They still teach Waterfall in schools !!!
The last few months I've interviewed some candidates for an entry-level Test Engineer position at the company where I work . All of them were fresh graduates of local universities, with outstanding Academic records. All of them had something in common though: they very seriously explained to me how they took classes in "Software Development Lifecycle" and how they worked on toy projects, first obtaining requirements, then designing, then implementing, then at the very end, if they had time, doing some manual testing. Of course, no word of automated testing, iterations, or other agile concepts. At least they used source control (CVS).
One guy in particular told me kind of proudly that he knows all about the Waterfall methodology. He said they spent a lot of time writing design documents, and since they *only* had one semester for the whole project, they almost didn't get to code at all. I couldn't help laughing at that point, and I told him that maybe that should have been a red flag concerning the validity of the Waterfall methodology. I couldn't have found a better counter-example to Waterfall myself if I tried. Almost no code at all to show at the end of the semester, but they razed half of a forest with their so-called documentation!
Of course, I tried to gently push them on the path to enlightenment, briefly explaining that there are other ways to approach software development and testing. One can always try at least, right?
Another thing that irked me was that, since they knew this is an interview for a QA position, some of the candidates thought it necessary to tell me they're busily learning WinRunner/QTP. I told them in a nice and gentle manner that I don't give a *beeeeep* about WinRunner, and that there are many Open Source tools they can leverage. One of them said that yes, that may be true, but still many companies require a knowledge of WinRunner for QA positions, so you just *need* to put it on your resume. Sigh. The battles one has to fight...
If I'm happy about one thing from this whole experience, it's that all those people left with their vocabulary enriched with a few choice words: Open Source, scripting, automated testing, continuous integration, etc. You never know what grows out of even tiny seeds you plant...
It amazes me though how out of touch many schools are with the realities of software development. If I were in charge of the CS program at a university, I'd make it a requisite for all students to work through Greg Wilson's Software Carpentry lectures at the University of Toronto. I particularly like the lectures on The Development Process and Teamware. Unfortunately, stuff like this seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
One guy in particular told me kind of proudly that he knows all about the Waterfall methodology. He said they spent a lot of time writing design documents, and since they *only* had one semester for the whole project, they almost didn't get to code at all. I couldn't help laughing at that point, and I told him that maybe that should have been a red flag concerning the validity of the Waterfall methodology. I couldn't have found a better counter-example to Waterfall myself if I tried. Almost no code at all to show at the end of the semester, but they razed half of a forest with their so-called documentation!
Of course, I tried to gently push them on the path to enlightenment, briefly explaining that there are other ways to approach software development and testing. One can always try at least, right?
Another thing that irked me was that, since they knew this is an interview for a QA position, some of the candidates thought it necessary to tell me they're busily learning WinRunner/QTP. I told them in a nice and gentle manner that I don't give a *beeeeep* about WinRunner, and that there are many Open Source tools they can leverage. One of them said that yes, that may be true, but still many companies require a knowledge of WinRunner for QA positions, so you just *need* to put it on your resume. Sigh. The battles one has to fight...
If I'm happy about one thing from this whole experience, it's that all those people left with their vocabulary enriched with a few choice words: Open Source, scripting, automated testing, continuous integration, etc. You never know what grows out of even tiny seeds you plant...
It amazes me though how out of touch many schools are with the realities of software development. If I were in charge of the CS program at a university, I'd make it a requisite for all students to work through Greg Wilson's Software Carpentry lectures at the University of Toronto. I particularly like the lectures on The Development Process and Teamware. Unfortunately, stuff like this seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
No comments:
Post a Comment