Hacker News Reader

Comment by matte_black | Hacker News Reader

When deciding whether or not you should go to college, always look at the big picture and weigh your options. The kind of work you do in your early twenties probably doesn't require a college education or a strong network of college educated peers, so initially it will seem like you are getting by just fine. But what about your 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond?

No one needs to go to college for coding because coding is a blue collar job these days. In fact, when I went to university they didn't teach much coding beyond a programming 101 class and you were simply expected to learn various languages on your own time.

That class also certainly didn't teach you about the latest frameworks or trends either, just straight C and Java, which in hindsight I think were smart choices but at the time I didn't understand why they didn't teach more practical stuff.

View on HN

IMO college is there to provide you a well rounded education and opportunities to mix across your own social boundaries in education. I changed majors 3x and ended up with 3 different degrees and an ungodly amount of just for fun learning hours (so many my University said no more, which was irritating).

The background in computer technology from a university level is the "why" behind what you're implementing. Not the "how" you implement it. The hands on exercises are more to apply what you've learned than to give you skill training like a technical college.

I've worked with 1000s of developers over my career. The more knowledge you have, the more well rounded you'll be. This tends to lend itself to better developers in my experience. Where self taught is fantastic, but typically those coworkers (not all but most) tend to be pigeon holed into technologies instead of concepts.

Developers could learn a lot about business too, accounting, finance, marketing, etc.

I loved college and feel it really prepared me for figuring out my way in the world, much more so than simply reading Programming in C.

I started programming in my (very) early teens, and by the time I hit 18 I had enough skills to land a full-time programming gig. One internship before college and, in my best year, a (admittedly very) lower-middle-class income's worth of freelance work in-between homework assignments (though high 4 figures was more typical).

I loved programming and still do, but I went to college because I knew -- by the time I was 18 -- that I really wanted to do something more with my life than build other people's boring websites.

My advice to extremely bright and/or motivated high school students who have the option to get into the programming profession right away: consider whether this is going to be as intellectually stimulating in 5 years (or even 5 months) as it is now. There's no "right answer" to this question! But consider it carefully.

And don't under-estimate your potential.

So what did you end up doing and studying?

CS and Math, but with an eye on software careers outside of web development (my pre-college internship and freelancing work was all in web dev type work). "Play to your strengths and aim high" mentality. If business were one of my strengths/interests, I might've taken the author's approach. But web stuff isn't interesting enough (to me!) to provide a basis for an engineering-oriented career.

Note: Being way ahead in CS allowed me to study a lot of other stuff beyond the introductory level. Econ, art and architecture, a bit of business and law, the natural sciences, etc.

I see, I thought you didn't study CS because you knew enough of it where it wouldn't bring value but I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.

I think it's dangerous to assume that because you can land a job as a software developer, you know enough about CS or can learn all about other areas of CS on your own.

There's a lot more to CS than software engineering. And a lot more to software engineering than application development.

Software engineering wasn't recognized as a field of study when I was in school, as a matter of fact I don't think software engineering is an ABAT accredited field of study anywhere in the same vein as, say Computer Engineering, for instance.

A wise man once said computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

Computer science programs don't teach the latest frameworks and trends because they're teaching concepts and theory. The implementation is a side effect. That's why so many CS grads have never used git.

In addition, it seems pretty obvious that with 20+ years of industry experience, a reasonably competent 40 year old candidate would be as employable as one with a degree. Who cares about university degrees that far removed from obtaining one anyway?

"Computer science programs don't teach the latest frameworks and trends because they're teaching concepts and theory. The implementation is a side effect. That's why so many CS grads have never used Git."

That is correct. End-user utilities like Git are left as an exercise for the student, something that a CS graduate should be able, not only to learn to use in a couple of hours, but understand its inner workings without reverse engineering, and write its own version after.

The reason why Git is not tough in CS classes is that it is considered so trivial that is will be a waste of time (and tuition) to do so.

"In addition, it seems pretty obvious that with 20+ years of industry experience, a reasonably competent 40 year old candidate would be as employable as one with a degree. Who cares about university degrees that far removed from obtaining one anyway?"

It depends on what it will be writing; if it is another website that is just a magazine on HTML sure, no difference. If it is optimizing a compiler in assembler, correcting performance problems on a multiplatform system, or evaluating code for security holes in a sizable institution, then you better have your degree.

> If it is optimizing a compiler in assembler

So if you have a CS degree, you're qualified to optimize compilers and perform security audits at large institutions? No way.

In practice these are two different and highly specialized jobs. Why would you not consider someone who has a proven track record of optimizing compilers? Or finding security holes in code? I'd rather look at a portfolio than a certificate any day.

NDA

> If it is optimizing a compiler in assembler, correcting performance problems on a multiplatform system, or evaluating code for security holes in a sizable institution, then you better have your degree.

If you've spent 20+ years doing exactly that (because you're 40+), then what difference does a degree make?

Good luck getting your first job where you work in assambler without a degree

I've had multiple jobs where knowledge of assembly language was important and I don't have a degree.

And they shouldn't tbf, maybe point towards some things and use one in a practical exercise but nothing more. They're transient and most will not be around anymore in ten years time; it's better to learn how to figure out which one will work best. IDK if that's covered though.

Some larger companies have policies requiring degrees to become a manager or stuff like that.

