Hacker News Reader

Comment by MaxBarraclough | Hacker News Reader

> I could have learned what I did in a much shorter time.

I sincerely doubt it. For learning the non-practical fundamentals of, say, computer science, there is no known learning environment that beats a university.

> Not a degree, but a trade school

So, only directly applicable skills, no theory and nuts-and-bolts fundamentals? Sounds far inferior to a bachelor's degree.

The software field is known for being open to talented autodidacts, in a way that, say, bridge engineering is not. That doesn't mean it makes sense to dismiss the benefits of quality formal education.

Someone with a decent bachelor's degree in computer science will have a depth and breadth of knowledge far in excess of where they'd be if they'd spent that time teaching themselves web development on the job.

> No BS courses like philosophy, social sciences, etc

Here in the UK, a STEM degree is quite 'pure', and you aren't expected to study topics like philosophy. That doesn't mean there's no value in studying them though. If philosophy struck you as a complete waste of time, then either it was taught badly, or you failed to make the most of it.

View on HN

>I sincerely doubt it. For learning the non-practical fundamentals of, say, computer science, there is no known learning environment that beats a university.

This is just nonsense. I would go so far as to say that I never actually learned anything in my undergrad CS classes. A combination of challenging internships and personal curiosity let me to teach myself everything I was taught in school before I was taught it in school. Of course, I only got those internships in the first place because I went to a good school and had connections that I gained by attending that school, but the idea that an otherwise competent developer can't teach themselves CS theory efficiently on their own is totally absurd.

Furthermore, being taught CS fundamentals in a university is far from a good indicator of developer ability. I've interviewed a shocking number of candidates with at least a BS in computer science who were completely unable to complete incredibly simple exercises (think similar in complexity to FizzBuzz). I expect developers to have a strong grasp of the fundamentals, but they also need to be able to actually apply those fundamentals. CS departments are utterly failing in that regard.

I learnt plenty in my CS courses. I just don’t use most of them, and most of the skills I do use I didn’t learn there. That does not mean it was a waste of time - knowing the theory behind various data structures, algorithms, and circuitry make programming more satisfying for me.

> I would go so far as to say that I never actually learned anything in my undergrad CS classes.

I'm not sure whether to think your school had an awful CS program or you went into your classes with the wrong attitude.

There are lots of practical skills that get taught in universities that aren't direct trade knowledge -- you didn't feel like you learned how to learn? Or were exposed to new ideas and parts of the field that you otherwise wouldn't know about?

> For learning the non-practical fundamentals of, say, computer science, there is no known learning environment that beats a university.

God forbid you don't even consider that you're wrong. "Wrong attitude" signaling is pathetic.

> There are lots of practical skills that get taught in universities that aren't direct trade knowledge

That's a problem, but it's also hyperbole. I mean, I'm talking to a 1998 CS/EE from Berkeley who couldn't bother to try to repair his own power supply because it has a danger sticker on it. What you learn in University is to be so blind in your lane, that you don't even recognize it. It's the antithesis of learning to learn.

> God forbid you don't even consider that you're wrong. "Wrong attitude" signaling is pathetic.

Write a substantive counterpoint, if you want me to consider a differing opinion.

If you aren't interested in doing that, there's little point attacking me for expressing mine.

The next sentence is

> A combination of challenging internships and personal curiosity let me to teach myself everything I was taught in school before I was taught it in school.

Which doesn't mean that their CS program wasn't teaching anything worthwhile, just that it didn't have a monopoly on that value. It also doesn't mean that they had the wrong attitude; on the contrary, I think learning out of self-interest is a much better attitude than waiting for that knowledge to be fed to oneself in a classroom.

Oh, practical skills, eh? Debugging? Nope. Version control? Nope. Testing? Nope (at least, no class directly about testing---you were on your own to get your programs working). Multithreading? Nope. ML? Okay, an introductory course in AI involving LISP. Functional programming? Nope. Declarative programming? A bit of SQL and that's it. Design patterns? Nope.

Out of that list, I think the only thing I hadn't heard about prior to attending college was multithreading [1]. They did cover a lot of theoretical material though. In fact, there were a few professors in the computer science department that despised computers and barely touched the things (personally, I think they were failed math professors).

[1] I attended university in the late 80s/early 90s.

Which university? Sounds like the course offerings were weak or you selected poorly. (Though early-90s CS programs were different than today -- truly a different era).

It was a state university. Their stand out program was in ocean engineering (much better than MIT's program), and the computer science department was new when I attended.

I'm not sure if that's a function of your particular college, or of the decade. Perhaps both.

Today, I'd expect any recent CS graduate to have studied most, or perhaps all, of those topics. In my CS degree we covered every one of them.

(Of course, I'm simply mirroring beambot's comment, here.)

This mirrors my own experience in college. Lower level CS classes (with an EXCELLENT professor, Scholler) helped to fill in a a few important gaps, but 90% of the information from my classes I already knew and had been using for a couple years prior to college.

Also, all of the BS humanities and other non-pertinent classes were entirely useless, and for many it seemed the curriculum was entirely politically driven; learned very little from these.

