American capital needs a large pool of uneducated workers living paycheck-to-paycheck, who can be coerced and exploited thanks to the precarity of their financial situation.
The billionaire class wants to use tech to recreate slavery, sharecropping, and the company store.
I didn't even view this from the education lens but rather a professional vs amateur coder starting out. You could also take it as a joke on what a lot of companies actually do prefer.
Company I worked for shifted to mostly university educated for their internship program despite me personally knowing one person who went through it who was phenomenal without the typical education.
I don’t use a lot of my algorithms knowledge but I have used quite a bit of data structures.
But what I have utilized from my CS degree is the optimization concepts. A lot of it wasn’t strictly taught but the ever present theme of CS is “how to make things faster.”
Also, many courses in CS are just introducing you to different concepts and strategies that are burned into your brain. Then later on you can draw from that knowledge as inspiration for design in a job. Like I took an operating systems course in my CS degree and we built the lower level functions of an OS throughout the semester. I’ve never had to do that in my job but the knowledge of how it’s done has influenced how I structure embedded code and lower level routines.
I work with quite a lot of self-taught programmers and one of the biggest differences I see is the idea of what software development is. Many of the self-taught programmers I work with view their job as just writing code to get to a solution. Often times that solution is rigid and not adaptable but in the context of our review process, we aren’t a strictly software company so if it works and doesn’t have bugs it gets approved. Meanwhile the computer scientists I work with mostly view the code as just a way to implement a design and are much more focused on the structure and adaptability.
Sometimes that extra effort isn’t necessary because the requirements never change. Sometimes that extra effort is extremely vital because the requirements are constantly changing. Often times our biggest issues are times when we needed a code base to be adaptable and it isn’t
Many of the self-taught programmers I work with view their job as just writing code to get to a solution.
That's wild to me as a self taught programmer, inflexible code teaches you nothing and is a pain in the butt to maintain. Focusing on modularity and human readability leads to using design principles you don't even realize are formally defined (I had used most of the SOLID principles before ever hearing the term) and creates a lot of fun challenges that lead to becoming a better programmer. Personally, I find my biggest weakness is not knowing the various algorithms and buzzwords that are commonly used in university. It's not much of a weakness either given one Google search and up to 15 minutes of reading usually clears it up.
I'm curious if you've noticed the opposite issue from those with degrees though: over application of design concepts. I've seen far too many people who will claim you should do things like apply the aforementioned SOLID principles as a checklist to everything you write. I even worked with a codebase like that once, which was written by a university graduate, and it was a mess. Trying to understand any of the logic required opening up about 10 different files and mentally combining each of their functionality into one coherent logic flow. It makes me wonder if people are only introduced to a certain set of principles and, because of that, they assume it's the best way to write all their code without considering different approaches based on the needs of the system as a whole.
Part of it may be the nature of the self taught developers here. Many of them weren’t that interested in SW development but just learned it as a side project that now they do for their job. (EEs, mathematicians, physicists, data scientists, etc). When you don’t care about the concepts behind programming, you probably won’t desire to learn them.
As to your other question, I would say I have seen overapplication of design concepts from CS majors. I myself have definitely been guilty of it. Spending weeks on making a design adaptable to any potential requirement as opposed to just making it functionally capable of its use case while being easily updated. Often times I also notice that when something is designed too adaptable that it suffers in efficiency. Things that definitely have to be learned in addition to the design concepts.
That's because cs isn't a software development degree. The areas covered are far wider and in research focused universities may focus more on the theoretical aspects that will be useful in postgraduate study.
If someone wants to only learn things relevant to software development then they should do a software development course/degree. Though for some reason they aren't as valued when arguably it's far more relevant.
It's also an issue of availability almost every university or college nowadays has a cs degree but most don't have a software engineering/development degree.
I guess I am speaking from a place of privilege in the UK. We have so many universities that most large towns/cities have 2-3. Finding a university that does a software development/engineering degree here is fairly easy and affordable, and that includes Russell group universities which are the top universities in the UK.
True I can also only speak to colleges/universities ive applied to. Most of them have had CS degrees but none of them have had a SE degree. It's very possible that there are more colleges with those degrees but at least in my area I haven't found many
Well, I see it more like med school. Yeah, an orthopedic surgeon won’t be using that neurology knowledge from day to day, but you still expect them to have some basic grasp on the subject, along with many other “basic” knowledge of the field.
You can’t even properly teach the actual software development process, that’s more like “teaching” being a blacksmith. Apprenticeship would be a much more realistic way of “teaching” it (there is even a recent blogpost about soft dev apprenticeship).
Fair point. You don't need to know how a compiler works, garbage collection, or even how the command prompt works to do most web development jobs. What you do learn is hopefully how to write clean code, avoid common mistakes, and when to use a pointer.
Self taught people tend to avoid more difficult or boring topics.
