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!
Which is still a compounding of the luck and privilege someone had as a teenager.
Getting into an "elite" university is more about going to the right high school and having parents, teachers and counselors who know how to play the game than it is about hard work or intelligence.
Getting an entry level job at an "elite" company is more about graduating from an "elite" university than what you learned during those 4 years or your aptitude for the work.
Getting hired for more senior roles, getting funding for your startup, etc are easier if your first jobs were at "elite" employers.
Where your parents sent you to school when you were 14 ends up being a lifelong advantage/disadvantage that compounds at every step of life. A kid from a lower income, rural flyover state has to work 100x as hard as kid from Palo Alto or Greenwich to end up at the same place in society at age 40.
Yes, but why stop with "the luck and privilege someone had as a teenager"? Why not admit that the position of one's parents is based on how hard they worked, their innate abilities, and the position of their own parents?
At the end of the day, it's a mix of luck, hard work, and skill of people in a family line. Collapsing it all into "luck and privilege" is a bit of an oversimplification, and doesn't give credit where it is due.
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.
This is why I like the way things are here in Norway. Sure it's still a huge advantage to be born into a wealthy family or just a good one, but at least no matter who you are you can get an education and healthcare, dental etc.
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.
This argument is a tough road to hoe. The problem is that there needs to be symmetry. If one deserve the fruits of their ancestors' good works, then they also deserve the yoke of their ancestors' cruelty or exploitation.
I tend to believe that a child is not born tainted by the sins of their ancestors, so I cannot believe that a child is born meriting the success of their ancestors.
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.
If you really think these factors fix into place what someone is capable of, well why does anyone try at all then? Wouldn't we not see outliers? Isn't the attitude way too defeatist?
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.
You are not wrong, but I think you're missing the critical point. The issue is that study hard used to be a fruitful option for motivated youngsters. You could go from an enthusiastic kid, to a bright young adult mentored by an experienced older adult, to an older experienced adult guiding younger people. You show initiative and with that start building both your knowledge and network. Of course it never guaranteed success but the chances were very much in your favour.
And it goes without saying that someone could get further ahead by networking while technically being mediocre at best. It goes without saying that luck is a very strong element in success and a lot of it boils down to being in the right place the right time.
But you could have a viable path to success by just focusing hard on your technical skills as long as you also cared enough to keep your soft skills in a reasonable level. Now those same hard skills are rapidly being devalued and the general advice that carried us through generations, no longer applies.
I have no idea what to advice someone just going into university, there are no guarantees anymore, not even in the "statistically significant" way
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 :/
But that's a relatively small percentage of the majors in college...
Even if we discount the entire "liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities" degree category, that's under half of the degrees in the US.
And while that category includes artists, musicians, and creatives, it also includes foreign language/linguistics, psychology, political science, economics, environmental studies, biology/biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics, communications, etc...
And that's before you get into more technical programs, like engineering programs (of a huge variety), law/legal, education, health and health professionals, business, etc...
Like... just go skim the damn major list of a real school. The two major public schools in my state:
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!
> knowing the right people is often significantly more important than your education, your credentials, your career history,
For most people, "knowing the right people" is based on the network from their schooling and jobs.
Which is still a compounding of the luck and privilege someone had as a teenager.
Getting into an "elite" university is more about going to the right high school and having parents, teachers and counselors who know how to play the game than it is about hard work or intelligence.
Getting an entry level job at an "elite" company is more about graduating from an "elite" university than what you learned during those 4 years or your aptitude for the work.
Getting hired for more senior roles, getting funding for your startup, etc are easier if your first jobs were at "elite" employers.
Where your parents sent you to school when you were 14 ends up being a lifelong advantage/disadvantage that compounds at every step of life. A kid from a lower income, rural flyover state has to work 100x as hard as kid from Palo Alto or Greenwich to end up at the same place in society at age 40.
Yes, but why stop with "the luck and privilege someone had as a teenager"? Why not admit that the position of one's parents is based on how hard they worked, their innate abilities, and the position of their own parents?
At the end of the day, it's a mix of luck, hard work, and skill of people in a family line. Collapsing it all into "luck and privilege" is a bit of an oversimplification, and doesn't give credit where it is due.
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.
This is why I like the way things are here in Norway. Sure it's still a huge advantage to be born into a wealthy family or just a good one, but at least no matter who you are you can get an education and healthcare, dental etc.
I don't mind paying a bit more taxes for that.
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.
This argument is a tough road to hoe. The problem is that there needs to be symmetry. If one deserve the fruits of their ancestors' good works, then they also deserve the yoke of their ancestors' cruelty or exploitation.
I tend to believe that a child is not born tainted by the sins of their ancestors, so I cannot believe that a child is born meriting the success of their ancestors.
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.
If you really think these factors fix into place what someone is capable of, well why does anyone try at all then? Wouldn't we not see outliers? Isn't the attitude way too defeatist?
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.
You are not wrong, but I think you're missing the critical point. The issue is that study hard used to be a fruitful option for motivated youngsters. You could go from an enthusiastic kid, to a bright young adult mentored by an experienced older adult, to an older experienced adult guiding younger people. You show initiative and with that start building both your knowledge and network. Of course it never guaranteed success but the chances were very much in your favour.
And it goes without saying that someone could get further ahead by networking while technically being mediocre at best. It goes without saying that luck is a very strong element in success and a lot of it boils down to being in the right place the right time.
But you could have a viable path to success by just focusing hard on your technical skills as long as you also cared enough to keep your soft skills in a reasonable level. Now those same hard skills are rapidly being devalued and the general advice that carried us through generations, no longer applies.
I have no idea what to advice someone just going into university, there are no guarantees anymore, not even in the "statistically significant" way
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.
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
This is partially why autistic people cannot pull ahead at work, the meritocracy of networking is petit nepotism/cronyism by another name.
https://archive.ph/KyqhZ
> 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 :/
But that's a relatively small percentage of the majors in college...
Even if we discount the entire "liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities" degree category, that's under half of the degrees in the US.
And while that category includes artists, musicians, and creatives, it also includes foreign language/linguistics, psychology, political science, economics, environmental studies, biology/biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics, communications, etc...
And that's before you get into more technical programs, like engineering programs (of a huge variety), law/legal, education, health and health professionals, business, etc...
Like... just go skim the damn major list of a real school. The two major public schools in my state:
https://www.gatech.edu/academics/all-degree-programs
https://career.uga.edu/uploads/documents/UGAMajorsChecklist....
Basically - any skilled profession. That's what it skills folks into.
Again - can you fuck up going to college? Sure can. Is it a bad idea in general? No.
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.
That’s the bitter lesson mass immigration and outsourcing have taught us. Both phenomenons that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
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).
Work hard, not smart .... no career, no economy, no society.
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...