CS Enrollment Dips

[pm4hire]

www.npr.org/templates/sto...d=88154024

[DG9]

I keep hearing about this need in the field of "computer", not seeing it though.  I remain confused...

"and a resurgence in Web millionaires" - hope springs eternal.

Who is doing this these days?  I know there are success stories.

[John Masterson]

I had a thought: we may be confusing two entirely different kinds of programming, and two different IT industries.

Perhaps Bill Gates is talking about the packaged software industry...the people who program the MacOS, the Windows OS, device drivers, Oracle, SQL Server, mySQL, Linux, SAP...as opposed to business IT department workers who configure and use these packaged products.

Just maybe there is now a shortage of talented "systems programmers" (so to speak), even though there is not any shortage of business analysts looking for work within IT departments.

Don't get me wrong...all of these companies want to get cheap labor and will exploit the H1B laws.

But maybe things are a bit different within mainline software companies, as opposed to business IT departments.

[TRexx]

Quote:But maybe things are a bit different within mainline software companies, as opposed to business IT departments.

Software companies are under just as much pressure to reduce costs as any other company.  Perhaps they realize that the folks who really understand the inner workings of their products are not easily replaced.  There is also the concern of bringing in folks from countries with less than stringent Intellectual Property laws.

[codger]

Quote:There is also the concern of bringing in folks from countries with less than stringent Intellectual Property laws.

I see no evidence of this "concern." At least I see none in the ranks of media, government or management. They don't give a $hit. They'll sell everything out if it means that profits (bonuses) or their power will increase for one more quarter.

[TRexx]

Quote:I see no evidence of this "concern."

I think it depends on the company.  My brother works for a British owned software company.  They have made a conscious decision not to move development out of the UK because they are afraid of what some developer might steal. All their developers British subjects and all their US employees are US citizens or Brits on L1 visas.  

I know a guy who runs a clinical trials group at one of our larger Pharma companies. He said that 10 years ago the IT folks pitched a plan to move some of his processing to India. The lawyers made it clear that there was no way they would ever allow confidential patient data to leave our shores. Five years later they were over ruled by the beancounters.

I know another guy who is head of Risk Management for another big Pharma company. (He's the guy who gets called when someone puts cyanide in cold medicine). His company has moved much of their manufacturing offshore. The Board of Directors is shared witless about someone stealing their formulas, but then they look at cost of a factory in New Jersey vs Malaysia. (He's more concerned about all the raw materials they buy from China)

[pm4hire]

But JM is correct, SW package vs IT work are different
entities.  As a general rule, companies that produce SW
for the marketplace tend to hire much higher quality IT
professionals.

Working in the usual IT group is a loser dead end job
that basically goes nowhere.

Most IT work is cost center focused, whereas, working
for company that produces SW is market focused, READ
PROFIT CENTER here.

Young people today know that IT is a loser.

[TRexx]

I started my career working in the IT departments of various companies - Insurance, Manufacturing, Publishing. I enjoyed my work and was well compensated.  Then one day my father told me that in any company, no matter what business it's in, people who are not part of the main revenue stream are expendable. They may be valued,  rewarded and treated with respect, but at the end of the day, they generate 0 revenue. He summed it up by saying "Make sure you are in the same business as the CEO".

That's when I went to work for a consulting company.  It was obvious to the person who signed my paycheck that  I contributed real dollars to the bottom line.

I see the same thing today.   Once a quarter I have to sit through an excruciating conference call with my "Global Application Portfolio Team".   The call opens with each of us introducing ourselves and a brief description of the apps we support. All I hear is "We saved the company $250K each year" or "We expect to save $1M per year"  or "We ensure that the company in compliance with the tax laws". When it's my turn I can say "In the past quarter my application delivered $12M in gross profit to the bottom line".   It's a different mind set.

[codger]

TRexx,

Well stated, and true. Your father's advice was excellent. Too bad more fathers don't see the wisdom he imparted, and pass it down to their children.

Any employee who can demonstrate that he increased revenue or net profits to a company is going to be successful, and valued. This is always the high visibility side of the house.

It used to upset me that cost reducing efforts were considered to be second tier as far as their perceived value was concerned. I still question whether this attitude does not reflect the financial ignorance of those in charge. Cost reduction directly adds to the their cherished bottom line.

I have observed over time that some companies are P&L oriented while others are Balance Sheet oriented. I don't know why the are so directed, but they are very different animals.

[The Original Dinosaur]

Quote:"Make sure you are in the same business as the CEO".

That's a keeper!

