The White House vows to let programmers dress informally(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
The White House vows to let programmers dress informally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/20/the-white-house-vows-to-let-programmers-dress-like-ones-do/
95 comments
The degree is, in the face of people's stunning inability to judge others, a prima facie way to decide whether a person is capable of setting a long term goal and seeing it through to completion.
It can, for less savory reasons, be used to pre-screen people who fit in demographics that do not have high graduation rates.
It can, for less savory reasons, be used to pre-screen people who fit in demographics that do not have high graduation rates.
All I can say is that I didn't 'set a long term goal' going into college. I just did what I was told and eventually picked a major, riding it out as the path of least resistance to graduation. Let me put it this way: given my cultural upbringing and inset fears at the time, it would have been harder to drop out of school than to stay in school. Pretty sure that holds for many college graduates.
I'm not against screening for college grads as a policy, though I think that it could limit you from finding amazing underrated candidates. I just think that popular argument about 'seeing out a long term goal' is simply not true a lot of the time, though I benefit a lot from it.
I'm not against screening for college grads as a policy, though I think that it could limit you from finding amazing underrated candidates. I just think that popular argument about 'seeing out a long term goal' is simply not true a lot of the time, though I benefit a lot from it.
You did, though. Whether or not you completed that goal because "it was easier to complete it than to not complete it because of my cultural upbringing" or because you had to push yourself and struggle every day doesn't really matter all that much to a company who wants to hire you. If you're going to complete a project to avoid a sense of guilt about not completing it rather than to achieve a sense of pride for completing it, it's all the same to your employer.
If you're preprogrammed for success by your parents and it comes naturally, that doesn't make success illegitimate. Just count your blessings.
If you're preprogrammed for success by your parents and it comes naturally, that doesn't make success illegitimate. Just count your blessings.
It may be prima facie, but it's also completely subjective. There are a plethora of reasons a person might not complete a degree that have nothing to do with his ability to commit, complete long term goals, or anything else. Using a degree in such a manner is an indicator to me that the person doing it is either incapable of engaging in critical thinking, or else is too lazy or indifferent to do so on this matter. In that regard, a person using such a filter is itself a (negative) filter, for me, with regard to whether I want to work with them.
I agree. I'm just repeating, and adding a little commentary to what I get told whenever I ask why any particular position requires a degree.
Want to be a tech writer? Samples aren't good enough. Gotta have a degree - any degree. But you have to have a degree.
So who ever made that rule had a reason at the time: expediency, prejudice, ignorance. But it's a widespread practice, and describing it does equate with condoning it.
Want to be a tech writer? Samples aren't good enough. Gotta have a degree - any degree. But you have to have a degree.
So who ever made that rule had a reason at the time: expediency, prejudice, ignorance. But it's a widespread practice, and describing it does equate with condoning it.
[deleted]
Who needs someone who can "see a long term goal to completion"?
What's the turnover rate in Silicon valley, or for that of high-skilled IT design and ops? I'd rather have a savant of a coder/engineer for 18 months than a mediocrity for 36.
What's the turnover rate in Silicon valley, or for that of high-skilled IT design and ops? I'd rather have a savant of a coder/engineer for 18 months than a mediocrity for 36.
The question isn't whether they will hire them. They most definitely would. The question is will they pay them equally. Government pay standards are typically based on degree. At heavily tech oriented government organizations they have different pay scales for people with CS/Math/EE degrees than people w/o them.
Also having worked in government before, not the White House, they didn't expect the engineers to wear suits. Shorts and sandals were acceptable.
Also having worked in government before, not the White House, they didn't expect the engineers to wear suits. Shorts and sandals were acceptable.
Getting one degree in engineering increases the likelihood that the person will be higher than average in her software engineering skills. When you have 1000s of applicants and your approach to everything is fairly conservative compared to the private sector, you won't go out on a limb and hire a dropout unless that dropout has a stellar portfolio of some extraordinary work. And it's the dropout's responsibility to get that work noticed in the marketplace.
Usually for software engineers, you are not getting 1000s of applicants unless you have 1000s of positions. It's folly to use cheap filters such as a degree at that point. Especially if your an unattractive employer such as the government.
I know you re-stated it, but I disagree with the first statement. I believe there is a correlation. The strength of the correlation can be debated, but in my experience, a degree is a positive signal when hiring someone to be part of a software engineering team.
Note that I didn't just say software engineer. In my book, technical skills are only part of the equation, but the ability to communicate well, operate well within a team, etc. are also very important and in my experience, going to school helps prepare people for this kind of work.
In the end, a degree or lack thereof only becomes a significant signal if there isn't enough real-world experience on the resume.
Note that I didn't just say software engineer. In my book, technical skills are only part of the equation, but the ability to communicate well, operate well within a team, etc. are also very important and in my experience, going to school helps prepare people for this kind of work.
