ITIL and Six Sigma? They're looking for the wrong skills.
If that's his complaint, he's right. I'm not going to waste my time memorizing a series of 'comprehensive checklists' in college. I doubt I know a single CS/Math student who has done more than peruse the Wikipedia article (or maybe read a book in their spare time if they're feeling particularly masochistic) on Six Sigma - and I like to think that I know many great students in the field (several who've worked for Google, Sun, NSA, Microsoft Research, etc).
There have been many times that I've said 'Damn, I wish I knew more about X.' In the last week alone X has included POMDPs, multi-dimensional interval trees, or functors. I have never, not once, wished I knew more about the management fad du jour.
HCL (like Infosys, TCS Wipro etc) is a body shopper firm and has nothing much to do with "Computer Science" or the cool things you mention (multidimensional interval trees, POMDP etc). Mr Nayar is just saying that he thinks American Graduates don't have the kind of crap enterprise buzzword "skills" that he can sell to clueless managers at x $/hr. Mr Nayar and his firm wouldn't know what to do with someone who is really good at Computer Science or Math, because those are not the "markets" he addresses. I would imagine an American grad student would be happy to be unemployable (by Mr Nayar).
Really this is just a bodyshopper trying to justify why he isn't hiring costly Americans (vs cheap Indians). Of course he can't say "I am looking for cheap bodies to ship offshore and Americans are expensive", and still retian his job. These mumblings aren't worthy of being upset over.
Due Disclosure: I am Indian. I work in India (Bangalore to be precise), but I do work with POMDPs, MultiDimensional Interval Trees and so on ;-) (My latest project is in Robotic Vision and Navigation, for the Indian Defence Dept)
Very true. Obviously very less opportunity exists in India for the kind of stuff (you mention)that requires engineering bent of mind.
On the other hand there is a mass requirement for people who are expected to fix things. This gives to large percentage of software engineers who do not have a clue what "Engineering" is all about in "Software Engineering"
I agree. I have worked in Infosys after my graduation for 1.8 years before I quit and started my own firm.
All these organisations are big thing in India, but what they do is nothing more than run big sweat-shops.
Its unfortunate to see huge number of talented young Indians getting sucked into these firms. After 4 to 5 years working here, and they are useless to work anywhere else.
Indian , about to graduate in july , looking for some interesting engineering work [sorry for the plug, but as you mentioned Indian CS scene is non existent] related to algorithms , computer languages etc , pointers would be helpful...
I am not an elite hacker. But the guy who told me this also impressed me. I used VAX-11 when I was in college 23 years ago. So I was equally amazed at that he keeps one for himself (employee discount from DEC, I guess) and he has a VT 320 to it.
I am just wondering the kid in India who said he wrote an assembler for PDP-11. I want to know did he verify the code? I wrote an x86 code generator in Ada and that is easy to verify with Linux on PC and I can say it worked. But PDP-11 is kind of hard.
The best way to learn about management fad du jour is to be subjected to it. And the main, perhaps only, thing worth learning about it is that you want to avoid it.
I disagree. If they were a startup looking to develop some new technology or website then maybe six sigma and ITIL wouldn't come into play. But in looking for ways to manage an IT help desk for a company in which they could see thousands of help desk tickets per day, six sigma is the best and most well understood tool available today to help them reduce expenses and greatly improve processes. Six sigma is much more than a comprehensive checklist in this regard.
Plus, I think you're perhaps misunderstanding where his company is coming from. They're not necessarily looking for computer scientists to write code or design new systems in most cases. Instead, they're looking for information systems specialists to be able to quickly and efficiently solve IT issues for their customer, and managers of those specialists to ensure they do it as efficiently as possible.
Six sigma is a farce, and trying to manage people with a set of bastardized statistics horseshit as your polestar is failure personified. If you're managing a machine shop that mass produces gears you might have use for six sigma. Outside of manufacturing quality control six sigma is truly the badge of inept middle management.
I call BS; and I live in Bangalore, and I run a software company.
Over the last 8 years I have worked with dozens of American programmers, and on an average they are better than their Indian counterparts. His own company (HCL) employs some of the people who I thought formed the bottom of the class. Yet another senior programmer in another IT major (TCS) who was a CS grad, thought he was writing code for a new 16 bit computer.