[TRexx]

Most middle managers I see are more concerned with reducing costs than increasing revenue. I  think the reason is that it's relatively easy to cuts costs. Increasing revenue usually requires original thinking, something most managers are lacking.

How often have we seen a company that is stuck in "cost cutting mode"?  When an enlightened manager has an idea to spend a few bucks on a new venture that has the potential to increase sales, he gets slapped down. You see them propping up the bottom line by selling of assets and reducing headcount.  I always want to ask "What are you going to do next year/quarter?"

[unixwindmill]

I don't agree that it's totally related to the dismal job prospects.

CS is one of the most time consuming majors on campus.  Combine CS with lousy job prospects, it's no wonder that CS enrollments are dropping.

You guys have to keep in mind that CS is basically a math degree using computers.  It's not about learning Java, MySQL, etc.  Learning Java, SQL, etc. is just like learning to use a hammer - it's easy and very quick.  In the best CS programs, you are expected to master the C programming K&R book within 1 week from cover to cover.  This includes mastering pointers and other memory management techniques.  When I say master, I mean master, not skim everything past "Hello world".  Once you've mastered C in one week, you'll do a major project which will require SVN because its code is so large and it will help keep your sanity.

If you think mastering C in one week is too quick, you now understand why CS is such a time consuming major.   And when you graduate, you'll be just as unemployed as the English major.  The only difference is that the English major had gotten laid and enjoyed college while the CS major only remembers the time he pissed away in college at the computer lab.

The only thing that made CS tolerable during the dotcom boom is the fantastic job prospects after graduation.  The same is true for medical school.  Nobody would do either one without a high-paying job on the other side of the commencement ceremony.

[codger]

Very well stated unixwindmill. The universities are in an awkward position when it comes to CS curriculum contents. If they chase the technology and the latest tools, they drift away from their traditional role of providing an engineering orientation to CS. They are then considered to be job training and certification factories.

If they teach older, more dated technological subjects, they run the risk of graduating people who are perceived as not having relevant, current job skills. Never mind that their students have a solid knowledge of core CS fundamentals that will provide them with insights that few who travel the certification route will not master.

Myself? I'd hire the graduate from the school who understands the fundamental concepts of CS every time. A bright youth can learn the latest tools as required. It ain't brain surgery.

[David Cressey]

Quote:Most middle managers I see are more concerned with reducing costs than increasing revenue. I think the reason is that it's relatively easy to cuts costs. Increasing revenue usually requires original thinking, something most managers are lacking.

I think it's more than just which is easier.

Increasing revenue calls for very different strategies depending on what the time frame is.  For the short run  (next 13 weeks) the best strategy is to figure out what your hot sellers are,  and sell the hell out of them.  That strategy is concentrated in a single department.  

In the software engineering department of a software sales company,  there is almost no way to affect revenues in the short term.  The best way to affect revenues in the mid term  (one year to two years)  is "strategic marketing"  or "product planning".  This involves anticipating what next year's hot product is going to be,  and building it in a big hurry.  You need to be ready to roll it out just as the market discovers that it's an unmet need of theirs.

The long term involves converting customers who buy your products into customers who pay a regular monthly fee for your services.  

In the early 1980s,  Bill Gates was a past master at strategic marketing of software.  Established companies like DEC would take 5 years to roll out a new major SW product  (like Rdb).   DEC is a bad comparison because it was, in its heart and soul, a hardware company until after Ken Olsen's time.  

SW starups would wait to see what's hot and then rush to market with a copy cat.

Gates was one of very vew who could see a year or two down the pike and build what they were going to want to buy.  

now let's move away from SW firms to, say, McDonald's.

In the short term,  if you run an individual franchise,  there is little you can do about revenue.  You can't change the menu,  you can't change the prices,  and you can't change the location.   About all you can do is fire employees who aggravate customers,  and replace them with hopefully better ones.

You can, however, manage costs a little more.  Turn some of the lights off late at night,  or don't stay open all night.  

It's similar in other industries:  increasing revenues is a very specialized activity.  It is "being in the same business as the CEO"  par excelance.   Cutting costs is a lower level function.  

I saw this in management at DEC back in the 1980s.

[ITWhore]

Quote:Never love your job, cause it's never going to love you back.

Also,

Quote:Nobody can look out for number one like number one.

My advice to my own children will be:

Quote:The only reason that your employer is still hiring you is because these 3 things are true:

[1] No one of your value can be found at a lower salary.

[2] No one of higher value can be found at your current salary.

[3] The company is able repackage your work product and sell it for more than what your salary.

As soon as one of these is no longer true, you will be fired.