In the end, a degree or lack thereof only becomes a significant signal if there isn't enough real-world experience on the resume.
I disagree with you. I also disagree that you learn social skills in college, you learn social skills in grade school. You don't learn social skills in college, by that stage you either have them or don't.
You learn technical skills in college, yes, but I disagree that hiring a software engineer team purely based on having a CS degree will result in the best hires.
I would hire entirely based on real world experience. If you have none, I don't care if you don't have a degree too me you are about as useful as someone applying with experience as an accountant.
If you sit in school and then go home and spend the rest of the night reading a text book and don't code any open source projects or make something for your portfolio, you really shouldn't be part of a software team. You should either be in a lab somewhere or a teacher, as you are only interested in learning about the topic, not applying it. Anyone who is actually interested in the topic will come out of school with experience in something (internship, hobby, etc).
You learn technical skills in college, yes, but I disagree that hiring a software engineer team purely based on having a CS degree will result in the best hires.
I would hire entirely based on real world experience. If you have none, I don't care if you don't have a degree too me you are about as useful as someone applying with experience as an accountant.
If you sit in school and then go home and spend the rest of the night reading a text book and don't code any open source projects or make something for your portfolio, you really shouldn't be part of a software team. You should either be in a lab somewhere or a teacher, as you are only interested in learning about the topic, not applying it. Anyone who is actually interested in the topic will come out of school with experience in something (internship, hobby, etc).
You disagree with me because you completely misinterpreted what I wrote. Potentially I think that the world 'correlation' is being misunderstood here. I implied nothing about the strength of the correlation. I only said I believe it to be a positive one.
I am not talking about "social skills" in terms of hello, please, thank you, etc.. I am talking about the soft skills of working in a team with other technical people to achieve a common goal, working under tight timelines, with pressure, and thriving under such situations. This is not an innate skill that you learn at a young age. I'm nearing my mid-thirties and still coming across new team dynamics.
By no means did I say that a degree means someone will perform well in such a situation, but in the absence of all other information, I consider a degree a positive signal in this regard.
Put another way, you are chosen to hire an engineer to work on your team. I give you two "buckets" filled with millions of people from which you can randomly select one person to join your team. You know nothing about these people except that in Bucket 1, everyone has a CS degree and in bucket 2, no one does. You know nothing else.
Which bucket do you pick from?
p.s. statments like this "If you sit in school and then go home and spend the rest of the night reading a text book and don't code any open source projects or make something for your portfolio" make it sound like you didn't go through the degree experience, because that sounds nothing like what most undergraduate-level educations are like. Sure there is theory, but it's a lot more hands-on than you're making it sound.
I am not talking about "social skills" in terms of hello, please, thank you, etc.. I am talking about the soft skills of working in a team with other technical people to achieve a common goal, working under tight timelines, with pressure, and thriving under such situations. This is not an innate skill that you learn at a young age. I'm nearing my mid-thirties and still coming across new team dynamics.
By no means did I say that a degree means someone will perform well in such a situation, but in the absence of all other information, I consider a degree a positive signal in this regard.
Put another way, you are chosen to hire an engineer to work on your team. I give you two "buckets" filled with millions of people from which you can randomly select one person to join your team. You know nothing about these people except that in Bucket 1, everyone has a CS degree and in bucket 2, no one does. You know nothing else.
Which bucket do you pick from?
p.s. statments like this "If you sit in school and then go home and spend the rest of the night reading a text book and don't code any open source projects or make something for your portfolio" make it sound like you didn't go through the degree experience, because that sounds nothing like what most undergraduate-level educations are like. Sure there is theory, but it's a lot more hands-on than you're making it sound.
Social skills aren't binary. You learn them before grade school, in grade school, in college, and beyond college.
I agree with you that he's overstating the case a bit. There is obviously a correlation between a degree in CS and good Engineers, but it's important to realize that there are great Engineers who don't have one as well. I think he's making the argument that the sign of a healthy organization is an openness to looking for talent in unlikely places. If that's his point, then I think we agree.
I also agree. It's the reason that I added that real-world experience trumps any degree issues.
>> going to school helps prepare people for this kind of work
Is there some specific teamwork that goes on in a CS degree? Can't teamwork skills be picked up in the previous 14 years of schooling?
Is there some specific teamwork that goes on in a CS degree? Can't teamwork skills be picked up in the previous 14 years of schooling?
I think it's more so the context of the teamwork.
I worked on group geography project in 12th grade. Did I gain skills that would help me be a productive member of a software development team? Maybe a little, but we mostly goofed off and begrudgingly did enough to pass. My senior capstone in college on the other hand definitely did help me gain some of those skills.
I worked on group geography project in 12th grade. Did I gain skills that would help me be a productive member of a software development team? Maybe a little, but we mostly goofed off and begrudgingly did enough to pass. My senior capstone in college on the other hand definitely did help me gain some of those skills.