From the article itself, it is easy to see what he considers talent: following Six Sigma, CMM etc. Guess what, CMM itself is so ridiculously outdated that only Indian IT companies seek it. In a CMM review I was part of in 2007, they said 80% were Indian IT companies. Needless to say, there are more failed projects that successful ones.
Our website says "Made in India"; but sadly, thanks to these IT companies it could be mistaken as a 'Process-driven, cheap, intellect-independent way of building software'.
These massive "brick-in-the-wall", "Enterprise" Indian IT Companies compete exclusively on "hourly-billing-rate".
There is hope in sight, but they come from smaller, newer companies.
As we all know, there is no silver bullet, that will miraculously rescue the ailing software engineering.
Yesteryear's process becomes today's joke. It's unfortunate that Indian companies are madly following the buzz words/process without understanding how it is supposed to work.
"madly following the buzz words/process without understanding how it is supposed to work"
This sounds like a form of cargo cult software development management.
On a more general level this sounds like a common, if insidious, human trait: merely emulating the outward signs of successful persons or groups in an attempt to recreate or capture that success for oneself.
In other words, universities are still not good at producing the code monkeys that Mr. Nayar requires to run his body shops. Now if someone could explain to me why that is a bad thing?
If you read the article he doesn't say those things should be taught as CS degrees. The exact phrase is "They're far less inclined ... to spend their time" which implies what they're doing above and beyond their formal education.
Would you hire a graduate who wasn't inclined to spend their time learning about version control, bug tracking or release management systems (all of which are part of the ITIL standard) ?
A lot of ITIL isn't that much different from what you find in Code Complete or the Pragmatic Programmer books on deployment. Just because you prefer your buzzword to their buzzword, doesn't mean it's any more important.
I think that is the possible flaw in your interpretation of what this guy said: he's not asking people so much to not do PhDs as he is asking people who are neither PhDs nor code monkeys to become code monkeys.
I may not agree to the guy's agenda. But I see nothing wrong in encouraging more Americans to become programmers. Whether they are code monkeys or PhDs is a personal choice folks make and nothing is stopping current code monkeys to become PhDs.
You are right. The guy runs a business and he is looking for a certain type of worker. What I take issue with is the view that it is the responsibility of academic institutions to provide the type of workers that he needs.
If he finds that people from an academic background are not willing to submit to his requirements I would assume that they wont submit because they can find more fulfilling work elsewhere.
Furthermore, it's not how methodologies are called at these places, it is how they are used: an excuse for middle management to look at charts and metrics without having to deal with the human aspect of their team.
I would assume that they wont submit
because they can find more fulfilling work elsewhere.
Again, I don't think he is addressing people who already have a job. Think about why he was even asked this question: apparently because there is this popular notion that America does not have enough IT workers and therefore needs to get 'em from India etc.
I am not sure how true or untrue that notion is. But it is widely accepted.
I do see your point and think it is valid: the current American compsci grads and engineers usually can find a job. What this guy should be talking about is EXPANDING the total size of the engineering/compsci grads so even folks not necessarily very inclined can come in and do tedious but decent paying jobs. The end result is more money goes to Americans and fewer importation of labor from India etc.
Well, since there is the need for this work to be done, it makes sense that someone gets trained to do that work. I remain skeptical though whether a university is the right provider for such a kind of education.
I'm from Germany and we do not really have an equivalent to US college education. Secondary education is partially integrated in our equivalent to a high school and you go to university after that. Alternatively, there is another path of secondary education/apprenticeship where you split your time between working for a company to get hands-on experience in your chosen line of work and attend classes the rest of the time. Such apprenticeships are also available for IT and software development related work.
Nevertheless, a lot of people believe that programming a computer is a sufficiently complex activity which only people that have attended university are capable of. That may be a part of the problem that the guy in the original article was complaining about: although people can acquire the skills needed to be a programmer elsewhere, they still go to universities in order to secure some credentials that will increase their chances of employment.
Frankly, his complaints are why the West has nothing to fear from India any time soon. As an Indian, there is nothing more important than external verification of one's social status. For example, in India, they ISO certify everything. FFS, the number one dating (I wish I could use strikethrough on HN and put matrimonial after, but c'est la vie) website for Indians is ISO certified: http://www.shaadi.com/customer_relations/faq/iso-certificati...
