Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask YC: Why the degree?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 211 posts

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#131

Post by stcredzero »

gnaritas wrote: post #90
eru wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may work better than a resume. Can you imagine a test for the ability to work on larger programs?

Good code is good code, I don't agree that it takes a vastly different skill set to work on different sized programs. During the interview you can simply ask questions such as "How would you provide the ability to configure various strategies for different users interfaces for this slot machine? Say a web UI, a command line UI, and a native app UI?". "How might you make the randomizer for spinning the slots configura…

There is a set of skills and body of experience that applies to working on large bodies of code. In fact, there are different skill sets for working on bodies of bad code and good code.

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#132

Post by bbgm »

mrtron wrote: post #19

"I know several people that have degree's in computer science, and none have any magical abilities that you only pickup at university." I think you are shortchanging the value of a formal education. You are forced to learn things you don't necessarily enjoy. For example, I was forced to take a few stats courses which I found extremely boring, but recently at work it was incredibly valuable. I know I thought I was a g…

I don't have a CS degree, but all else being equal a good education trumps not having one. The same person with a degree and without a degree will be more effective with one, especially if the degree is a meaningful one (i.e. not just to get a piece of paper).

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#133

Post by gruseom »

gnaritas wrote: post #126
gruseom wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So anything beyond what's common is pretentious? As I read the definition of the word, that's just wrong. On the other hand, looking things up in a dictionary to find out what they mean is so far from common that, by your definition, I'm being pretentious just for doing so. Edit: your invocation of the name of Feynman strikes me as gratuitous (oops, I'm being pretentious there) and a textbook example of appeal-to-aut…

Well, it's not really worth arguing about, but my appeal to authority was in response to an appeal to authority (Hitchens). If you don't agree the word is pretentious, fine, but to me and many others I presume (since I didn't start this thread, someone else called it pretentious first) do find that people who use uncommon words are being pretentious and trying to sound impressive with their vocabulary. Given a choice…

Ok, but I can't resist adding one more! First, it seems we do agree on what's "pretentious": not using uncommon words as such, but doing so to sound impressive with one's vocabulary. Also, I brought up Hitchens not to invoke any kind of authority but rather as rich source material for the inventive and pitch-perfect and endlessly entertaining (and, yes, unpretentious) usage of all kinds of words. It seems we agree on most of that :)

Lastly, I'd like to add something to this conversation that isn't merely being critical. The thing about less common words is that, often, they are not exactly synonymous with more common alternatives. There are often nuances that, consciously or otherwise, add to the meaning of what's being said. While thinking of this I remembered a brief post from Language Log a while back that I thought was brilliant. It takes several examples of forms that have been claimed to be interchangeable (and thus superfluous), and susses out real distinctions between them:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005487.h...

There must be a few people here who find language as interesting as I do, and would enjoy parsing out the examples they give. I'd post it as an item to HN but can't think of a title that could possibly convey the point. Oh well, maybe I'll just post it anyway...

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#134

Post by radu_floricica »

matthewking wrote: post #13
yummyfajitas wrote: post #10

>For all the company knows, I (and countless others) could be the best developers they'd ever meet. And yet we're automatically excluded from even applying. The game is about probability, not possibility. The assumption is: P(qualified | degree) > P(qualified | no degree) That's probably reasonable, since schools do filter out at least some idiots. To find a candidate, one must interview roughly 1/P candidates. If in…

OK I can understand it from that perspective, it's not that there's so much weight being put on a degree, but rather its used for lack of other filters, when there's lots of applicants. Doesn't sound very accurate, but I can see the reason why.

Not related to the original question (I agree with the above answer) but in my experience HR departments/managers are more likely to read a CV not sent by the usual channels. The easiest way to bypass it is simply sending an email. The most efficient - leave it in person. Don't know why, but from (limited) anecdotal evidence seems to work.

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#135

Post by chollida1 »

Many companies take their character from their founders and hire accordingly.

For instance Microsoft focused on hiring high IQ people that went to good schools because that's where Bill Gates came from.

Google same thing, high IQ individuals with post grad degrees, hence google looks to hire people who fit this mode.

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#136

Post by mindcrime »

Most job ads I see say "Bachelors degree or equivalent experience" In those cases, definitely apply even without a degree. And even if they don't, apply anyway. A lot of time stuff gets put in job descriptions by copy & paste, or because it's common, not because it's an actual requirement. Yeah, HR might filter you out for not having a degree in some cases, but you'll get past them to the hiring manager in other cases, then you have a chance to sell yourself.

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#137

Post by eru »

eru wrote: post #95
sah wrote: post #58

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…

Math should also be very self-teachable. Though it takes a lot of discipline or (better) passion. Almost all ground-breaking mathematics was done at a very young age.

P.S. And at 22 I fear I am already too old to ever become a great mathematician.

And you think you have a depressing career outlook?

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#138

Post by omouse »

neilc wrote: post #84
gnaritas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said normal people who want . Now it's true that normal people don't generally want to learn probability theory, but if they do, they'll turn to books and self teaching long before school unless they're extremely young and still think of school as life. Once you've been in the real world for a while, the idea of going back to school is generally the last option, not the first. The only thing school has to offer ove…

they'll turn to books and self teaching long before school unless they're extremely young and still think of school as life. On the contrary, many people take classes and attend conferences, workshops and seminars at many different ages. You could learn cooking by self study, but cooking classes continue to be popular, despite being more expensive. The only thing school has to offer over self directed learning is ver…

There's a difference between conferences, workshops, etc. and school.

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#139

Post by yummyfajitas »

xlnt wrote: post #81
yummyfajitas wrote: post #76

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.

Provided your filters (1) increase the probability that the remaining applicants are qualified and (2) do not reduce the applicant pool too much, then it is probably a good idea (even if unconventional).

Note however that criteria (2) is important. If you use the filter "Is named Linus Torvalds", you would certainly increase the probability that any given applicant is good. Then again, your applicant pool will drop to either 0.

Re: Ask YC: Why the degree?

#140

Post by rw »

Goladus wrote: post #72
LPTS wrote: post #33

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"

It's not pretentious just because you don't know it. "Autodidactic" sums up a phrase using just one word. Basically it comes down to this:

Having a larger vocabulary allows you to spend more time communicating and less time talking.

Just like abstracting functionality away inside functions allows you to spend more time solving problems and less time (re)writing code.

Post reply on HN