I did Computer Engineering, but I assume they're similar. I think most post-secondary educations are filled with a lot of team-based projects (RTOS was a memorable one from my past). I certainly had team projects in high school but of course they weren't at the same technical level, with the same caliber of people.
It's not the only way to get that experience though. As I mentioned, if someone has several years of real-world experience working in industry, with positive recommendations to back up that they're good at what they do, then degree or no degree becomes more of a moot point.
It's the cases when there is not enough work experience, or diversity of experience, to paint a full picture, that one might factor in the presence of a degree.
It's not the only way to get that experience though. As I mentioned, if someone has several years of real-world experience working in industry, with positive recommendations to back up that they're good at what they do, then degree or no degree becomes more of a moot point.
It's the cases when there is not enough work experience, or diversity of experience, to paint a full picture, that one might factor in the presence of a degree.
kohanz is not saying that college is the only way someone can learn teamwork, or that college is a prerequisite to teamwork skills, but merely that college is positively correlated to such skills.
You get a degree on your own merits at passing exams its not a team thing.
Wasn't the case for me. We had several courses that were team efforts, and the typical method was to determine a shared team score, and then let individual scores deviate by a small margin (+- 2/20 at most) from that, based on the professor's appreciation of your individual contribution in the team.
Exams made up part of our marks, but projects factored in as well. One could certainly achieve a passing grade while being a terrible team-player, but it generally was not a successful strategy.
I'm currently getting a software engineering degree and I got multiple class where we had 50% of graded teamwork and you needed to pass them to be able to pass the class. Even if you got 100% in your exam, if you failed your teamwork, then you fail the class.
That wasn't the case in my CS undergrad.
As a CS student I took roughly 50% CS courses/50% Software Engineering courses. SE is a much rarer degree, I think. At least at my alma mater SE courses were exclusively team based - teams of 3-5 for every course from start to finish - whereas I'd have difficulty recalling a single CS course that was team based. If my SE courses were representative, I would think a SE degree would be a very positive signal for working in teams. CS I'm not so sure, the strength of CS was the actual science/math/theory.
Many smart guys have a degree but they're not smart because of the degree, it's just that they were smart to begin with but decided to finish their degree for one reason while other smart people decided otherwise for another reason.
Having a degree doesn't make a good engineer or a programmer: it just doesn't prevent that either.
Having a degree doesn't make a good engineer or a programmer: it just doesn't prevent that either.
I would say there is a correlation, which is not to say it is causation.
I'd venture to say that going to school and getting a degree in CS would increase the likelihood of one becoming a better engineer. That is not to say everybody that has a degree is a great engineer or the other way around.
So, in a sense, it makes sense to take that into consideration when hiring someone, but much like everything else in an interview process, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'd venture to say that going to school and getting a degree in CS would increase the likelihood of one becoming a better engineer. That is not to say everybody that has a degree is a great engineer or the other way around.
So, in a sense, it makes sense to take that into consideration when hiring someone, but much like everything else in an interview process, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
> There doesn't seem to be a correlation between "great engineer" and "got a BS in CS" -- let me re-state that; you can be a great engineer without the paper, or a lousy one with the degree.
What you said after "let me re-state that" is not a restatement. The first statement (there doesn't seem to be a correlation) is much stronger.
What you said after "let me re-state that" is not a restatement. The first statement (there doesn't seem to be a correlation) is much stronger.
They said "great" not average ones who do 8 hours a day cut and pasting into the latest a greatest trendy framework or language with out understanding the real problem
I agree with the weaker proposition that the correlation between "having a degree" and quality of engineering is not always clear, and may not be the best (or even most important) factor in determining whether to hire.
However, in my experience generally people who obtain a college degree are more well-rounded than people who don't. A consequence of this is that such people, again in general, tend to be able to think about problems in a more mature, broader, and deeper sense than those who don't "finish" (or complete most of) a degree.
This has nothing to do with whether the software industry is a meritocracy or not, or whether a dress code has anything to do with whether it's a meritocracy or not. My opinion: almost no job in this industry--or any other--is completely, or even mostly, meritocratic.
However, in my experience generally people who obtain a college degree are more well-rounded than people who don't. A consequence of this is that such people, again in general, tend to be able to think about problems in a more mature, broader, and deeper sense than those who don't "finish" (or complete most of) a degree.
This has nothing to do with whether the software industry is a meritocracy or not, or whether a dress code has anything to do with whether it's a meritocracy or not. My opinion: almost no job in this industry--or any other--is completely, or even mostly, meritocratic.
A lot of government IT positions will allow you to substitute experience for a degree (according to USAjobs.gov).