Indians are fantastic at rote memorization and will listen to directions to the letter - no freelancing there. To India's benefit, it should mean that they'll be spitting out really, really good cars (as long as they're designed elsewhere) and large industrial output in the near future.
"Indians are fantastic at rote memorization" , and you know what being an Indian, I hate that lot of the crowd. There is a lack of independent thinkers here, and the rotten education system that puts emphasis on memorization (eg. my college) are the ones responsible for creating such a crowd of fantastic memorizers...
I wish they encouraged more of learning by doing here and we could've had better people to boast about.
You're being too hard on India. In every country there is a small % of talented programmers. Many of those smart Indian programmers are doing fantastic work in grad schools around the world. They are a huge part of Silicon Valley (as are Chinese ex-pats). Of course, there's a larger % of code monkeys. Indian code monkeys are, IMO, better than American code monkeys because they follow instructions and work hard despite their limited talents. Rote memorization and checklists and "process" are necessary to get less capable programmers to function.
"Indian code monkeys are, IMO, better than American code monkeys because they follow instructions and work hard despite their limited talents. Rote memorization and checklists and "process" are necessary to get less capable programmers to function."
I don't think I'd use the word "better" here. As a US senior developer who delegates a lot of work to both Indian contractors and in-house junior developers, it really doesn't help me when the person I'm delegating to can't do the job well, but works real hard at it. That just wastes time and still produces inferior code. I'd much rather have the person tell me "I'm lost and can't do this" right away, so I can either delegate to someone else or provide more detailed directions earlier rather than later.
Also, consider applying that statement to any other professional career. Would you want your less-capable doctor to be allowed to practice medicine because he can memorize really well and follow checklists? No, of course not: the less-capable doctor should be forced to find a career he's good at.
Sadly, I'm a critical care nurse, and I've worked with a lot of doctors that aren't really capable, but they practice medicine because they were able to memorize really well and follow checklists.
The person who graduates at the bottom of his medical school class still gets to write "Md" after his name.
"Many of those smart Indian programmers are doing fantastic work in grad schools around the world."
They may be at those grad schools "around the world" precisely because their native culture does not value creative, innovative work that goes beyond rote memorization and checklists. There are brilliant and creative people everywhere, but the culture you are born into has a lot to say about how brilliance and creativity can be expressed, if at all.
Is it cultural, or is it just the result of the boom cycle making it easier to make a rupee by following rather than leading?
My gut instinct is that the sad state of Indian IT is purely a result of being supported by clueless management in developed countries thinking they can easily save big bucks by outsourcing. India is just filling a demand.
After a decade or two of Indians growing up in this economy and seeing the failures first hand, I predict things will have equalized quite a bit, and the smart Indians will all be saying "Why work for clueless bosses when we can do better and we have huge markets of our own?" Of course that process will be kickstarted by Indian expats witnessing the failures of enterprise IT firsthand in the richest corporations of the world.
Throughout school they're ranked against their peers. This extends to a National ranking, where only the top n% can get into IIT. Their high schools are also heavily basied on rote memorization-type learning.
Frankly, his complaints are why the West has nothing to fear from India any time soon.
Well, the rich countries aren't going to lose their edge in tech innovation in the short term, but that doesn't mean that a lot of jobs won't continue to migrate to poorer countries.
This is an old tune though -- as technologies slip away from the leading edge they tend to relocate to places where they can be produced at a lower cost. It sounds like what the CEO quoted in the article is saying is that Americans don't fit the bill for that kind of development.
In international trade with the US, it is sometimes important for foreign companies to have some sort of quality / improvement program in place. It garners better trust. There may have been a culture of implementing these programs and it simply became a standard operating procedure. I'm not sure if this is the case but it wouldn't surprise me. Along the same lines, if India does have a culture of memorization, it might be best that they establish rigid business practices to keep themselves as productive as possible.
HCL and other employers need to have a greater influence on the tech curricula of U.S. colleges and universities, to make them more real-world and rigorous. For the most part, he said, those institutions haven't been receptive to such industry partnerships.
