←back to thread

263 points mooreds | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.087s | source | bottom
Show context
hibikir ◴[] No.45421738[source]
Hiring juniors is always great if you, somehow, have a much better filter for finding the stars than the rest of the market. But if you don't, hiring bad juniors is a disaster: No different than outsourcing bits to a bad satellite office.

So are you actually good at finding the good juniors in this very difficult environment? Can you change your hiring machinery to improve, as most traditional ways have stopped working? Because hiring a lot of juniors that don't work out sure can kill companies.

replies(4): >>45421781 #>>45421872 #>>45422482 #>>45429714 #
goalieca ◴[] No.45421781[source]
Hire one junior per team. Don’t overload your senior staff with OKRs and managerial tasks. Let mentorship and apprenticeship happen.
replies(2): >>45421859 #>>45421956 #
throwawaysleep ◴[] No.45421859[source]
I guess what’s the value of the junior there? Why is that superior to just having the seniors have their heads down coding and not being pestered by a junior?
replies(7): >>45421878 #>>45421881 #>>45421905 #>>45421920 #>>45422035 #>>45424270 #>>45430184 #
1. _heimdall ◴[] No.45422035[source]
As an industry we can't just cut off the pipeline of future senior devs.

This is the fundamental contradiction of LLMs. The promise today is that the tooling can largely replace juniors, and honestly that may be true.

The hope behind that promise, though, is that the tech will catch up with senior devs before the pipeline dries up and that we have found a sustainable social and economic model before humans truly aren't employable at any meaningful numbers. That hope seems ill placed to me, but I guess we'll see if we develop such skilled LLM or similar tools at all.

replies(2): >>45422287 #>>45429933 #
2. nickff ◴[] No.45422287[source]
The problem is that if everyone hops jobs every 9-18 months, it’s not worth training up juniors because the employer will never get to benefit. It seems that we’re in an unfortunate, but stable equilibrium.
replies(3): >>45422490 #>>45425469 #>>45435355 #
3. kogepathic ◴[] No.45422490[source]
> The problem is that if everyone hops jobs every 9-18 months, it’s not worth training up juniors because the employer will never get to benefit.

It is absolutely worth hiring and training juniors. The quality of your onboarding process and documentation will improve. Not only that but a junior will ask questions that senior engineers take for granted, such as "why are we doing X this way?" which can lead to improvements that your existing engineers might not have considered.

Finally, if junior engineers are joining your organisation and leaving every 9-18 months, you need to take a serious look at your career progression ladder and compensation. I have seen way too many companies that have an arbitrary "you cannot receive a promotion in the first X months" HR policy which is just asinine. You know who doesn't have this stupid policy? The company your junior just accepted an offer from.

If your organisation doesn't have the tools and processes to up skill junior engineers into seniors, then it doesn't have professional development for senior engineers and is just a career dead end.

4. _heimdall ◴[] No.45425469[source]
Junior devs are just a time suck though. They do require more on boarding an attention than the average experienced hire, but they also bring a different view to the project. I've been surprised over the years by juniors that raise a question or idea that snowballs into a pretty fundament and impactful change, one that could have been raised before but the team just didn't look at it that way.

We also have to remember that if our juniors leave 9-18 months later, everyone else's juniors are leaving too. Churn has a cost for sure, but if I can hire someone else's junior that they put 18 months into then I am still better off.

5. nitwit005 ◴[] No.45429933[source]
You're saying the industry, or society in general will suffer. That's an externality. People and organizations optimize for their own profits, not net social benefit.
replies(1): >>45433044 #
6. _heimdall ◴[] No.45433044[source]
Sore, totally agree. I'm not saying I expect a corporation to care about externalized costs.

I am saying that I care about them, and individually we all should pay attention to them. In this case, I will continue to push for juniors even if my higher-ups push for us to hire seniors only and augment our workforce with LLMs for more junior-level work.

7. kelnos ◴[] No.45435355[source]
This has been the state of things long before LLMs, and companies still hired and trained up juniors, only to see them leave after 18 months.

But that's fine. The junior you trained up will be more effective at their next job, and the junior your competitor trained up will be more effective when you hire them at your company. Again, that's how it's been for far longer than we've had LLMs.

replies(1): >>45447663 #
8. program_whiz ◴[] No.45447663{3}[source]
The only problem with this utopian view of the world is the game theory. My company which doesn't hire juniors gets to benefit from others training them up for free. As a result, companies will opt not to train them (since this is optimal) -- which means they don't get trained. Classic prisoner's dilemma / free rider situation.