How to apply for a free software engineer internship
Posted On June 14, 2021
By now, you probably have heard about the recent news about a software engineer who was hired by Microsoft and who was fired for sharing sensitive information about the company’s proprietary software.
And if you’re not aware, that is absolutely outrageous.
This is unacceptable, but Microsoft did it anyway.
The company has long used software engineering as a way to get talented programmers to work for it without being subject to the same stringent requirements as the company that pays them, such as being able to read and understand code, write a test, write software to do things, etc. But as more and more software companies have been forced to hire people on the basis of merit rather than on the grounds of technical competence, it has become a serious liability problem for the company.
The recent firing of one of the engineers, Jamey Rodrick, by Microsoft for sharing confidential information about its proprietary software with the press is an example of this.
The software engineer was the lead developer on Microsoft’s Visual Studio and was a key figure in the development of the Visual Studio Tools for Windows, which were the main tools that made Visual Studio work.
He shared confidential information, including source code, about the development process and the work being done on Microsoft products to the news media and even Microsoft itself, who then fired him.
Microsoft said that the software engineer, who was working at the company at the time of his dismissal, “misrepresented” his knowledge and that he “was in a position to disclose information that would jeopardize the safety of the Microsoft products he was working on.”
But as the New York Times pointed out, this was “not what the software developer had intended.”
Instead, he was trying to make a point about the lack of transparency and openness of Microsoft’s code and software development process.
In other words, he had an agenda.
He was trying, according to the Times, to make the public and his employer think that Microsoft was a secret organization of secret people who are not supposed to be told about the source code of its software.
In fact, this is exactly what Microsoft did to its own employees.
The company did not hire or pay software engineers on the same basis as the people who work at large companies.
Microsoft was able to hire and pay people based on their technical skill sets rather than whether they could read and write code, which is a key factor in software engineering.
But, as the Times points out, “the result was that some of the most highly skilled software engineers were left behind.”
So the question is: What are the next steps for Microsoft?
Should the company have fired the software programmer, or should it have been able to pay him $15,000 in severance pay for being fired for leaking sensitive information?
It seems that the company is taking the former course, but the company can’t seem to seem to get its act together in the matter of severance.
In response to the incident, the company has announced a number of new initiatives, including a new Code for America initiative aimed at strengthening the hiring process for software engineers.
The new initiative will also create an internal committee to work with other groups to improve the hiring and training process for those who are underrepresented in the workforce.
Microsoft should be commended for trying to address the hiring crisis by taking steps to ensure that all of its employees have access to quality training, and this initiative is an important step in that direction.
However, there is one glaring problem.
The committee that is supposed to help improve the recruitment process has no members of the software engineering community, including people like Rodrick.
As a result, Rodrick was fired without a chance to defend himself.
The only way he can defend himself is by resigning.
So the next step should be for the Microsoft Board of Directors to appoint an outside consultant to help with the hiring of new software engineers, and the company should have a new program that will help to increase the number of people who have the opportunity to get the kind of training that Rodrick’s case demonstrates.
The bottom line is that there are some problems at Microsoft.
The biggest is that the public is now aware that Microsoft’s hiring practices are not the best.
The latest data shows that only 2 percent of the top software engineers at Microsoft have ever held a job at the firm.
Even fewer have ever gone to college.
This means that the number who have ever worked for Microsoft is very small indeed.
And this is just a start.
The problem with hiring software engineers is that they are under-represented in every aspect of the company, including in the hiring, pay, promotion, and firing process.
If the company wants to improve its hiring practices and to improve how it treats its employees, then it needs to hire more people of color, women, and people with less technical backgrounds.