In my experience, the largest influence of employers on schools has been the pervasiveness of Java in higher education. Since it's now all but obvious how horribly short-sighted "teaching Java in college" turned out to be, I think the burden of proof is on him to explain why teaching everyone "ITIL, Six Sigma, and the like" isn't equally short-sighted.
In an interview following his presentation, Vineet said HCL and other employers need to have a greater influence on the tech curricula of U.S. colleges and universities, to make them more real-world and rigorous.
Hahahaha .. if Six Sigma is more "real world" and rigorous than what they teach in good CS programs in the US, I am Warren Buffett.
God forbid Vineet here gets his wishes about influence with U.S. colleges, because if he does, bank on the number of great engineers graduating from these schools dropping precipitously.
What HCL CEO was saying is true, American Grads are not employable because they are interested in creating new technology and starting new start ups, Ideal American grad wants to start a startup.And look its the American started google, microsoft, ibm, youtube etc... If you want perfect employee who want to maintain the 10 year old technology created by American companies you can get it only from india and China. I never seen an Indian created new product that changes world. Apart from creating bull shit products for maintaining documents for Sig Sigma , iso 9001, CRM etc. --- Angry young Indian.
You can start by creating a product that changes India. Americans are predominantly the ones who do startups because America is the biggest player in the global economy, and no one understands American culture, desires, and needs quite better than America.
Look at Shaadi.com. A site like that would have fallen flat on its face in America. Conversely, a site like Match.com and eHarmony would be really unsuccessful in India.
You have a unique opportunity in India. There are tons of startups that could only be done in India, and not in America. These startups need to be done by Indians, not by Americans. The track record of American VC's in India isn't very good, they just don't "get it".
Historically, business in India has been dominated by the big family players- the Ambami's, the Birla's, the Tata's. This is because every business in India has a huge government overhead to deal with- it's hard to go above the mom-and-pop level without dealing with the corruption and bureaucracy that plagues India.
The Internet changes all that. More and more people are getting wired. The local politicians, the corrupt officials that want bribes, and all the other authorities can't control you in cyberspace. You instantly eliminate all that overhead!
So go and develop your idea! It's stupid to speak in terms of generalizations and stereotypes. Yes, there's a large culture gap between America and India- this makes it hard for Indians to innovate- it's hard to cross that chasm and understand our needs.
But there's nothing stopping you from developing a site just for Indians. The Indian version of cyberspace is basically like 1997. Everyone is still building these big "portals". Indian newspapers are still coming online. American companies are just using India as a bodyshop and not really serving India's needs.
Stop thinking about how India can cater to the US, and start thinking about how India can cater to India. Once India does this, India can control her own destiny and become the superpower it so badly wants to be.
What he's observing is that his jobs--the ones given to outsourcing companies--have diverged from the ones taken by companies in Western wealthier countries.
It ought to be so: if Americans and Indians were competing for the same jobs, the current difference in salaries couldn't have been sustained for so long. Most people who have worked with outsourcing know the limits, especially in terms of initiative, understanding or even common sense, of what can be done successfully by Indian IT companies.
The whole article only makes sense for people who think that "guys who are paid to do stuff on a computer" are a single, mostly uniform resource. What is very worrying is that this illiterate understanding seems to be held by top executives of international IT companies.
It is absurd to declare that one of the most prosperous countries in the world is going to be suddenly rendered into a country of subsistence farmers (like China, Brazil, or India) because of a real estate bubble.
Hear, hear! I get flyers in my door all the time talking about "fast broadband" where fast == 1-3Mb. I'm moving soon and will be switching to NTL (cable) and getting 10Mb/1Mb for less money. Death to Eircom and their €26/mo line rental charge!
The article makes a case for "the failure of the U.S. education system to prepare the country's next-generation tech workforce":
Many American grads looking to enter the tech field are preoccupied with getting rich, Vineet said. They're far less inclined than students from developing countries ... to spend their time learning the "boring" details of tech process, methodology, and tools--ITIL, Six Sigma, and the like.
I concur. It should also be noted that the work culture in the US is different than that of India. Very often, foreign companies investing in the U.S. make the mistake of expecting the same uniformity in the local workforce that they are used to seeing back home.
I should also mention the monumental levels of competition overseas students like in India have to clear to have a shot at a school like IIT, and I guess this radiates into everything else that follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology...
