101–110 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption does not hold with more information. First, self teaching processes filter out idiots too, since idiots can't self teach. P(qualified | (no degree + autodidactic)) > P(qualified | (Degree + little self teaching ability))
For those following along at home, the unpretentious word for "autodidact" is "self-taught"
In my experience hiring software engineers, possession of an undergrad CS degree was not a helpful filter for resumes. I did find that candidates with advanced degrees or undergrad EECS degrees tended to be a little bit stronger than the average candidate. So did candidates with unrelated undergrad degrees, and a few years of job experience. I never figured out how to look at a resume and meaningfully select for extr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those following along at home, the unpretentious word for "autodidact" is "self-taught"
The only thing pretentious about 'autodidact' is the use of the word 'pretentious' to characterize a common vocabulary word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing pretentious about 'autodidact' is the use of the word 'pretentious' to characterize a common vocabulary word.
It's not really that common, most people wouldn't know what it meant so it is a bit pretentious. Most people really would just say "self taught".
What's pretentious is using big words to impress others. Most people who do this actually end up not using such words correctly, since nuances of meaning are hardly their primary concern.
Edit: what I really object to is your implied criterion that anything beyond what "most people" would say must be pretentious. Lord help us if we're supposed to go by "most people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed completely. But how do you get more information cheaply? Remember, all you know is P(qualified| resume says autodidactic)= P(qualified | autodidactic) * P(autodidactic | resume says autodidactic) . The second term can easily kill you. Do you trust everything people put on their resume? On the other hand, P(degree | resume says degree) is probably close to 1, since a degree is so easy for an HR person to check.…
There are lots of other cheap filters that companies do not use. For example, "Have you read Ayn Rand?" This question may well have better predictive power than a degree. And it's not hard to verify if the person is lying about whether they've read some at all. Or, "how many blog posts do you have about programming?" Again this is easy to verify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of other cheap filters that companies do not use. For example, "Have you read Ayn Rand?" This question may well have better predictive power than a degree. And it's not hard to verify if the person is lying about whether they've read some at all. Or, "how many blog posts do you have about programming?" Again this is easy to verify.
who's Ayn Rand? and why must you be a blogger to be a programmer? These are silly questions imho.
If good programmers read Rand or write blogs at a higher rate than bad programmers, then it works, even if it's frequently wrong about individual people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, the P(A | B) notation is something you learn at a University Probability class. A good feeling for elementary probability thoery is something that makes you much better at modeling, understanding and predicting the world, and not just as a programmer. And there's lots of other classes like that in a Uni. curriculum (although the overall percentage of really useful classes is in my estimate only 25-50%).…
"normal people who want to learn such things choose to go to school" That's a load of crap. Normal people who want to learn such things pick up a book and read about it. Only very young people consider "going to school" a viable option. Normal people have jobs, kids, and responsibilities and don't have time to go to school every time they pick up a new interest.
I have suggested self-teaching to many non-hacker types and they are completely opposed to it. Even those going into programming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really that common, most people wouldn't know what it meant so it is a bit pretentious. Most people really would just say "self taught".
It's not at all pretentious to use a well-defined word whose meaning is precisely appropriate. To anyone who needs convincing of this I recommend a large stack of Christopher Hitchens. What's pretentious is using big words to impress others. Most people who do this actually end up not using such words correctly, since nuances of meaning are hardly their primary concern. Edit: what I really object to is your implied c…
Using uncommon words appropriately doesn't make them any less pretentious unless you really don't know they're uncommon, and Christopher Hitchens, whom I very much like, is hardly someone associated with being unpretentious. Hitchens certainly doesn't suffer fools well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"normal people who want to learn such things choose to go to school" That's a load of crap. Normal people who want to learn such things pick up a book and read about it. Only very young people consider "going to school" a viable option. Normal people have jobs, kids, and responsibilities and don't have time to go to school every time they pick up a new interest.
Normal people who want to learn such things pick up a book and read about it. I would be very surprised to find very many "normal people" who have the drive to learn, say, probability theory or statistics to any reasonable depth by self-study. Of course such people exist, but they are neither typical nor common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who's Ayn Rand? and why must you be a blogger to be a programmer? These are silly questions imho.
The degree question is also silly, but has non-zero predictive capability. So do these. Certainly they rule out plenty of good programmers, but the issue is: do they leave plenty of good programmers, and a higher quality pool of remaining applicants? If good programmers read Rand or write blogs at a higher rate than bad programmers, then it works, even if it's frequently wrong about individual people.
You still haven't told us who Ayn Rand is.