The older and more experienced I've become the more I've realized that knowing the right people is often significantly more important than your education, your credentials, your career history, and your problem solving abilities in your professional domain.
It obviously isn't always the case, but at least where I live knowing the right people is extremely important if you want to get a job in the IT/software industry. I wish the importance of networking and getting to know the right people was stressed a lot more during my education and formative years.
> but at least where I live knowing the right people is extremely important if you want to get a job in the IT/software industry.
I guess it really does depend on the place you live and the type of person you are as well. I graduated from college in the US in 2015 and had zero connections to the industry within my family or friend group. I still got an internship doing programming, and then after college managed to get my first job a few states away from home. And then after that I got a great job closer to home, and now work remotely at an awesome job.
Somehow, I got all of these job offers by cold applying through the company website. Zero referrals. Granted this was a few years ago and I know the job market has changed since then. But my point is it really does depend, every circumstance is unique.
i've seen people fail and struggle for many reasons. It's not easy out there!
aka winning the birth lottery. Who your parents are, how many resources can they expend on you, who do they know that can introduce you to other resources. The birth lottery has the biggest effect on your outcomes in life.
Your parents (and their parents before them) made choices in their own lives which influenced the person you were born as, that's what's fair. You weren't randomly assigned a body and identity at birth, you're the byproduct of your ancestors before you.
My parents and their ancestors made choices and therefore whatever they ended up on that's fair... because... ? You didn't argue the point, you only restated it.
If my mother was an addict and I was born addicted, that's fair? If someone's ancestors owned my ancestors, that's fair? If the society I'm born into values the type of person I am differently is that fair? I feel like this logic doesn't hold up very long.
Sure, and the things you can do are limited by the resources you have available. Many of the resources that make a difference (family, local community, infrastructure to support you) are decided at birth.
Not just in software. This exists in every type of profession and has forever. If you've ever met someone who just seems to fail upwards all the time, remember that it's who you know that counts.
It is taught, but not everyone can just snap their fingers and get access to the "right network". Which dulls the sheen of meritocracy and democratized opportunity.
> For individuals, this access to education promised more money, more status or both. But for governments, it also offered political stability — a way to convince people to buy into society as currently structured, by promising the potential for advancement to the underprivileged without ousting those who had wealth and power already.
were they trying to sell the promise that two objects can occupy the same space at the same time? XD
starting to realize that the more a government has to incentivize you to do something (govt loan for school, govt assistance for mortgage, govt subsidies for cars), the worse the thing is for the individual (and by extension society as a whole) in the end, with the actual long-term benefit seeming to go to an entrenched party (executives, landlords, automakers, respectively).
a good tell is that they did not already have a compelling argument to get you started on their thing, before offering the "help"
This argument is directionally equivalent to claiming that your parents making you do chores or contribute to the household is bad for you.
The reality is that college educated workers still make considerably more money, with less physical wear and tear.
The government is offering that support because was an incredibly effective lever to up skill the populace, and because people wanted it.
That may change, but at least for now it's still mostly true. Even if we both agree that the system as structured isn't ideal and can end up abusive in some forms.
> an incredibly effective lever to up skill the populace,
to up skill them into what though; artists, musicians, creatives dont seem to get any support. just the roles useful for keeping the incentivizers in place get smooth roads :/
The economy is clearly not zero sum. More educated workers are broadly speaking more productive. More productivity means more of everything to go around, with a few exceptions.
Mortgages and loans for school are good things: they make two of the biggest predictors of lifetime wealth available to a broader part of the populace. If people are stupid and overextend on a house or underwater basket weaving degree, that’s on them.
> people are stupid and overextend on a house or underwater basket weaving degree, that’s on them
it can't be on them; the bank will refuse to give you a mortgage you can't afford after going over your financials, and likewise school lenders asked (at least when i applied) what major you were going to use their money on
You absolutely can easily get a mortgage you can’t afford, or can easily get yourself into a foreseeable scenario where a previously affordable mortgage is now unaffordable.
The major requirement only came about in the OBBB in like 2025. I doubt that applied to you, but still, I’ll rephrase to “people are stupid and overextend on any degree that doesn’t have adequate financial return”.
The older I've gotten the more I realize that everyone (especially Me) is replaceable by the next cheapest option. No matter who you are, if someone cheaper comes along that can do the job "almost as good" but cheaper, you can be replaced.
It's easier said than done, but the insulation against this is to orient your career around delivering more value than the cheaper options. SWEs tend to fixate on creating work output that is aesthetically pleasing, but all that really matters for your career trajectory is the value you deliver and how much people like you.
It's not a great strategy at large companies that Harrison Bergeron every eng down to interchangeable cogs, but at smaller companies or startups it has served me well.
The older and more experienced I've become the more I've realized that knowing the right people is often significantly more important than your education, your credentials, your career history, and your problem solving abilities in your professional domain.
It obviously isn't always the case, but at least where I live knowing the right people is extremely important if you want to get a job in the IT/software industry. I wish the importance of networking and getting to know the right people was stressed a lot more during my education and formative years.
> but at least where I live knowing the right people is extremely important if you want to get a job in the IT/software industry.
