We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
3 Added some context.
source | link

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred BrooksFred Brooks argues in the mythical man monthbook The Mythical Man-Month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only 8eight hours at the office 5five days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, 7seven days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.

EDIT: Your comments suggest that your don't have much working experience and that you can't imagine spending 40 hours per week at work. I can totally relate to that, sitting 40 hours a week in the cubicle next to Dilbert and Wally does sound like a horrible prospect.

If that's reasonably close, forget my advice about looking for a job at a company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. These jobs certainly exists, but you won't learn much there (if they have only one part-time developer, who would teach you anything?), and they don't look very good on a resume (why did he start his career doing that? Couldn't he find a full-time job?). They'd probably be rather boring jobs, too, and IMHO spending 20 hours a week at a boring job is worse than spending 40 hours a week working on something you care about.

Instead try to find a full-time job where you get to build something interesting, where you like your co-workers and where you genuinely like going to work each morning. These jobs really are out there, and they're easier to find than part-time positions. There's still enough time to play StarcraftStarCraft at the weekends ;-)

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred Brooks argues in the mythical man month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only 8 hours at the office 5 days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.

EDIT: Your comments suggest that your don't have much working experience and that you can't imagine spending 40 hours at work. I can totally relate to that, sitting 40 hours a week in the cubicle next to Dilbert and Wally does sound like a horrible prospect.

If that's reasonably close, forget my advice about looking for a job at a company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. These jobs certainly exists, but you won't learn much there (if they have only one part-time developer, who would teach you anything?), and they don't look very good on a resume (why did he start his career doing that? Couldn't he find a full-time job?). They'd probably be rather boring jobs, too, and IMHO spending 20 hours a week at a boring job is worse than spending 40 hours a week working on something you care about.

Instead try to find a full-time job where you get to build something interesting, where you like your co-workers and where you genuinely like going to work each morning. These jobs really are out there, and they're easier to find than part-time positions. There's still enough time to play Starcraft at the weekends ;-)

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred Brooks argues in the book The Mythical Man-Month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only eight hours at the office five days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.

EDIT: Your comments suggest that your don't have much working experience and that you can't imagine spending 40 hours per week at work. I can totally relate to that, sitting 40 hours a week in the cubicle next to Dilbert and Wally does sound like a horrible prospect.

If that's reasonably close, forget my advice about looking for a job at a company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. These jobs certainly exists, but you won't learn much there (if they have only one part-time developer, who would teach you anything?), and they don't look very good on a resume (why did he start his career doing that? Couldn't he find a full-time job?). They'd probably be rather boring jobs, too, and IMHO spending 20 hours a week at a boring job is worse than spending 40 hours a week working on something you care about.

Instead try to find a full-time job where you get to build something interesting, where you like your co-workers and where you genuinely like going to work each morning. These jobs really are out there, and they're easier to find than part-time positions. There's still enough time to play StarCraft at the weekends ;-)

    Post Made Community Wiki by user41482
2 added 1160 characters in body
source | link

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred Brooks argues in the mythical man month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only 8 hours at the office 5 days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.

EDIT: Your comments suggest that your don't have much working experience and that you can't imagine spending 40 hours at work. I can totally relate to that, sitting 40 hours a week in the cubicle next to Dilbert and Wally does sound like a horrible prospect.

If that's reasonably close, forget my advice about looking for a job at a company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. These jobs certainly exists, but you won't learn much there (if they have only one part-time developer, who would teach you anything?), and they don't look very good on a resume (why did he start his career doing that? Couldn't he find a full-time job?). They'd probably be rather boring jobs, too, and IMHO spending 20 hours a week at a boring job is worse than spending 40 hours a week working on something you care about.

Instead try to find a full-time job where you get to build something interesting, where you like your co-workers and where you genuinely like going to work each morning. These jobs really are out there, and they're easier to find than part-time positions. There's still enough time to play Starcraft at the weekends ;-)

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred Brooks argues in the mythical man month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only 8 hours at the office 5 days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred Brooks argues in the mythical man month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only 8 hours at the office 5 days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.

EDIT: Your comments suggest that your don't have much working experience and that you can't imagine spending 40 hours at work. I can totally relate to that, sitting 40 hours a week in the cubicle next to Dilbert and Wally does sound like a horrible prospect.

If that's reasonably close, forget my advice about looking for a job at a company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. These jobs certainly exists, but you won't learn much there (if they have only one part-time developer, who would teach you anything?), and they don't look very good on a resume (why did he start his career doing that? Couldn't he find a full-time job?). They'd probably be rather boring jobs, too, and IMHO spending 20 hours a week at a boring job is worse than spending 40 hours a week working on something you care about.

Instead try to find a full-time job where you get to build something interesting, where you like your co-workers and where you genuinely like going to work each morning. These jobs really are out there, and they're easier to find than part-time positions. There's still enough time to play Starcraft at the weekends ;-)

1
source | link

Why, as an employer, would you give up a competent, even great, developer, simply because he wants to work 3 days a week and not 5?

More than one reason (all argued from the point of view of an employer):

  1. As Fred Brooks argues in the mythical man month, the efficiency of a team goes down as the team size grows, because the amount of communication grows faster than linear with the team size. So N full-time developers are far more effective than 2N part-time developers, at the same cost.

  2. If the developer is working on some important system, you want to be able to reach her at least during normal business hours.

  3. A full time employee spends only 8 hours at the office 5 days a week, but his mind is really working for the company 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why you sometimes wake up in the morning with the solution to a problem that's been bothering you for days - your mind doesn't stop working the moment you leave the office. For a part-time employee, I would fear the opposite: Instead of thinking about his day-job at home, I'd guess she'd think about her private problems at work.

How do I sell the story of part time job better?

Actually, I think the employers are mostly right, so I don't think you can "sell" it much better. But you could find a small company that doesn't have enough work for a full-time employee. They might be interested in hiring you part-time. Jobs like that probably wouldn't be very glamorous (or well-paid), though.