August 14, 2012
I Was Worried About Apprenticeships. Now I'm Resolved.I'm worried.
No, not about whether New Girl will get another series.
I'm worried about apprenticeships. Apprenticeships for software developers, specifically.
Over the last year my focus has been shifting inexorably towards apprenticeships. Whichever angle I approach it from, I seem to always arrive at apprenticeships as the best potential answer to the question "where will the next generation of great software developers come from?"
I've been talking to employers, to aspiring apprentices (one of whom I have decided to take on as my own "apprentice" when he begins his degree studies, and I'm looking for one more, if anyone out there's interested), as well as to various august institutions of learning and professionalism, and a whole bunch of drunked conversations with my fellow practitioners.
And what I'm hearing - the general themes that are emerging - worry me.
Theme Number 1 - sing along if you know the words - has emerged from employers. We are at odds. Most practitioners I give any credence to believe that an apprenticeship of 5-7 years might be sufficient time to "grow" a proper software developer. Most employers don't think beyond 3 years. If companies were to take on apprentices, I fear they would be looking to "speed up" this process, taking many shortcuts and ultimately lowering the bar. The evidence corroborates this. I've seen a lot of companies offering inadequately short apprenticeships of a few months, maybe a year. the longest I've seen is 18 months.
Theme Number 2 is differing expectations about where the bar should be set. I, as you probably know, have little interest in cultivating anything short of excellence. Maybe if you're hiring developers out by the hour to clients who can't tell the difference, then mediocrity is worth money to you, but I've worked with those teams and I would be vehemently opposed to real apprenticeships becoming part of that scam. Let's start as we mean to go, shall we; honestly and with noble intentions. But how many employers have such high standards? Indeed, how often have you worked in a place that rewarded striving for excellence over vulgar politicial pragmatism? I am not interested in apprenticeships for greasy pole climbers. They belong in business schools.
Theme Number 3 is most troubling of all. Institutions that could support and co-ordinate apprenticeship schemes at national and international levels have given me strong hints that they're viewing apprenticeships as a source of income or as a source of greater influence. None seem all that interested in the apprentices themselves. My fear is that, seeking the largest audience possible, apprenticeships under their governance might be designed to fit the lowest common denominator.
Theme Number 4 is a common sentiment among those who fear they might lose out to apprenticeships; in particular, institutions of higher education. I make no bones about it - education for software developers isn't working. Kids are spending 3-4 years studying computing or software engineering and emerging blinking into the harsh light of the real world effectively still at square one as software developers.
This could be because universities are preparing them for a world that doesn't exist; a world where we generate code from UML models and use mathematical proofs to test our shopping cart code. Most computing graduates have never written a unit test. Most computing graduates have never refactored legacy code. Most computing graduates have never worked on a shared code base at the same time.
I've spent 12 years trying to collaborate with universities on developing courses that offer real hands-on experience of actual software development - and not just a week's worth - and it always falls down at the same hurdle. Universities teach what they teach because that's what their teachers know how to teach. Inevitably our partnerships evolve from enthusiastic lunches with departments heads who are "100% with me all the way" to frustrating meetings with senior lecturers with beards and sandals who 100% insist that the course must contain a module on Z and on compiler design.
The fact is that more than half of computer science graduates who work in software took a CS degree because they wanted to work in software. Nobody's denying that the theory's useful. And nobody's suggesting that they don't teach them the theory. But the brick wall I hit time and again is this insistence that the real world has got it wrong, and students have nothing to learn from those of us who debase ourselves by working in it. And so theory's all most computing graduates get. And, especially in software engineering, a lot of that theory is demonstrably wrong.
My ultimate goal is that apprenticeships should work. And they'll have to work in the real world, where employers are short-termists, where excellence isn't valued, where companies and institutions have their own agendas, and where the academic institutions won't help you because they can't.
In my mind, that just leaves you and me.
An employer's unlikely to commit to 5+ years during which time a considerable amount of learning's going on (though, it's going on all the time under their noses no matter how experienced their developers are - but don't tell them, or they'll assume you're not busy enough and relieve you of some of that "slack"). But I can. I know I can (sudden death or unexpected eloping to Fiji with Julia Sawalha permitting.)
What I can't do is pay someone for 5+ years.
And so we come to the compromise where our plucky apprentice gets to have her cake and eat it.
The world carries on as normal. Kids seeking careers as great software developers take their A-Levels, apply to university and do their computing degrees along with all the consultancy fodder. They study hard. They graduate. They apply for jobs as software developers. Just like they were probably going to do anyway.
The change I'm proposing happens alongside all of that. A person with considerable proven knowledge and experience working as a software developer takes them on as an apprentice.
They spend time with their apprentice every week (maybe a few hours on Skype of a weekend, maybe a face-to-face) guiding them, mentoring them and helping them to develop as fully-rounded software developers. This commitment - this bond - between the apprentice and their mentor (let's not call them "masters", eh?) will endure for years. Certainly well into the apprentice's career, with the amount of guidance needed gradually diminishing until this becomes a relationship of equals.
As well as guiding them to become better developers, we would also nuture them as professionals - gradually introducing them into the software development community and encouraging them to actively engage with their peers and do more than just write code for money.
Eventually, I would hope these apprentices will become mentors themselves, and perpetuate the relationship from one generation to the next. And, as mentors, we would be as much defined by the achievements and the conduct of our apprentices as we are by our own.
To avoid saddling them with an experience that means little to the rest of the world, I'd also seek to engage with other mentors and apprentices to build a consensus that means that my apprentice can command the same respect for her achievements from another mentor as that mentor might give to their own apprentices. Yes, I'm afraid this is going to mean that we'll need to agree on some things. That, in itself, will make for an interestingf experiment.
So this is the end of my journey of research on apprenticeships, and the beginning of my journey doing it for real.
Posted 6 years, 2 months ago on August 14, 2012