The limited value of a computer science education

> Whether someone can or cannot solve some cute algorithm problem in a high-pressure situation tells you nothing about that person's ability to write solid, clean, well-structured programs in normal working conditions. This practice is akin to hiring pilots based on how they do on an aeronautical engineering exam. That knowledge is relevant and useful but tells you little about the skill that person has for the job.

There's a lot of talk and debate about whiteboard interviews and this, for me, succinctly sums it up

(1) it usually, but not always, implies that the candidate has at least some coding knowledge; and,

(2) [most important] it is a good proxy for logical/mathematical intelligence.

As long as IQ tests for employment remain a legal grey area, employers will continue using STEM degrees as a filter.

The claim that (2) is the most important is anecdotal, being based on my own experience: I have a degree in mathematics, which doesn't really imply (1) to nearly the same extent as CS, and I have never felt it made it more difficult to get job interviews.

Often, people take for granted how differently you approach problem solving coming from a CS perspective. If anything, I have gained mostly in the ability to break down problems into the smallest pieces possible that work together thus reducing complexity and shaping the problem case. I can isolate core problems and through algorithm design implementation evaluate best solutions. I therefore wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that CS does not teach how to reduce complexity. It does.

Above all, I have rid my decisions of emotion and solely focus on the problem at hand. It's brutal, rough and inconsiderate at times, but it produces the desired results.