I have been managing a portion of my company's Indian outsourcing operations for the last two years. Speaking in generalities, I think that the system over there privileges "methodologies" and certifications over both core skills and core CS concepts.
I have talented Java engineers working for me who I have had to teach regular expressions to. Many American engineers with graduate degrees in CS from a good university would be able to predict that /ab+/ matched the string "abc". It would be unlikely in the extreme for them to have never heard of the word "regular expression" before. I am oh for five on this with my most recent five Indian engineers. Even after teaching them basic regular expressions I have not found them capable of using them to accomplish tasks without specific direction.
(For example, if someVariableName is used in the project, and the customer later informs us that our naming of it does not match their understanding, we might have to rewrite that variable name and associated variables and methods globally. It should be trivial to find all instances of that with a search by regexp, right? But they don't hear that in the instruction "X is now called Y, change all appropriate variables and methods" -- instead, two days later I'm told they're done with a job that I expected to take a few hours, and then I fire a regexp against the source tree and see that 40% of it is still not done.)
I have frequently had to explain bugs to our engineers which resulted not from chance or carelessness but from simple ignorance of core CS101 concepts, such as pass by reference. (Example: In our first code review, I noticed a lot of reuse of HashMaps to carry parameters to DAOs. I told folks to not reuse them, because that introduces the risk of somebody changing the HashMap in the DAO, thus causing later users of the map to have unexpected behavior. I was told, by our most talented Indian engineer, that this would not happen because the values in the HashMap would magically spring back after the DAO was done with it. This does not happen, and it is a CS101 misconception. Sure enough, we had bugs caused by reuse. So, after a remedial CS101 lecture to the team, I reiterated that maps were not to be reused, because they would cause bugs. What do I find in Code Review #2? More reuse of HashMaps, with "final" applied to all of them. Final does not magically turn pass-by-reference into pass-by-value. (The fact that this obviously did not fix the bugs and would have been caught by ANY testing of the code is another matter. We get that a lot.)
When I ask our engineers what they wanted to accomplish in terms of professional growth in their time in Japan, the answer was unanimous: study for certs, which they all already had several of. I'm not necessarily hostile to certs in theory, but I'm sure starting to cool to them in practice.
As for teaching "tools": I won't be too harsh on India because American universities fail at it, too, but if they're teaching fundamentals of source control or IDEs I have yet to see any evidence of it. We have been trying to change a corporate culture at our Indian partners away from having one "source control master" per twenty engineers. They're the only ones permitted to commit -- everyone else mails their code to the source control master, who integrates it. This is to "stop people from breaking the build".
Our Indian colleagues have their own requests for us. For example, they would prefer not to use source control, "since it adds overhead to our management processes".
I freely admit that I only have seen about three corporate cultures from over there and may just have terrible, terrible luck.
[Edited to add: Neither my company nor I are blameless for this state of affairs. Believe me, we have many, many areas we could improve upon collectively, and I have many, many individual weakpoints, including a longstanding cavalierness about how much testing needs to be done prior to shipping. I don't want it to sound just like I'm blaming our Indian colleagues.]
I am an Indian myself, and some time ago I wrote an article that tried to explain why the engineers in Indian outsourcing companies tend to be of low quality: http://www.diovo.com/2008/08/why-outsourcing-sucks/
The only thing I would like to add is that I think that this percieved difference between the US and Indian engineers is because of our view point itself, and not because of the lower quality of CS education in India as such. Outsourcing companies tend to recruit low quality engineers and so you find more of them there.
These outsourcing companies recruit in thousands each year. This means that they don't give a ____ about quality.
The US counterparts recruit good engineers.
If you want to really compare the quality of US and Indian engineers, compare the quality of them in the startups.
"I was told, by our most talented Indian engineer, that this would not happen because the values in the HashMap would magically spring back after the DAO was done with it."
I find it interesting that this understanding corresponds to the immutable data types used in functional programming languages. In Clojure, for example, a function that appears to alter a map actually creates a new map that shares some of its values with the old one.
There is this notion that the ideas of functional programming are more advanced, or harder to understand than paradigms like OO with mutable data. But in this case the intuition of a naive programmer more closely follows the immutable functional paradigm.
Of course, it is just as likely that this same programmer will expect the same data structure to be mutated in other scenarios, and ascribing a consistent model to his understanding of the code is an invalid assumption.