I do agree though, although I'd say it's very positive thing going to a place like MIT, it really doesn't impact my decisions for hiring. I'd rather hear about your real story. When did you find out you wanted to code? How did you truly learn? What hurdles did you overcome? What kind of things have you actually done? Even college grads are expected to have some kind of experiences that relate to the job.
I do agree though, although I'd say it's very positive thing going to a place like MIT, it really doesn't impact my decisions for hiring. I'd rather hear about your real story. When did you find out you wanted to code? How did you truly learn? What hurdles did you overcome? What kind of things have you actually done? Even college grads are expected to have some kind of experiences that relate to the job.
I've met many self-taught programmers, and they were great to work with. Some were extremely productive and knew the inside and outside of certain languages and libraries. However, they still wrote code that nested 5 loops, or put data in arrays when they needed a linked list, or invented complex algorithms to solve something that a simple graph would do, or didn't understand the basics of linear algebra, number theory, and statistics. Degrees in CS can be extremely valuable.
But you could say exactly the same thing about many programmers who do have CS degrees too, right?
I don't know. If you have a CS degree, you will at least have passing familiarity with these things. Seeing them in practice or discussing them will at least stimulate some old memory synapses. Whereas, in contrast, someone without a CS degree usually would have to start at point zero.
I guess it depends on the sub-specialty of programming though.
I guess it depends on the sub-specialty of programming though.
All this statement proves is that you don't know what a "great engineer" looks like. Do you think any of the kernel developers at Microsoft, Apple, or Google don't have hardcore degrees? They all do, and there's a reason for it.
In addition, it's hilarious that you point this out specifically for a job at the White House. There are so many non-engineering factors that go into succeeding at such a job, most of which are learned in college.
In summary, while I would never make such a degree an absolute requirement, I would be shocked to find someone who could work at the US Digital Service who doesn't have a college degree.
In addition, it's hilarious that you point this out specifically for a job at the White House. There are so many non-engineering factors that go into succeeding at such a job, most of which are learned in college.
In summary, while I would never make such a degree an absolute requirement, I would be shocked to find someone who could work at the US Digital Service who doesn't have a college degree.
Hah, no. Hardcore kernel engineer here, formerly of Google, you're flat out incorrect.
This reminds me of the attitude of a former employer. It was a small tech company, the CEO/owner was an old school business type. Always well groomed, nice suits, the car, etc.
He often had visitors come in to the office to see him, and he'd give a short tour on the way to his office. He'd stop by the sales area and introduce whoever was around and then he'd bring the visitor to the entry of the open office style room that had 4 of us software developers and say something like "And this is the bigger room, with a couple programmers" in such a way that it was as if he was showing off exotic pets or automated machinery. As if we were literally sitting there punching in the correct sequence of buttons in order to program a VCR.
"Programmers" are low status, and now when we are at the White House it'll be easier to tell who we are.
He often had visitors come in to the office to see him, and he'd give a short tour on the way to his office. He'd stop by the sales area and introduce whoever was around and then he'd bring the visitor to the entry of the open office style room that had 4 of us software developers and say something like "And this is the bigger room, with a couple programmers" in such a way that it was as if he was showing off exotic pets or automated machinery. As if we were literally sitting there punching in the correct sequence of buttons in order to program a VCR.
"Programmers" are low status, and now when we are at the White House it'll be easier to tell who we are.
I think in some ways programmers have brought this low status upon ourselves. If you want to be taken seriously in a business setting, like it or not how you dress affects your credibility. When a coder complains that the executives at the company are not taking their ideas seriously, maybe they should switch out of the t-shirt that says "talk nerdy to me" on the front. Dressing professionally isn't just about corporate conformity, it also signals that you take your job seriously.
I find this obsession with avoiding suits to be so tiresome. It's as though programmers are small children who get treats (like dressing down) in exchange for not being treated like real professionals.
It's a suit. It's simple. It's not hard to wear. It's not uncomfortable. Being afraid of wearing suits makes programmers look petty, juvenile, and unprofessional.
Yes, it doesn't have direct practical value, but human behaviour and codes of conduct are full of things with minimal practical value that we still go along with. Culture is complex.
It's a suit. It's simple. It's not hard to wear. It's not uncomfortable. Being afraid of wearing suits makes programmers look petty, juvenile, and unprofessional.
Yes, it doesn't have direct practical value, but human behaviour and codes of conduct are full of things with minimal practical value that we still go along with. Culture is complex.
Agreed. I have worked in academia as well as the private sector (banking amongst others). PHD's really amuse me how they think they are getting some sort of freedom, by working long hours for crap wages, but not needing to wear a shirt and tie and not needing to be in by 9.
In my opinion, techies make as much of a big deal of outfits as do the finance/business guys. They just do it by shouting about how much they are against dress codes.