I guess it really does depend on the place you live and the type of person you are as well. I graduated from college in the US in 2015 and had zero connections to the industry within my family or friend group. I still got an internship doing programming, and then after college managed to get my first job a few states away from home. And then after that I got a great job closer to home, and now work remotely at an awesome job.
Somehow, I got all of these job offers by cold applying through the company website. Zero referrals. Granted this was a few years ago and I know the job market has changed since then. But my point is it really does depend, every circumstance is unique.
i've seen people fail and struggle for many reasons. It's not easy out there!
aka winning the birth lottery. Who your parents are, how many resources can they expend on you, who do they know that can introduce you to other resources. The birth lottery has the biggest effect on your outcomes in life.
Calling it a birth lottery implies that it's unfair. It's not a lottery, it's your family that set you up.
What's fair about the family you were born into?
Your parents (and their parents before them) made choices in their own lives which influenced the person you were born as, that's what's fair. You weren't randomly assigned a body and identity at birth, you're the byproduct of your ancestors before you.
My parents and their ancestors made choices and therefore whatever they ended up on that's fair... because... ? You didn't argue the point, you only restated it.
If my mother was an addict and I was born addicted, that's fair? If someone's ancestors owned my ancestors, that's fair? If the society I'm born into values the type of person I am differently is that fair? I feel like this logic doesn't hold up very long.
Right, and that's got fuckall to do with 'fair'.
You had no determination on your consciousness or origin at birth, what are you talking about?
You can just do things
Sure, and the things you can do are limited by the resources you have available. Many of the resources that make a difference (family, local community, infrastructure to support you) are decided at birth.
Not just in software. This exists in every type of profession and has forever. If you've ever met someone who just seems to fail upwards all the time, remember that it's who you know that counts.
It is taught, but not everyone can just snap their fingers and get access to the "right network". Which dulls the sheen of meritocracy and democratized opportunity.
This is partially why autistic people cannot pull ahead at work, the meritocracy of networking is petit nepotism/cronyism by another name.
Sorry, I didn't see the word "meritocracy" in your post.
Remember, women don't get jobs and promotions because they are intrinsically bad at IT. /s
> For individuals, this access to education promised more money, more status or both. But for governments, it also offered political stability — a way to convince people to buy into society as currently structured, by promising the potential for advancement to the underprivileged without ousting those who had wealth and power already.
were they trying to sell the promise that two objects can occupy the same space at the same time? XD
starting to realize that the more a government has to incentivize you to do something (govt loan for school, govt assistance for mortgage, govt subsidies for cars), the worse the thing is for the individual (and by extension society as a whole) in the end, with the actual long-term benefit seeming to go to an entrenched party (executives, landlords, automakers, respectively).
a good tell is that they did not already have a compelling argument to get you started on their thing, before offering the "help"
This argument is directionally equivalent to claiming that your parents making you do chores or contribute to the household is bad for you.
The reality is that college educated workers still make considerably more money, with less physical wear and tear.
The government is offering that support because was an incredibly effective lever to up skill the populace, and because people wanted it.
That may change, but at least for now it's still mostly true. Even if we both agree that the system as structured isn't ideal and can end up abusive in some forms.
> an incredibly effective lever to up skill the populace,
to up skill them into what though; artists, musicians, creatives dont seem to get any support. just the roles useful for keeping the incentivizers in place get smooth roads :/
The economy is clearly not zero sum. More educated workers are broadly speaking more productive. More productivity means more of everything to go around, with a few exceptions.
Mortgages and loans for school are good things: they make two of the biggest predictors of lifetime wealth available to a broader part of the populace. If people are stupid and overextend on a house or underwater basket weaving degree, that’s on them.
> people are stupid and overextend on a house or underwater basket weaving degree, that’s on them
it can't be on them; the bank will refuse to give you a mortgage you can't afford after going over your financials, and likewise school lenders asked (at least when i applied) what major you were going to use their money on
You absolutely can easily get a mortgage you can’t afford, or can easily get yourself into a foreseeable scenario where a previously affordable mortgage is now unaffordable.
The major requirement only came about in the OBBB in like 2025. I doubt that applied to you, but still, I’ll rephrase to “people are stupid and overextend on any degree that doesn’t have adequate financial return”.
https://archive.ph/KyqhZ
Work hard, not smart .... no career, no economy, no society.
The older I've gotten the more I realize that everyone (especially Me) is replaceable by the next cheapest option. No matter who you are, if someone cheaper comes along that can do the job "almost as good" but cheaper, you can be replaced.
It's easier said than done, but the insulation against this is to orient your career around delivering more value than the cheaper options. SWEs tend to fixate on creating work output that is aesthetically pleasing, but all that really matters for your career trajectory is the value you deliver and how much people like you.
It's not a great strategy at large companies that Harrison Bergeron every eng down to interchangeable cogs, but at smaller companies or startups it has served me well.
contracts and law, the new essentials
Uhh, yeah? The alternative is businesses running as charities or uncompetitive fossils (see the stagnation of Europe for just a taste).
AI is only going to obviate universities more
Good, they are lemming factories
an unlocked gift article it needs a free account: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/11/13/world/europe/education-me...