These policies server two purposes: 1) form an easy-to-adjudicate test for filtering (yes/no) 2) reinforce the hierarchy advancement => reward structure

I mostly agree with this, but I wouldn't call coding a "blue-collar job." That has a lot of social implications that don't really fit.

My family of doctors and scientists definitely think of software as blue-collar work. Especially anything www.

My other family of nurses and factory workers definitely think of software as white-collar professional work. Especially anything www.

I think the same thing happens with engineering, except engineers have a bit more social capital due to their guilds.

More-over, the answer isn't static. E.g., a couple hundred years ago, we could've had this same conversation about whether carpenters or silver-smiths are laborers (or whatever other blue-collar-label-of-the-time).

But the answer also doesn't much matter. What matters is that your compensation makes you happy, will keep you happy in the future, and the work is interesting enough to make you feel sufficiently fulfilled (or the pay high enough that you don't care about that).

What is interesting is those safe doctor professions will be hit hard by automation. I see the beginning of automation already. Perhaps gp will be a thing of the past while all doctors become more specialists.

Like how webmd is making doctors unnecessary? Doubtful. At best they ( / we ) will get better diagnostics tools, but that won't reduce demand for people in the job.

It will be interesting to see the AMA and IBM's Watson duke it out as Watson (or similar AI) makes diagnostic knowledge a waste of human capital. I suspect in 10 years or less we'll just need an empathetic person to deliver us bad news who has the bare minimum medical knowledge to strap on whatever test apparatus properly.

That assumes a state of medical knowledge that is, I think, more advanced than the one we have in reality.

Some professional educations confer nigh-automatic professional class (Fussell's "upper middle") status, and tend to include socialization into that class as part of the package. Doctors, lawyers, certain fields in business. They may be rich, they may not, but every parent says "oh, your new SO's a lawyer! Better hang on to that one, kid!"

Programmers, engineers, and the like don't get that automatically, without more context—money, notable employer and notable position at that employer, and even then maybe not quite placed at the same social rank as a doctor/lawyer without even more context, e.g. school, other non-tech accomplishments (languages and arts especially), and so on. Going to any Ivy, top public, or famous European (especially British) school gets you closer (see the part above in paragraph one about socialization into the upper-middle).

[EDIT] I should add that you also don't gain Academic cred that puts you on a kind of adjacent track on the whole class system, with full professorships granting similar social standing to doctors/lawyers and the like. Unless you are in academia, and don't bail on it for private industry too early.

> I should add that you also don't gain Academic cred that puts you on a kind of adjacent track on the whole class system

Not just class system, but also career track.

If a DotCom 2.0 bust happens tomorrow, I can bail on tech of a half dozen other fields -- I have the network and the knowledge base to find high five/low six salaries outside of software. That's probably less true for me-N-years-ago, who could program certain things real good but that was about it.

Agreed. People here act like, because you don't do CS research, you have a blue collar job.

I have some news for you folks, most white collar jobs (account, finance, etc) are more boring than a job as a enterprise CRUD developer.

If development is blue collar, then 95% of jobs are blue collar...

Most medical jobs are more boring than a job as a enterprise CRUD developer. Some even pay less.

That doesn't make them blue collar, even when we consider some software to be blue collar.

Now, whether blue collar is a useful label and whether people should be considering social capital when choosing a career? Those are the more important questions.

Yes, clearly, more than income is going on; a plumber is likely to make more than a bookkeeper.

Calling a job that involves sitting, thinking and typing as “blue collar” is fairly ignorant. It sounds like you’ve never held a blue collar job and if you did you would realize how amazingly easy a job like programming actually is.

Not all blue collar work is back-breaking manual labor, although most blue collar work that's soft on the body also pays poorly. And not all white collar work is higher paying than blue collar work.

A lot of this is more about social standing/perception than earning potential or type of labor.

Nothing of what you said disputes what I said. Programmers are well paid and have a high social standing compares to real blue-collar jobs. Programmers are in no way blue collar jobs.

My point is that "blue collar" is not a static description, and there is no One True definition passed down from the Gods of Social Class.

> Programmers are well paid and have a high social standing compares to real blue-collar jobs

Neither of those is universally true, and it's not even clear to me that they're true often enough to justify your generalization.

Your assertions are completely unfounded.

So there is Devine scripture defining "blue collar"? Or what?

You'll have to be more specific. Your current comment is equivalent to "you're an idiot"

That's exactly what I wanted to say without breaking HN rules.

I went to college for Journalism, and while my degree ended up having nothing to do with my career, I'm still glad I went, and I'm still glad I got that degree. It taught me a lot about critically thinking and communicating.

That said, I really really wish I spent more time learning about myself and what I like to do. I think I'd be much further along in my software career if I had an MS in CS.

In any case, I do not regret going to college at all.

I agree.

I started programming at ~12 (early 90s). My jobs where limited until I went to uni (graduated at 29).

The actual coding taught at uni was minimal and outdated, and I wouldn't trust some graduates with a calculator. If you're good at coding, then you'll probably know it before you enrol.

But with my degree I was able to progress out of the sweat-shop type places.

It's hard for those who haven't been to uni to understand the benefits of it. It's more than just "experience vs study".

Here's my challenge to those who are "self-taught" (like I was): If you think you're so good, then why not enrol? (even P/T)

Why not enroll? Because college in the US is extremely expensive, and requires taking on massive debt.

(The author is not based in the states and is currently enrolled in grad school)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com