I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. People react to things in very different ways - and this might have worked for this person. The reason we put in place mentorship and different structures to help people is so that there are as many avenues for success as possible. It might be this guy kicked ass in the one way he was given. That doesn't mean his team is doing the right thing, but it's not fair to assume that he actually missed out. There's a difference between doing things because they need to be done to raise success rate, and doing things because they're essential.

No one deserves anything, you get what you can get.

If one wants to learn in the best environment, one usually needs to go to university and _pay_ for the education. To go into a highly competitive industry, get _paid_ (usually quite well) and complain that someone didn't teach you the way you'd like to be taught is some kind of astronomical entitlement that I can't even begin to comprehend.

A CS education has little to do with software engineering itself.

Beyond that, I disagree with your basic assertion. It's a sign of team maturity to encourage mentor/mentee relationships.

I agree on both points. Yet disagree that you can expect to be taught while being payed and complain.

I agree that you can't expect anything. The job is the job, you're there to give value, not take it.

But, if you end up at an org that has their stuff together - if you're coming from nothing maybe you show a high aptitude for programming - it is something that should be an aspect of the experience.

This expectation vs. entitlement discussion is just quibbling over semantics.

I don't expect to be mentored, but I won't give an employer the time of day if I don't see myself growing in the job, so it's the same effect. Personal/professional growth is table stakes.

You can pick however you want to frame it. It's the same end effect: if I work for you and not as a founder/C suite, mentorship on the job is a baseline requirement when we negotiate the terms.

No one 'deserves' anything, but it's worth noting that it's not impossible to create fast-moving and nurturing environments, and maybe trying to learn how to do that for your peers.

"Deserve" means to show qualities that are worthy of either reward or punishment.

This poster is someone who took the initiative to get better and therefore showed qualities worthy of reward. They absolutely deserve better than they got.

> They absolutely deserve better than they got.

How can you be so sure? You don't know what the compensation of the GP was, you don't know that they weren't / won't be written a stellar letter of recommendation (or better yet introductions) that will land them directly into coveted senior dev land, you don't know that the experience forged won't make the GP an effective startup founder, etc, etc etc.

Learning on the job is mutually beneficial. The employee learns useful skills, and the employer gets a more useful employee. Tossing people into the deep end and letting them figure it out is short-sighted. We should expect more, even if just for the employer to do what’s best for them.

They need to have the skills to ask for a mentor and identify what they'll get out of it.

Replace "deserve" with "can find somewhere else".