In my last gig we had to wear the whole tie getup even though we're crawling under desks or setting up servers. The funny thing is when they had investors and such come through the building they didn't let us downstairs - we had to stay hidden. What the heck was the tie for then.
I even got reprimanded by my manager's manager because my dress shoes did not match my dress pants.
I even got reprimanded by my manager's manager because my dress shoes did not match my dress pants.
Why would you want to work for an employer whose board of directors, Congress, regularly uses employees as hostages when they threaten to shut the government down?
I'd wear a clown suit if the work was steady, interesting and well paid.
I'd wear a clown suit if the work was steady, interesting and well paid.
I hate to have to dress up just because people won't take you seriously if you don't. To me this is just a very old preconception created by society long time ago (when perhaps it made sense) and people keep doing it apparently for no clear reason.
I love when I see CEO/CTO's dressing whatever they like (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg, Werner Vogels, etc.).
The only time I can accept this "dress up" thing with no contest is when you go to meet someone and you want to be respectful to this person, so you dress better to show respect/appreciation... like he did for the President. Now, the dress up for the sake of dressing up because this gives you status and then people will treat you better, I can't stand it.
I love when I see CEO/CTO's dressing whatever they like (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg, Werner Vogels, etc.).
The only time I can accept this "dress up" thing with no contest is when you go to meet someone and you want to be respectful to this person, so you dress better to show respect/appreciation... like he did for the President. Now, the dress up for the sake of dressing up because this gives you status and then people will treat you better, I can't stand it.
The thing is, its all very well saying that people shouldn't judge based on what we wear, but like it or not some people do. Its just a bit dumb and teenager like to not accept that and put a shirt on if its going to give you better options in an interview or whatever.
I'm the only one that noticed that the guy get's a Blackberry for the job?
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
That's common in government work. It's usually for the purpose of emailing/texting at work and nothing else.
I know half a dozen people who have a separate work phone they turn off when they get home.
I know half a dozen people who have a separate work phone they turn off when they get home.
Government procurement moves slooooowly, and BlackBerry has already been through the exhaustive process of security vetting that's required for gear that's going to be used in sensitive locations like the White House. I'm sure there's Apple and Android gear making its way through that process now, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't all the way through yet.
Security, innit.
maybe it can be used as a cautionary tale. inspiration to build for the future, not the past.
(edit: wow, this is what becomes my first down voted comment on hn?! apologies to the blackberry crowd I offended)
(edit: wow, this is what becomes my first down voted comment on hn?! apologies to the blackberry crowd I offended)
Seems like he wore a comically wrinkly shirt, just for the video. Kind of ruins the sentiment. Some how.
Why would they vow to do it, and not just do it? Ok, it's just the title, but still.
The title is taken from the url (which is fine, and better than the HTML doc title in this case), but it's ungrammatical. What's a minimal fix? I can't think of one.
Edit: Ok, we changed it from "The White House vows to let programmers dress like ones do".
Edit: Ok, we changed it from "The White House vows to let programmers dress like ones do".
This is a clear power play and is playing by the same rules as those that are wearing suits. What dressing like that is saying is, no I don't have to wear the uniform of this culture because I am in a position of informal power.
The New Yorker did a piece on that same issue last year: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-power-of-the-...
At the end of the day I am torn on this issue. The idea that competence counts makes sense and that is all that should be judged. However there is something to be said about shared cultural displays and how they fit into a larger team effort. The modern suit is a pretty benign display in the larger scheme of things. Especially if you look at the rumpled messes that check the "suit" block, roaming around government agencies.
All that said, I fucking despise having to wear a suit.
The New Yorker did a piece on that same issue last year: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-power-of-the-...
At the end of the day I am torn on this issue. The idea that competence counts makes sense and that is all that should be judged. However there is something to be said about shared cultural displays and how they fit into a larger team effort. The modern suit is a pretty benign display in the larger scheme of things. Especially if you look at the rumpled messes that check the "suit" block, roaming around government agencies.
All that said, I fucking despise having to wear a suit.
Yeah, I'm of two minds on it too. On the one hand, I'm all for letting people be comfortable at work. On the other hand, it's the fucking White House we're talking about here, not a paper company in Scranton. If there is a single office in the world where the people at least make an attempt to act like grown-ups, I'd want it to be that one, you know?
> On the other hand, it's the fucking White House we're talking about here, not a paper company in Scranton. If there is a single office in the world where the people at least make an attempt to act like grown-ups, I'd want it to be that one, you know?
I kind of take exception to the idea that "act like grown-ups" means "prefer engaging in ritual displays of conformance to getting real work done". I mean, I associate the former more with acting like exceptionally image-conscious high-school students rather than acting like grownups.
That's not to say that dress rules can't have something to do with acting like grownups; even if it was miguided, the one place I worked that prohibited technical staff from wearing ties on the basis of published research showing that wearing ties reduced the output of technical workers had a grown-up reason.