Just curious. If you have so many negatives in favor of Indian engineers, why do you still work with them? Is it because of cost effectiveness or is it because you think every engineer has negatives and these are just specifics to Indians?
With regards to my own business, I'm solidly in the let-it-all-hang-out camp. I'm also willing to tell you a few anecdotes from my professional career, but that is about as far as I can go. I really can't discuss strategic matters from my day job -- it would be a breach of their trust in me.
Oh, BCC is a totally different story. I've worked with an Indian freelancer or two before, including most notably the young lady who did the site design I'm currently using. Using that experience as an example -- it wasn't totally friction-free but I got something valuable accomplished which I couldn't do myself. It would have been cheap at five times the price.
With regards to BCC, I have no intention of outsourcing any project which is not small, self-contained, and describable in a page or less. That means coding the program/website stays in-house. Or, hmm, in apartment kitchen as the case may be.
I must say, my brief experience in managing a team of Indian developers had all the same sorts of issues. There were certainly bright and talented individuals, but the inability to rely on any given level of competence was maddening. I think it was made all the worse by a cultural fear of challenging authority that made them extremely averse to admitting any inability to understand or comply with direction. They would all smile and tell me they understood everything and then produce code with basic flaws that proved they didn't understand anything, even core concepts that were well within the supposed certifications they had. It took a lot of time but eventually they became a reasonably productive team, but I'd hesitate to recommend any company go this route unless it's a major and long term project because the overhead of getting through it all is enormous.
I may be wrong but I'm fairly sure that /ab+/ would not match the string "abc". I might just be using a different library but /ab+/ would match "ab", "abb", "abbb", etc. The plus means one of more of the previous character. /ab?/ would match "abc" though...
The regular expressions built into many programming languages have the semantics of matching any part of the string, not necessarily the whole string. If you want to match the whole string, you're supposed to put ^ at the beginning and $ at the end, or something like that.
Get it? Lower your expectations! Do not want to get rich! Want to work for the same amount as people from undeveloped economies! Then maybe you can find a place in the organization of this top CEO, if you're lucky enough.
Having worked with Indian Developers I would never suggest anyone be trained to not be able to see the "big picture" or not be able to take instructions longer then one sentence. It's insane and this person is right, American graduates just can't think that way however, McDonald's workers CAN think that way. He is looking in the wrong place for employees, he needs to cull employees from the fast food industry who can do one step then stop, one stop then stop, one step then stop, and be happy with that lifestyle.
I don't think Mr. Vineet is incorrect when he suggests that most American grads are unemployable. Most people are, in fact, not employable as software developers.
The funny thing is, I actually found the Indian outsourcing teams I worked with nearly unusable as well. It may have to do with culture.
I gave broad, general guidance about what we needed to do (store the millions of variables in a non-linear program in memory in an efficient data structure), and I got back code that used arrays. It's just one single example, of course, but a result like that is enough to want to dismiss the entire team and start over.
But you know, I doubt Americans are producing all that many programmers who can do this either.
I guess a better title would have been: "Top Indian CEO: Most American Grads Are 'Unemployable' for his firm"
In my opinion, this article and his views do not deserve too much attention. But it scares me how top management of some of these so called 'software development' firms trends to drift away from reality, and just start equating developing software to having an assembly line like process.
What do you do for work?
I'm frustrated with mine. The saddest thing is my colleagues are either equally frustrated or indifferent. I don't know much people around me that would say "I'm satisfied at what I do".
So I'm curious about yours.
I have no experience working with Indian outsourcing companies, so for now I'll just accept the general consensus here.
Ok, if it's true that these people lack initiative, but are very good at following directions, then can one game the system to get essentially a parallel processor made out of humans?
This would require the Indian outsourcing firms to be programmable. I.e. what's the overhead in uploading your own custom process / methodology, and training people on it? Do the benefits of scale outweigh the "re-tooling" time?
While the skills he are looking for are not something I think need to be taught, my experiences with classmates showed me that most don't have any idea what they are doing. In a class where we were supposed to be learning assembly language, I had to explain to more then a few people what the System.out.println() function did and java, and how to concatenate two strings. I'm unsure of how they couldn't figure this out by a 300 level course.
