Could you elaborate on why you “expect the training [for becoming an information security professional] to be very challenging”?
Based on the OP, I could see the answer being any combination of the following, and I’m curious if you have more specific views.
a) The training and work is technically challenging.
b) The training and work has idiosyncratic aspects that may be psychologically challenging, e.g. the requirement to handle confidential information over extended periods of time.
c) The training and work requires an unusually broad combination of talents, e.g. both technical aptitude and the ability to learn to manage large teams.
d) You don’t know of any specific reasons why the training would be challenging, but infer that it must be for structural reasons such as few people pursuing that career despite lucrative pay.
Do you have a sense of whether the required talent is relatively generic quantitative/technical talent that would e.g. predict success in fields like computer science, physics, or engineering, or something more specific? And also what the bar is?
Currently I’m not sure if what you’re saying is closer to “if you struggled with maths in high school, this career is probably not for you” or “you need to be at a +4 std level of ability in these specific things” (my guess is something closer to the former).
No worries if that was beyond the depth of your investigation.
Could you elaborate on why you “expect the training [for becoming an information security professional] to be very challenging”?
Based on the OP, I could see the answer being any combination of the following, and I’m curious if you have more specific views.
a) The training and work is technically challenging.
b) The training and work has idiosyncratic aspects that may be psychologically challenging, e.g. the requirement to handle confidential information over extended periods of time.
c) The training and work requires an unusually broad combination of talents, e.g. both technical aptitude and the ability to learn to manage large teams.
d) You don’t know of any specific reasons why the training would be challenging, but infer that it must be for structural reasons such as few people pursuing that career despite lucrative pay.
I think we meant a bit of (b) and (c) but especially (a).
That’s helpful, thanks!
Do you have a sense of whether the required talent is relatively generic quantitative/technical talent that would e.g. predict success in fields like computer science, physics, or engineering, or something more specific? And also what the bar is?
Currently I’m not sure if what you’re saying is closer to “if you struggled with maths in high school, this career is probably not for you” or “you need to be at a +4 std level of ability in these specific things” (my guess is something closer to the former).
No worries if that was beyond the depth of your investigation.
Yeah, something closer to the former.