Hacker News Reader

I have a bachelor's degree in computer science. I probably learned some topics better than I would have on my own, thanks to being forced to dig deeper for the class. But I was an avid self-studier of computer science, and I learned a whole lot on my own. For the amount of computer science knowledge I need to do my real world work so far, I'm not convinced getting the formal education made a noticeable difference.

That said, I really appreciate all of the other topics I learned in more breadth and/or depth while in college. I learned far more about psychology, linguistics, literature, history, etc., than I would have any time soon on my own. I enjoy reading, and enjoy learning a wide variety of topics, but I tend to hyperfocus on what I feel interested in at the time. I doubt I would have bothered to learn anything about Russian culture or listened to recordings of Jelly Roll Morton if I hadn't been required to for course credit... and I feel better about myself for having learned these things.

And therein lies the real advantage, I think. I may be unschooled, but I am educated. Unfortunately, it's taken me the better part of fifty years to get there. These days my own abilities are severely restricted by Lewy Body Dementia, so I spend my time and energy mentoring young folk -- and none of them will hear me say that a liberal eduction is a waste of time. (And yes -- Jelly Roll, the Cabster and even His Royal Hipness hisself are part of the program.)

Sounds like you went to a great school. Most colleges in India don't allow any flexibility in what courses you can take. You have to pass all the prescribes subjects. Liberal arts? That's unheard of back here.

How can you not have liberal Arts, How can u not Have Art? They probably teach that in freaking Zimbabwe :P?

What common is it not true? He is making India sound like some very very poor country not a developing country

Mate, "liberal arts" is not a subject, trust me, you do have liberal arts in India :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

edit:link added

Here's the thing: I got a Masters in Software engineering 10 years after getting a BSEE. I studied all the interesting topics in software development I could find in the 10 years before going back to school. During my masters coursework, however, I was exposed to a bunch of things I had absolutely no interest in or knowledge of and I was blown away by how little I knew about the field in general as opposed to my little slice of it.

The problem with most self-taught people is that the knowledge is deep, but narrow. To be an excellent, innovative, developer you need breadth in order to be able to consider alternate approaches to a problem, but with sufficient depth in certain key areas to be able to do analysis when necessary.

College provides in 4 years what could otherwise take decades of "on the job" learning.

I've seen really good AND really bad developers with and without degrees. It really does seem to be more the person than the training.

Successful people without college degrees tend to take a few more years to move up the development food chain, they're basically opting to do on-the-job training.

Successful people with college degrees tend to have a stronger foundation in theory, which is useful; whether or not people want to admit it.

I don't believe they have the same skill sets, but they both bring something to the table.

Disclosure: My highest level of education is High School. I dropped out of college in my second semester to go work as a programmer. Over the years, I've hired lots of developers for various companies, and worked with hundreds of developers as well - with and without degrees.

It's not that a CS program has no useful content, but that the content is available to anyone interested in finding it. Knuth is accessible to a mathematically-inclined person with a tenth grade (equivalent) knowledge of mathematics (and three hundred bucks in his pocket), SICP is eerily transparent, the Dragon Book is certainly not beyond the ken of mere mortals, and so it goes. Admittedly, it takes more work to move beyond naivete without a formal education, but those who care about the craft will eventually get there. Those who do not care will still bubble sort despite their degree.

And you oh-so-effectively refute it.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Or is your argument that all people who go to college are "rich and naive kids" as you implied earlier in the thread?

You're exposing a pretty huge chip on your shoulder.

No, I posted that before parent edited his post (classy). Initially, he only claimed that my point was a fallacy and made no argument whatsoever.

No, I posted that before parent edited his post (classy).

Now if only I could become as classy as you, injecting ad hominem jabs, bitter snark, and class warfare into the argument as a replacement for actually backing up your points.

[edited for wit]

Am I tired, or was that comment nothing but ad hominem? Perhaps you should take the high road next time and assume that I am just stating my own opinions, not trying to argue with anybody.

[edit below]

However, as you're egging me on, I will rebut your flimsy argument, the crux of which is this anecdotal beaut:

"It just seems unlikely that there's 'very little' that the computer science program gave to the developer. It certainly doesn't match what I've actually seen in-field."

If that's all you have to lean on, I don't understand how your comment was upvoted so much. Absent in your analysis is a thorough inventory of what college gives you: While it provides new opportunities for learning, it also does not provide things that you get in the working world, such as

* Business sense and professionalism

* Assuming you don't live at home, a sense of independence: Knowing how to take care of yourself at 22 when everyone else is just figuring out is a huge advantage, believe it or not

* Documented experience

* References from others with working-world experience

On the other hand, there are indeed negatives of going to college. To me, the greatest one is the massive time drain: I work in the day, go home, teach myself more, read history, learn chess, and basically provide my own education. This is not by design, but rather, by my nature. It's unfortunate that so many take education to be the exclusive realm of educational institutions.

Sitting through lectures and working to verify for your professors that you are learning, to me, is a waste of time, when I know damn well if I've learned it properly. If I haven't, and it's important, it will show quickly back at work.

Oh, and college costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Am I tired, or was that comment nothing but ad hominem?

That was kind of the point. I was trying to be classy, like you.

Perhaps you should take the high road next time and assume that I am just stating my own opinions, not trying to argue with anybody.

I didn't mean to start an argument, I was just responding to your post. You said that a degree in computer science adds nothing to how someone develops software. I replied that this seems false, gave my reasons why, and asked if anyone had evidence to the contrary. You took offense and started flaming.

[yadda yadda yadda ... you insulted my argument then said a bunch of other irrelevant stuff ... yadda yadda yadda]

My argument was short because what you said is prima facie false: you more or less said that years of training in software development adds nothing to one's software development skill set. It doesn't take much to rebut that.

The rest of what you said was all well and good, but you're now attacking a strawman. We're not talking about a cost-benefit analysis of going to college, so your points aren't really germane here. We're talking about your claim that college adds nothing, which you still haven't backed up ... probably because it's a completely untenable position. Four years of anything will add something to your skill set.

But flame on ... I'm done with the thread.

But flame on . . . I'm done with the thread.

To quote As Good as it Gets

"Last word freak."