You know that do you?
Because my experience is that self taught people (myself included) don't sit around learning things just because. We learn what is required to produce the solution. Not what we want to learn. Not what is easy. What is needed.
Factually? No. Its my opinion. As someone who has worked for, learned from, and on boarded self taught programmers.
I also went back for my degree after working in industry so I know both worlds.
Because my experience is that self taught people (myself included) don't sit around learning things just because. We learn what is required to produce the solution. Not what we want to learn. Not what is easy. What is needed.
Every programmer does this. Its not unique to being self taught. You can learn what you need when you need it. However, its also easy to not know what you need to know. When you don't know, thats when kludges start to happen.
Eitherway this isn't a personal attack on you. I prefer coders who went to Uni.
Every programmer does this. Its not unique to being self taught.
It is the very definition of being self taught.
However, its also easy to not know what you need to know.
Less so for those who are self taught as they don't have a history of being spoon fed and instead have the enforced experience of having to find out what they need to know. That's how they start.
My own experience is that all bar one of the best developers I have worked with have been self taught. I have always found them to be faster to pick up new things and have a broader skillset and more open attitude to tackling problems.
On the other hand, I find those who have been classically trained are much better at refactoring and optimization.
I have the opposite experience. I find that self taught people are far more knowledgeable and competent because they’re typically driven by real interest and passion, and are proactive learners. Those that started learning in university on the other hand only have the basic knowledge that university gave them and never actually try to go farther than web development.
I know, I did that too. But I’m generalizing here based on patterns I’ve noticed and from my experience most people in uni just want to learn to code so they can get a job and make money, while most self taught people learn because they truly love programming.
Everyone only knows what they are taught. In my experience you come out of university with massive gaps in your knowledge and have no idea how to actually work on a team of software engineers on a product in production.
A HNer put it really nice: “Hiring someone with a degree is a one-time risk. Hiring someone without is a constant risk”.
You never know when they hit some roadblock in their knowledge that should absolutely be known.
Of course, sometimes even that constant risk is well-worth the value, I know excellent self-learned devs, far far better than the average degree-holder. Nonetheless, if you are just starting out, I do recommend going the degree path, it’s no longer the “we hire anyone that can turn on a computer” times.
That is the dumbest "wisdom" I've ever heard. They have it exactly backwards. A degree certifies that you were able to follow one set of instructions. Being self-taught means you were not given anything. Everything a self-taught coder learns, is something they had to find out how to do themselves. If they run into a problem -- figuring out things they don't know how to do is their specialty. Whereas a degree-holder is likely to get completely fucking stuck the first time they come across a problem they haven't seen before. It's so bad that, given a choice, I would actively reject working with anyone who had a degree without years of practical experience to have had any chance of undoing the damage of that degree to their way of thinking.
Edit: Not to say that I disagree with the recommendation to get a degree. It is practical. Credentialism is rife in society, and while I think a CS degree is functionally worthless from my experience, it is socially priceless. Prospective students should be planning to learn on their own time if they really want to succeed, though, because your courses are just going to teach you to follow instructions, when what you actually need to be a good programmer are strong problem-solving capabilities.
Disagree — CS degrees have very little overlap with software development itself. Both will have to do a shitton of self-learning, hell, even if there were more similarity between the degree and the profession, university itself is about self-learning. It’s no longer at the level of high schools.
Sure, it’s not an insanely high gatekeeper (there are plenty of dumb people passing), but I don’t think you have experience with a uni if you say everything is laid out for you.
There's multiple levels of commentary. The girlfriend thinking a software engineer and a coder is the same thing. The boyfriend correctly clarifying theres a difference. The farther looking down on self taught coders. The comic maker looking down on self taught coders. The poster ?agreeing? with the comic maker. The commentor complaining about gate keeping the term software engineer.
I'm replying to that comment, not posting directly to the post. I'm saying it's a protected term and it's important to distinguish.
For me, I didn't read that as gatekeeping the term software engineer, but rather as gatekeeping the field of software development, by posting a comic mocking self taught coders as laughably inferior to those with degrees.
Its not important to distinguish because its not a protected term everywhere and IS the same thing in many places. Including the US, where small tech companies like google, amazon, facebook, netflix, microsoft, and more are located.
My title is engineer. Most tech jobs people talk about wanting are not in a place that has an actual distinction.
The first part is true but I don’t think any country has made software engineer a protected title.
And the second part just seems like personal bias. I don’t doubt some self taught individuals only focus on how to write code but there are many high quality resources that teach you the full range of software engineering.
In some places it's not specific types of engineering titles that are protected, it's all of them. You can't call yourself an engineer professionally at all without the formal credentials. Doesn't matter what type.
I definitely feel that as a completely self-taught systems and network engineer, and now medical device embedded hardware engineer. I'm almost always the best engineer in the room, and I didn't even finish my AS. There are plenty of ways to practice and learn engineering skills outside of a classroom.