> I sincerely doubt it. For learning the non-practical fundamentals of, say, computer science, there is no known learning environment that beats a university

IBEW electricians apprentice program is 5 years long. 6 months classroom, 6 months on a job site, repeat for 5 years until you're a journeyman.

IMO the exact same pattern would be more effective than a 4 year degree any day. I've interviewed 100s of college grads at a top tech company, and I used to teach a bootcamp program. My 14 week bootcamp grads were more useful than any college grad I've interviewed, but had weak understanding of the fundamentals. If that bootcamp was 2 years I could've probably gotten them up to speed. If that classroom time was intermixed with actual industry experience they'd come out the other end ready to hit the ground running.

> were more useful than any college grad I've interviewed, but had weak understanding of the fundamentals

That's the issue with bootcamps, along with the cost.

A local bootcamp (Wyncode) is 11 weeks at $10,000, which is ridiculous. 1-2 programming classes at a local school can probably supplement your fundamentals, honestly, Operating Systems, Parallel Programming, and Senior Project would probably be the most useful courses for a bootcamp grad.

I don't think you understand what a bootcamp is. The one I taught was 14 weeks of 40 hours per week classroom plus an additional 20+ hours of homework. It is BY FAR the most bang for your buck for practical hands on coding skills. A couple programming classes isn't even in the same universe.

Beyond that, our course material was bleeding edge. When some new hottness came out we incorporated it into our curriculum. Colleges have too much bureaucracy to keep up with the latest tech trends.

There's nothing wrong with bleeding edge in course material, the issue with bootcamps has always been lacking of computing fundamentals.

I think it's wonderful that a bootcamp leaves out requirements that involve stuff like sociology, art history, community service, political science, and similar undesired gunk.

I think it is tolerable that a bootcamp leaves out 3 semesters of calculus, 3 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of discrete math, 1 semester of statistics, 1 semester of digital logic, more math, and more science. The value here is limited.

What is terrible is that a bootcamp usually neglects anything outside of one narrow specialty that happens to be popular, typically web development. The typical bootcamp isn't teaching how to create a compiler, an OS, factory automation, life-critical software, or hard real-time software.

> IBEW electricians apprentice program is 5 years long. 6 months classroom, 6 months on a job site, repeat for 5 years until you're a journeyman.

I mean, I did that for my CS degree. It was 8 months classroom, 4 months in the field, but pretty close, right? And I got paid pretty good money for those 4 months in the field!

I'll never understand the others in my program that didn't try to find internships.

In the US it's quite common for a BS in comp sci to include 1+ year of required liberal arts courses as a "general education" requirement. It's not a stretch to look at this and wonder if a more focused 2-3 year or 4 year degrees would produce an equivalent or better result.

Disagree. University education is not just about learning how to do something,but more about developing yourself as a person and those additional courses are necessary. CS graduates with little to no exposure to other areas or fields are useless.This eventually results in people who's first email is 'send me the details to your api' instead of asking what issues I'm having,why i'm having and etc. There are also so many businesses opportunities that only become visible after exploring various fields, including liberal arts.

I continue to find great value in the Liberal Arts courses that I took when I went to University. Philosophy, in particular, serves me a great deal: it has helped me to understand the world and personal narratives that I live under, and aided me in finding an ethical framework that I might not have developed otherwise.

Regardless, courses in English, Literature, and other courses I had to take outside of my main coursework for Computer Science has made my personal experience better, I believe, or at least more fulfilling.

I believe that it is also the job of a good education to prepare someone to be a good member of a Democracy, and as part of that one must be able to accept other tolerant points of view, and be able to reach compromise. Courses all throughout our education should aid us in developing the empathy necessary for the process to work. It appears that we have failed, in the US, in this regard. Quite horribly.

In some Universities these mandatory Liberal Arts "electives" are fluffy filler topics where you are forced to buy the textbook written by the lecturer. You can only choose between four equally fluffy filler topics per semester.

I was fucking furious when I realized I'd been duped. I'm a voracious omnivore and I do believe Universities should promote wider learning but this was a straight up money extraction scam.

I think it is worse the other way around though. Science majors generally have to take real history and English classes, often side by side with humanities students. Humanities majors generally are corralled into things like "Biology and You" and "Physics for Poets". It's unfortunate because it isn't surprising that these people then fall for the postmodern critique of science as nothing particularly special because they've only been exposed to dumbed-down versions of it.

Watching my daughter struggle with some difficult course choices that she made in high school, I find it troubling how our entire grading system works.

We shouldn't be punished for choosing difficult courses, and actually learning the material, even if it is slightly behind the pace of the course itself. Unfortunately, doing so has implications for your entire future in the United States (unless you have the money to buy your way into college, of course).

I've been thinking about this comment a lot the last few days.

It could be specific to the University I went to, or some aspect of the fact that I went to a Jesuit University that made the quality of the philosophy coursework I took so high.

Regardless, I'm sorry you had that experience.

Define "better"? I'd argue that the general lack of critical thought, ethics, and compassion for humanity in general - including those with rarefied STEM degrees - is a direct result of not enough liberal arts classes during college.

