Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study explores the evolving landscape of entry-level software engineering skills in the context of GenAI's integration into both education and industry. Through surveys of 56 educators and 24 hiring professionals, the research reveals a significant divergence in perspectives on GenAI's role, with educators focusing on academic integrity while industry professionals embrace its widespread use. A key finding indicates a shift towards GenAI-resistant assessments that emphasize critical evaluation and independent learning, highlighting a consensus on essential skills but a notable gap in perceived graduate readiness for foundational skills.
Educators prioritize academic integrity while industry professionals universally adopt GenAI, revealing a critical disconnect in expectations for entry-level engineers.
GenAI's ability to solve a wide range of software engineering tasks is reshaping the software industry, raising the question of what an entry-level software engineer looks like today. In this work, we investigate whether the core skills for entry-level engineers have changed with GenAI and how the assessment of those skills has changed. Through two surveys, we consider both the educational and hiring perspectives, drawing on responses from 56 educators and 24 hiring professionals across diverse geographic regions to identify gaps and misaligned expectations. We find that educators frame their GenAI policies primarily around academic integrity, whereas GenAI use in industry is near-universal, with organizational policy governing how it should be used rather than whether to use it. Policies on GenAI use during interviews are still emerging, and respondents are split on whether they prefer candidates who demonstrate GenAI skills. Both populations are moving toward GenAI-resistant assessments built on observable real-time interactions and higher-order tasks, and both agree on which skills matter most, rating critical evaluation of AI-generated output, responsible and effective use of GenAI tools, and the ability to learn and adapt independently highly. However, they disagree on graduate readiness in these skills: hiring professionals report larger gaps, with the disagreement concentrated on foundational, non-GenAI-specific skills.