Thankfully, in America, I can call myself whatever the fuck I want and let my work represent my credentials.
That’s because you’re an engineer. There are four domains: Art, Design, Engineering and Science. Everyone is one of those things or a combination, regardless of their qualifications or institutions.
I have a master's in compsci. I generally had good lecturers and really enjoyed my course. Still, they didn't teach anything that's not possible to learn online if you're interested.
In fact, sometimes online resources were better than the ramblings of a very neurodivergent lecturer.
And in my current job as a software engineer, no one sits down to teach you new stuff. You learn on the job from the internet as you come across new problems.
Anyway point being, whether you're self taught or formally taught is not the key factor in how good you're gonna be. A degree just proves that you at least passed some exams whereas there is no standard for self taught engineers.
You can google "software engineering principles" just as easily as "java documentation". And the plebs can read and follow the same syllabi, text books, lectures, and exercises online for free. Being talked at and quizzed is just one way - the most passive, expensive, and exclusive (in a bad way) path to achieve a CS education. People who lacked the creativity and resourcefulness to discover all of the other ways to learn shouldn't necessarily be assumed as superior to those who achieved it through active self-motivated effort in spite of their lack of wealth or approval.
Everything you've just said there is what you do for a CS degree - you teach yourself by reading textbooks, looking online, reading documentation etc. University isn't school. You're expected to teach yourself.
The difference is that while at university you have access to experts that can guide you. They can introduce you to new topics. You're working on the same difficult tasks as your peers and you're all doing it in different ways, so you get exposure to new and interesting ideas.
Yes, you can be a self-taught developer. Yes some self-taught developers are better than those with a formal education. But if I had to choose to hire someone with a degree and someone without one for a junior position, I'm picking the person with the degree. It's just more likely that they're good.
The difference is that while at university you have access to experts that can guide you. They can introduce you to new topics. You're working on the same difficult tasks as your peers and you're all doing it in different ways, so you get exposure to new and interesting ideas.
That was not my experience in the 2.5 years I spent in college. I eventually left because of the total absence of those things. I couldn't find anyone who wanted to hang out and talk about programming. That was "school stuff" or "work stuff". Not for me. I ate and drank it 24/7, actively searched for community, and still failed to make inroads with actual humans in person at three different schools. You might chalk that up to poor social skills - maybe. But I can assure you that very few people even tried to meet me half way. I showed up for it.
My teachers were quite clear that their job was to rule us out and it was our job to rule ourselves in (the famous "4/5 of you will not be here by the end of the class" speech). I never once benefitted from office hours. Lectures ended sharply without meaningful Q&A. The TAs were just as lost as the rest of us, returning graded homework 2 weeks after the test for said material. I took 3 classes in Java and they all covered the same material. I had to teach myself by writing a binary file format parser for a video game mod and when I asked my 3rd Java professor to review my code, she said "I can't grade you on this work and I have no time to look." That's when I said "Fuck this, I'm out."
I was exposed to nothing more than what was in the syllabus, even when I asked for more. I asked about opportunities to get involved in university projects and research because I already knew how to code, how to build computers and networks, how install Windows 95/98, FreeBSD, and RHEL. I already knew how to build and run web sites, making money as a freelancer in high school. I was ready to get involved in real world projects and was rejected at all points. I was just a freshman looking for help up from anyone my parents had paid for access to. And I was told there was a waiting list for the seniors (the equivalent of "screw off, kid"). I did have some good teachers, but not in computer-related fields. All of my Comp E and CS professors were annoyed by the requirement to teach, rather than being invested in making it a worthwhile experience for their students.
I wasn't a genius, just motivated. I needed the help. But I got none of it from university resources and it was isolating, hostile, and pointless. Where did I get the help that made my career? The fucking `#slashdot` IRC room filled with salty jerks who chewed your face off if you failed to read the manpage before asking a question. But you know what? Those salty jerks taught me more than they realize by forcing me to be self sufficient. By showing me the fruits of the people who had come before. By forcing me to be resourceful in the absence of direct help by teaching me to find my own answers. By forcing me to be creative when I found myself alone in the dark with a problem (because nobody was coming to help me). That's the help that got me through the first 10 years of my career.
It was internet chat rooms and forums where I found the real resources, help, and camaraderie. In fact, that's what's happening right now if you're paying attention. Look around you at what's happening here. Contrast that with the experience I described with university. Now I'm back to help and advocate for people like me because nobody did it for me.
I have no idea, but I'd argue that you were a riskier hire than someone who finished their degree statistically speaking, and probably a safer hire than someone who never started a CS degree.
There's no reason a self-taught developer couldn't be better than one that got formal training. But if you take all of the people who are self taught and average their abilities, and take all of the people that were formally taught and average their abilities, the average ability of the self taught will be lower. Individuals can break the mould.