To compare: most Indian grads (read: not IIT) have utterly useless degrees, and are happy to learn real skills under an IT services company and slave away for years.
Like he really means what he says -- first it was the employee first bull, now this -- so get the f*ck out of the US. None really cares about you and your company.
I generally agree with the sentiments expressed here, but might I play devil's advocate for a second and explore the other side?
We are a self-selecting group of programmers who put a high degree of emphasis on bettering our skills and learning, and innovating. I would imagine that we all subscribe to the notion that a good developer can provide a value multiples higher than that of the typical "code monkey." I don't know if we'd all agree on the specific factor, but it's clearly greater than two.
I got lucky and managed to find a very competent mentor. It's turned my world upside down, but I've managed to see the light. That's why I'm in this community. I work for a startup, etc.
But how do you create value? What matters? This CEO clearly thinks that the way to create value is to hamper the free-flowing development processes that can truly yield great results given a good team. Instead of that he emphasizes top-down highly controlled development. To him developers are cogs in a machine.
But honestly, if you have a product that isn't meant to be revolutionary, and you work in a well-defined field, then maybe this isn't such a terrible approach? Hypothetically speaking, with a few people on the top who know what needs to be done, and a very rigid lower structure, then it could clearly work. And by "work" I mean create revenue and satisfy customers.
Now think back to your CS education (if you had one). In the US, a CS education attracts a lot of folks who aren't interested in the inventive, exploratory, creative method of programming. They learn Java (and only Java) because that's what's popular. They don't spend much time thinking about bettering their skills and the do what they are told. This is probably the vast majority of programmers, I would imagine.
Now a lot of you guys out there probably attended more of the elite universities where you are exposed to this competitive / creative atmosphere. Or maybe you got that elsewhere, it doesn't really matter. But if you went to a lesser school, you'd see that the majority of the CS grads really aren't that different than code monkeys. They hate the theory classes because they don't expect to use it. And if they don't see the point in theory, then they won't use it. There are a few that will "get it" and they will excel in what they do. Because they are passionate.
So why would you hire an American code monkey who costs five times as much as an Indian? I can't see the value either.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons why I feel that we also see so many stories of unemployable software engineers in the US. Knowing Java inside and out is a valuable skill, no doubt, but it isn't something all that creative.
Now, back to reality here. The guy's main complaint is that Americans expect to get rich. Now at this point, I can't say that I agree. I don't know if your typical American "code monkey" is after that result. But I think that those of us who love what we do can justify higher pay, because we are more likely to generate much more revenue per body than the average code monkey. It's just that his management structure has no way to take advantage of greater talent.
Surely, the fact that he has an Indian surname has nothing to do with this, even though his view is very simplistic and overly optimistic about the quality of training in "Indian bootcamps."
Bullshit, somebody should ask him why undergraduates and grads from the top most schools in India refuse to work for companies like HCL, Wipro and Infosys. I studied in Bangalore and every good computer science grad I know never even had considered working for these companies.
.. and chew with their mouths open, with the result that they sound like dogs eating.
Yeah, downmod but, I'm performing a service so y'all know; better some anonymous person on the internet than someone to your face or, that you don't know altogether.
1/5th of the worlds population. 0/5ths of the worlds killer apps. Nothing of any value has come from India or Indian nationals.Except more Indian Nationals...
India is a factory, nothing more. In this context this clown is right. No US Grad is employable as a mindless drone code monkey. We train our Grads to think on their feet, question the status quo, innovate and create. 1 Billion Indians and you will you will NEVER find one of those.
Relax man. Chill a little. No one doubts that US universities are the best and that Indian universities and graduates have quite a long way to go (to put it mildly).
If that's his complaint, he's right. I'm not going to waste my time memorizing a series of 'comprehensive checklists' in college. I doubt I know a single CS/Math student who has done more than peruse the Wikipedia article (or maybe read a book in their spare time if they're feeling particularly masochistic) on Six Sigma - and I like to think that I know many great students in the field (several who've worked for Google, Sun, NSA, Microsoft Research, etc).
There have been many times that I've said 'Damn, I wish I knew more about X.' In the last week alone X has included POMDPs, multi-dimensional interval trees, or functors. I have never, not once, wished I knew more about the management fad du jour.