I kind of take exception to the idea that "act like grown-ups" means "prefer engaging in ritual displays of conformance to getting real work done". I mean, I associate the former more with acting like exceptionally image-conscious high-school students rather than acting like grownups.
That's not to say that dress rules can't have something to do with acting like grownups; even if it was miguided, the one place I worked that prohibited technical staff from wearing ties on the basis of published research showing that wearing ties reduced the output of technical workers had a grown-up reason.
The idea is that it demonstrates respect for the institution: "I took the extra trouble to dress up fancy to come here." The definitions of "fancy" and "formal" in institutional settings change over time, but they change more slowly there than they do in the culture at large. So it's not uncommon to see people wearing clothes that the general culture would consider outmoded or obsolete in these contexts.
Here's an example. The top hat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_hat) was a standard part of formal dress in the latter part of the 19th century, but it had mostly fallen out of everyday use by the mid-1910s. Diplomats and statesmen kept on wearing them at official occasions, though, all the way into the 1950s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_hat#20th_century).
Why? Because they had become part of the definition of "what you wear to an occasion of state." That type of distinction, once reached, takes a long time to fall away; no diplomat wants to be the first person to cause offense by ditching the top hat. So it had to be dead in the everyday culture for decades before leaders felt safe enough to stop wearing it.
Suits are probably on a similar trajectory: once an item of everyday wear; now mostly a way to signal that you're on your way to a Serious Event (like a wedding or funeral or meeting with a head of state); eventually just something people wear to Serious Events only because that's what you wear to Serious Events; then finally (long after they became obsolete everywhere else) left behind even for that.
Here's an example. The top hat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_hat) was a standard part of formal dress in the latter part of the 19th century, but it had mostly fallen out of everyday use by the mid-1910s. Diplomats and statesmen kept on wearing them at official occasions, though, all the way into the 1950s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_hat#20th_century).
Why? Because they had become part of the definition of "what you wear to an occasion of state." That type of distinction, once reached, takes a long time to fall away; no diplomat wants to be the first person to cause offense by ditching the top hat. So it had to be dead in the everyday culture for decades before leaders felt safe enough to stop wearing it.
Suits are probably on a similar trajectory: once an item of everyday wear; now mostly a way to signal that you're on your way to a Serious Event (like a wedding or funeral or meeting with a head of state); eventually just something people wear to Serious Events only because that's what you wear to Serious Events; then finally (long after they became obsolete everywhere else) left behind even for that.
> The idea is that it demonstrates respect for the institution:
You know what grown-ups see as demonstrating respect for an institution? Devoting a substantial portion of your waking hours to performing quality work on behalf of the institution.
If you prefer ritual displays of conformance as a mark of respect, that's a choice with consequences, and either not recognizing or preferring those consequences is not a sign of being "grown-up".
You know what grown-ups see as demonstrating respect for an institution? Devoting a substantial portion of your waking hours to performing quality work on behalf of the institution.
If you prefer ritual displays of conformance as a mark of respect, that's a choice with consequences, and either not recognizing or preferring those consequences is not a sign of being "grown-up".
This seems simplistic. Ritual is an incredibly important part of human life.
I say this as a non-conformist in many areas. But I conform in many that bring me no pleasure. For instance, I don't meet clients in shorts or pajamas, though either would be more comfortable.
What's the difference between that rule and wearing a suit at the White House?
Respect doesn't have to be an exclusive either/or between ritual and quality work.
I say this as a non-conformist in many areas. But I conform in many that bring me no pleasure. For instance, I don't meet clients in shorts or pajamas, though either would be more comfortable.
What's the difference between that rule and wearing a suit at the White House?
Respect doesn't have to be an exclusive either/or between ritual and quality work.
And either way, if the "software engineering dress code" becomes shorts and sandals and you'd be looked down on for wearing a shirt and tie, well, you're still a conformist. You're just selling out to a different rule book.
I was a non-conformist in high school and much of my undergrad, but you'd probably never have known it, as I wore things which were comfortable (and happened to be inoffensive) rather than going out of my way to dress in the same uncomfortable things that all the other "non-conformists" wore to show society they didn't care, man.
I was a non-conformist in high school and much of my undergrad, but you'd probably never have known it, as I wore things which were comfortable (and happened to be inoffensive) rather than going out of my way to dress in the same uncomfortable things that all the other "non-conformists" wore to show society they didn't care, man.
You know that it can demonstrate respect for an institution that you're outside of, as well? Good luck testifying in court wearing sweat pants and a tank top.
How about when you're actually in the White House to meet the president you wear a suit, but when you're at your desk in some other building (aka: not the WH) you don't. That was our policy last year on the hc.gov turn-around: Bring a suit (just in case!), but don't plan on wearing it everyday.