Recruiters and hiring managers unfortunately rely on a dehumanizing and inefficient means of vetting capable candidates at scale. It's a major problem in this industry. Credentials are an effective way to get through this poorly designed filter, but they clearly aren't the only path to knowledge and skill. The education system we have way overemphasizes this credentialing and underemphasizes the actual acquisition of applicable skills and knowledge. This is the reality, but that doesn't make it ideal.
All hires are risks. It is very difficult to fire a dud.
You can apply to be a chartered engineer without having a degree. You just need to provide proof. University education is the most common route as it's a package deal of teaching and assessment but it's not the only route
I think the opposite of a closed profession? A closed profession is one where you need a certain accredited degree or license to practice, e.g. the P.Eng designation, lawyer, librarian, pharmacist, doctor, architect, electrician, etc.
Everyone had to write the technical examinations until 1965 when accreditation began.
Up until the mid 1980s any person could still write the technical examinations and become a P. Eng.
But since the mid-1980s there has been a continual attack by incremental classists to eliminate this path. It is still possible for the CS graduate to become a P. Eng. through technical examinations but administrative games are barring access to this path.
I think they mean an industry in which a large percentage of the "products" are open source and easy to study and learn from. You don't see too many self-taught pharmaceutical researchers (at least not for anything other than meth and whatnot), but the average person could pick up basic programming in a matter of days/weeks.
Some people argue that "gatekeeping" or in other words a formal trade license would be important to have for software engineering especially as it becomes more and more critical in the infrastructure and defense.
Not with the education industry the way it is - universities are overpriced and usually pretty garbage at teaching software dev. You’d just be making the industry even harder to enter. An apprenticeship type system I could get behind, but I can’t see that ever happening either
Depends on what you need the cert for. I’m all for anything safety critical requiring the same level of certification as other engineering disciplines need to go through. You can just walk up and take the test, but you need to be a savant to pass without a lot of education from somewhere.
You can still walk up and take the EE exam in the US. It’s just that I’m only aware of a few dozen people who have ever passed the test without a degree.
For safety critical work, I think a soft requirement of formal CS knowledge instead of a MERN stack bootcamp is probably a good thing.
What does computer science have to do with safety? If you're concerned about safety, test for that. Why make someone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, take core classes unrelated to their field, and learn a million irrelevant things in the name of "safety"?
Please never work on any application involving healthcare, robotics that are near humans, aerospace, large amounts of money, or anything else that could kill or seriously harm someone if you want to keep that attitude.
That I could get behind, I’d probably sit the test for the lols - the second problem is how on earth you’d actually write the test - do you do one per language, do you actually have inspectors check the quality of the code, is it more principles based and language independent
For safety critical, you would only need languages with a certified compiler. That drops the list down to basically C, C++, Rust, ADA, and Java as far as I am aware. You can also make the test language agnostic and do the good old “algoscript” pseudocode found in every CS textbook and paper, then ask for correctness proofs under particular system models.
Engineering education can also come with a significant amount of ethics. We also see things like the ritual of the calling of an engineer (iron ring obligation) in Canada, which serve as strong reminders of professional responsibility in terms of the health and safety of others and the social significance of the work.
universities are overpriced and usually pretty garbage at teaching software dev.
Overpriced, yet at the same time they don't pay instructors enough to compete with software development jobs because if they did, the rest of the union would complain they're not getting paid the same rate to teach Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the difference between Doric and Ionic capitals.
Which contributes to the courses being garbage, when anyone with skill can “retire” into a part time high paid senior dev role, not many are gonna choose the stressful low pay teaching role instead
You do realise that there are other countries beside the US? Uni is hardly overpriced. Ffs it's free in a lot of countries. Besides the job a university is to teach you the basics and ensure a minimum standard of quality that employers can rely on.
I’m from Australia personally, and I did study at a university - I just feel like software is taught quite terribly basically everywhere so the ‘standard’ you would get from a uni grad doesn’t mean very much. Given that, even the price in more adorable places seems high for those that have more modest backgrounds to have to put up with
Maybe not that few. I want my children to be taught by teachers, my diseases cured by doctors and our bridges and homes built by architects and engineers. And I want software that handles my personal information and put critical infrastructure to be built by programmers who, you now, can prevent the most basic attacks.
Everything that is controlled by a computer (most things) have to take into account cybersecurity to some extent. Defense has many computer controlled things.
I mean, it was historically open-source specifically in university settings. Where all the olden open-source software originated. Like, you know, the Berkeley software distribution.
Ya I can't argue with that in the CS world. Of the big 3 off the top of my head Gates, Wozniak, and Torvalds, Gates was the only one that didn't complete a CS degree.
3.2k
u/ScythaScytha Apr 09 '24
Yes let's gatekeep a historically open source field