I watched a video interview about the saturation of the job market, he said that it’s true that the junior dev market is saturated - but with people who can’t code. He says that if you can code, you’ll stand out.
I would be tremendously happy if it’s true that most the competition can’t do a simple thing, but I have a feeling the competition is lot more capable than the person is making them out to be.
I interviewed for a job once and when I was asked to create a function that prints fizz buzz I told them not to waste my time. LOL
Maybe once upon a time that is true, although I have a feeling that the person grossly misrepresented a past statistic, which is 99% of the applicants are filtered out by the FizzBuzz. That’s something quoted all the way back in 2007. The way information is disseminated, the amount of resource available for free, the way we apply for jobs, the way companies search and evaluate candidates, even just 5 years ago, is vastly different from now, so I would not be surprised if it’s not a totally accurate representation of the market.
That stat implies a lot of people that do not program apply for junior dev jobs, which could very well be true, but the overall competition pool could be so large that even if 99% of people weeded out, you are still competing with 100 highly qualified people.
To get a job, you’re not competing with the people that can’t solve FizzBuzz, you are competing with the people that can, and there are plenty of people that can
I never heard of the FizzBuzz test before.
Phew! Glad I could solve it without Google!
Junior Development here I come!
It’s complicated (almost as common an interview answer as “it depends”).
Firstly, remember that this is a person who runs a for-profit company. Treat everything they say the same way you would treat an infomercial.
Moving on to the “saturation” question. Essentially, it seems like you are asking whether people are applying for programming jobs that they are not qualified for. Yes. It varies significantly by industry and technology, but I often talk to people who are applying for jobs that they don’t really understand and can’t demonstrate the skills to perform. Programming is one of the few highly skilled career fields where someone without a formal education can get an interview. I suppose that leads people to assume that “entry level” or “junior” jobs do not require a great deal of knowledge or experience.
I can see how this could be viewed or portrayed as a good thing because, as you said, the “competition” is largely unqualified. I would like to point out a few problems.
- In my experience, the shortage in qualified developers does not lead to employers lowering their standards. Everywhere I have been would prefer to lose productivity by having an unfilled job than by hiring the wrong person. Just because most people can’t even do a simple fizzbuzz function, doesn’t mean that an applicant won’t still be required to do efficient tree traversal (as a random example).
- A large number of unqualified applicants means that it’s harder to get an initial interview. This is especially true if you look, on paper, like the majority of unqualified people. Obviously it would be harder to get a job if there was a huge number of highly qualified people all competing for a small number of jobs, but a huge number of under-qualified applicants still makes it harder for both programmers and employers.
I suspected as much. The CEO wants people to think they’ll stand out as long as they take the course and know what they’re doing. .
Yes, I thought that statistic was fishy. Given how many bootcamps there are, there’s bound to be tons of new people coming out every year who do know how to code.
The best way to see how you stack up to the competition is work with them on open source.
While the market is saturated with juniors who don’t know how to code, there are also far more entry level devs who can code who are competing with fresh cs grads than say Sr devs looking for a job; this is where you see the " easy for devs to find a high paying job" stereotype come true.
Meaning lambda, which I cannot say is bad or good, is still a boot camp and all boot camps are trying to sell you a product.
I believe results can be shown and achieved readily with today’s free, open source model while being gainfully employed or working non profit for free. Boot camp not needed.