Good idea. It tracks with my experience working on the Hill years ago, too -- business casual (maybe with a tie) was fine in the House & Senate office buildings, but if you were going to the Capitol, you put on a suit.
True story: I worked for a while in the office of a Midwestern Senator who felt very strongly about this rule. He'd actually fired people in the past over it, apparently. But at one point my boss (his communications director) needed someone to help with a press conference he was holding in the Capitol, and I, who was not wearing a suit, was the only one available. My boss decided I would do because the Senator wasn't going to be at this particular press conference, so he'd never know. So off we go to the Capitol.
Then, halfway through the press conference, the Senator ambles into the room, unannounced and unexpected. My boss' faces turns white as he realizes that if the Senator realizes I'm from his office -- I was too far down the totem pole for him to recognize me immediately, thank God -- we're both screwed. So to protect us both, he does the only thing he can do: he physically grabs me, pushes me into a wiring closet, and closes the door.
This was surprising, but at least I was smart enough to stay in there and keep quiet until he opened the door and let me know the coast was clear...
True story: I worked for a while in the office of a Midwestern Senator who felt very strongly about this rule. He'd actually fired people in the past over it, apparently. But at one point my boss (his communications director) needed someone to help with a press conference he was holding in the Capitol, and I, who was not wearing a suit, was the only one available. My boss decided I would do because the Senator wasn't going to be at this particular press conference, so he'd never know. So off we go to the Capitol.
Then, halfway through the press conference, the Senator ambles into the room, unannounced and unexpected. My boss' faces turns white as he realizes that if the Senator realizes I'm from his office -- I was too far down the totem pole for him to recognize me immediately, thank God -- we're both screwed. So to protect us both, he does the only thing he can do: he physically grabs me, pushes me into a wiring closet, and closes the door.
This was surprising, but at least I was smart enough to stay in there and keep quiet until he opened the door and let me know the coast was clear...
That seems like a reasonable compromise. Where are the 18F and US Digital Service offices? I'd imagine you could be more low-key at some nondescript office park in Bethesda versus working in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building or some other all-suits federal agency HQ in the center of the city.
18F is at GSA headquarters (1800 F St NW); USDS is across the street from the White House, next to the White House Conference Center on Lafayette Square. GSA has a very reasonable informal dress code. Khakis and button down shirt would not at all be out of place; shorts would stand out.
A big part of this job is interfacing with other government agencies, which means you're going to visit their offices.
A big part of this job is interfacing with other government agencies, which means you're going to visit their offices.
SCIENTIST: Why do we all have to wear these ridiculous ties?
FREEMAN: Oh, you wanna know why? I'll tell you why. It's symbolic. The management wants you to know that you're their dog, so you're wearing their leash. You don't see me wearing a tie, do you?
FREEMAN: Oh, you wanna know why? I'll tell you why. It's symbolic. The management wants you to know that you're their dog, so you're wearing their leash. You don't see me wearing a tie, do you?
Why does acting like a grown-up literally involve acting like an adult. Suits are basically playing dress-up for adults. And don't even get me started on ties.
Of all of the problems in the world, a movement to ban mandatory neck ties in any work related situation would be one of the few that would motivate me to action.
Where is it that ties are required for everyone?
I worked in the headquarters of a bulge bracket investment bank in Midtown and in my experience it is uncommon for people to wear ties even there.
Further, in my estimation, for most groups, it is socially unacceptable to wear a tie every day unless you are a certified BSD executive.
I worked in the headquarters of a bulge bracket investment bank in Midtown and in my experience it is uncommon for people to wear ties even there.
Further, in my estimation, for most groups, it is socially unacceptable to wear a tie every day unless you are a certified BSD executive.
I think this is a good example of a place where different people can just have fundamentally different values. I don't see wearing more formal clothing as "acting like grown-ups". Similarly, I don't see the White House as being a place particularly deserving of special treatment when it comes to being there as a programmer. Clearly, you (and many others) might disagree (and not-so-subtly imply that others are immature children...), but neither one of us is right or wrong.
Guess this is what causes culture clash :)
Guess this is what causes culture clash :)
Jeans and t-shirt/hoodie are the official uniform/suit of programmers. You stand out if you wear anything else.
Yes it's ironic. The guys who say they don't care about clothes actually care far far more than the suit wearers.
Among suit wearers and non-suit wearers there are people who don't care about other people's clothes, as long as everyone get the job done without much distraction.
And then there are suits and non-suits who care strongly about whatever brand of etiquette they adopted.
Now guess who will also put up a fight over harmless technical/business/political/you-name-it minutiae.
And then there are suits and non-suits who care strongly about whatever brand of etiquette they adopted.
Now guess who will also put up a fight over harmless technical/business/political/you-name-it minutiae.
> Jeans and t-shirt/hoodie are the official uniform/suit of programmers.
