheap to increase your exposure to candidates, vs. paying recruiters.)

But if a tech company, who are presumably experts at the thing they are hiring for, are doing a worse job at selection than recruiters, then they are probably doing something very wrong.

Its a different scenario, of course, if its not a tech company, who are perhaps hiring outside their core competence.