There's lots of different contexts that programmers work in. In some of them, that's true, in others its not. Plenty of places, khakis and sports/polo shirts is a lot more common than jeans and t-shirts. And in others, its suits.
There's lots of different contexts that programmers work in. In some of them, that's true, in others its not. Plenty of places, khakis and sports/polo shirts is a lot more common than jeans and t-shirts. And in others, its suits.
I think it's kind of funny that SF is probably the place with a pile of programmers who are least enamored of suits, when it's the one place that always has weather in which a suit is comfortable.
I feel like there's an expectation for me to dress up more than my husband or any other programmer I know, just to be taken a little more seriously. I don't know that many female programmers that wear tshirts except for promo purposes or at home/super duper casual settings either.
Not to mention most tshirts don't fit female bodies in an ideal way anyway...
Not to mention most tshirts don't fit female bodies in an ideal way anyway...
I'd say the correlation runs the other way. The best female programmers I've worked with dressed like stereotypical nerds (just like the best male programmers I worked with). The ones who "dressed up" were, by and large, those trying to compensate for substandard programming skills (again, just like the guys who wore suits).
That's why there are women's t-shirts that are much better tailored for women.
Personally I never understood the "dress down" culture in programming. I dress up (sports coats, shirts, nice jeans) because I like it.
Personally I never understood the "dress down" culture in programming. I dress up (sports coats, shirts, nice jeans) because I like it.
"I dress up (sports coats, shirts, nice jeans) because I like it."
Likewise, though I trade out the jeans for slacks. I don't like jeans with a sport coat (on me - you can wear what you want).
Likewise, though I trade out the jeans for slacks. I don't like jeans with a sport coat (on me - you can wear what you want).
This is less true in company-town DC than it is in places like SF, NYC, etc.
It comes down, for me, to more a question of "how much external facetime do you have in your day-to-day job". Shared cultural displays are one thing, but forcing everyone into the "Least Comfortable Denominator" just because some subset of your culture does need to display that level of formality...
Even above the comfortable clothing aspect of it, inflexibility in a comparatively minor thing like "dress code in non-customer-facing positions" indicates potential inflexibility in far more important things (sick/maternity/bereavement time, butt-in-chair time, informal 1-on-1s with higher-ups, merit-based raises, etc) and would greatly negatively influence the likelihood of taking a job for me.
Even above the comfortable clothing aspect of it, inflexibility in a comparatively minor thing like "dress code in non-customer-facing positions" indicates potential inflexibility in far more important things (sick/maternity/bereavement time, butt-in-chair time, informal 1-on-1s with higher-ups, merit-based raises, etc) and would greatly negatively influence the likelihood of taking a job for me.
Agreed, you'd probably find that a lot of tech guys in a hoodie and jeans spent more on their clothes than DC staffers in "suits".
I wear t-shirts and shorts. Always. Mostly from King Size Direct. Add in underwear and socks and the total cost of whatever I'm wearing at any given moment is <$100. Add in shoes and it's probably about $160.
I'm always comfortable, which is difficult for me with any other off-the-shelf clothing.
So tell me, how much more am I spending than DC staffers in what would have to be custom-tailored suits to match the comfort level?
I'm always comfortable, which is difficult for me with any other off-the-shelf clothing.
So tell me, how much more am I spending than DC staffers in what would have to be custom-tailored suits to match the comfort level?
Really my last suit was $750 and I was looking at a nice Vivien Westwood one the other day which was $1200.
Oh yeah? Well I got on sneakers that cost more than your suit. (yeezys) ZING.
I think what he's saying is even though they look dressed down the price of the clothing is typically high. I have no idea if that's true. I just love sneakers.
I think what he's saying is even though they look dressed down the price of the clothing is typically high. I have no idea if that's true. I just love sneakers.
It is hard to beat suits on the upper high end range in terms of price, but easy on the low to average range.
My suit cost me around 150$ though. I have several outfits which are comparable in cost and designed specifically to be informal.
My suit cost me around 150$ though. I have several outfits which are comparable in cost and designed specifically to be informal.
jeez some people here have thin skins and would not survive long working in the city in hft/quant's where the end customers will think nothing of spending 2k on a pair of hand made shoes.
It's quite possible to be a hacker and appreciate fashion and good quality tailoring
It's quite possible to be a hacker and appreciate fashion and good quality tailoring
Unless you're a DC staffer (and more specifically, a "typical DC staffer"), your showing off about your expensive suit didn't actually contradict anything in the comment you replied to, which is why I think your comment got grayed out.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've worked with quite a few people who didn't bother to finish college, or never went to begin with. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between "great engineer" and "got a BS in CS" -- let me re-state that; you can be a great engineer without the paper, or a lousy one with the degree.
So the question is: Is it a meritocracy, or is it a meritocracy?
[also: sandals? :-) ]