Then again, twenty-five years ago I wouldn't have even entertained the idea that more liberal education classes for me would serve me and the world around me better. It wasn't until I started reading those books out of curiosity later in life that I really appreciated their value.

Your last paragraph really sums up my perception of the liberal arts courses I was required to take: they don't have value at this point in my life. They are a large waste of time, and a massive waste of money. I would be quite happy taking those courses later on in life, at my leiser, when the opportunity cost they incur is not nearly so high.

Or not at all in some cases.

Too much of that stuff is indoctrination and opinion being passed off as education as of late.

It results in people who believe they are "educated" because they have learned to hold certain opinions. And judging others "education" by the opinions they hold rather than fact that they know.

That isn't to say an understanding of history, of languages etc isn't worth having, it certainly is. Some of the other stuff not so much.

Additionally, the sad reality on the ground often is a person is judged as educated by the display of indoctrination they receive, so practically speaking, at this point in time it does have some value can open doors. But that's kind of BS really imo, and I don't care for it.

Ahhhh this is a whole new can of worms. I have a personal anecdote about the educational indoctrination issue as well: I transferred colleges between 2nd and 3rd year. My new university's registration system would not allow me to register for classes until I'd completed their "Cultural Inclusivity Module". This was about 6 hours of clicking through a pretty (but disfunctional) web app which would have you read several pages, then ask you 10 questions. If you missed more than one, it would put you back on the first page, forcing you to do a minimum timed rereading of the content. The module was entirely fluff about how I am not allowed to perform microagressions against cultural ideas that I disagree with, even if they are despicable. It was full of factual errors, incomplete sentences and ideas, and the best of all, sometimes at the end of a section when I went to submit my answers, the submit button would be grayed out, forcing me to go through the mind fucking content again. I ended up refusing to do it, had a conference with the dean where I explained that no where in my obligations to the school did I agree to perform classes for no credit, against my will, while paying for them. Twas quite a time to be alive!

And a lot of the time they leave University with a BS in Computer Science and can't find (code) their way out of a paper bag.

This is a real problem, and it does undermine the comp sci degree. Some people are completely intimidated by programming and immediately give up, they get enough credits through the modules that don’t require any actual coding and then do their dissertation on something totally abstract.

I think these students are failed by the system as programming’s core concepts are quite basic, it seems to be the tooling around it that students struggle with.

Computer Science is not there to prepare you to be a good software developer.

Comp Sci is 'Sci' :)

It just so happens that being a good programmer is mostly an applied skill, and that you don't have to have rocket science Comp Sci chops to be a decent developer.

In fact, in 2019, a lot of development just isn't really Comp Sci.

That said, I wonder if programs should adapt and be more applied to have more of a professional kind of designation.

Think of chemistry vs. chemical engineering. Chemistry worries about atoms and molecules, and the reactions that transform one set of molecules into another set. Chemical engineering worries about efficiently producing the desired reactions, at scale, without blowing up the factory. Chemists don't spend much time thinking about pipe bursting strength; chemical engineers do. Sure, a chemical engineer needs to know a fair amount of chemistry, but someone with a chemistry degree is not ready to be a chemical engineer.

It's the same way with CS. It should be part of the college of science, just like chemistry. Software engineering should be a separate discipline, and be within the college of engineering. And having a CS degree doesn't really prepare you to work as a software engineer.

Unfortunately, what we have is CS departments turning out graduates, most of whom will work as software engineers rather than computer scientists, and who are therefore badly trained for the career that they're going to try to have...

It's a good analogy. The reason I didn't use it is because I'm a Computer Engineer myself, not Comp Sci and I still don't think I was remotely prepared for the workplace!

Partly due to the fact 'Engineering' is a hard thing to apply in the computer world.

Partly because software R&D and Enterprise Software isn't engineering either!

Computer Science is not about coding

Such blanket statements make me sorely miss Dijkstra... So computer science is "How to program if you cannot." ?

> So computer science is "How to program if you cannot." ?

Well, no. Of course not.

Theoretical computer science, for instance, might be defined as mathematics that pertains to computation.

Rice's Theorem isn't the result of any programming. Neither is information theory.

> there is no known learning environment that beats a university.

I've tried university twice and left both times before getting a degree. We are utterly incompatible, despite my grades being in the top 1% from an academic standpoint (And while attending my GPA was 4.0)

I was headhunted in 1st year (the first time) and never looked back. I've come across many 'self motivated' coders like myself who thrive in all things IT, without needing to be spoonfed.

> no theory and nuts-and-bolts fundamentals?

I've done digital and electronics and full stack engineering, written compilers, embedded systems, 3D engines and modellers, etc, etc.

I think that suffices as 'nuts and bolts'. I'm only yet to write my own OS.

When hiring, I would basically ignore the degree and look at their work: their code and their ability to communicate their understanding of it.

I think we live in two different worlds indeed! I'm more like OP and like getting down and dirty. I see problems (in the marketplace) and I make solutions - however they come whether it be JS or ASM.

> We are utterly incompatible, despite my grades being in the top 1% from an academic standpoint (And while attending my GPA was 4.0)

It seems fairly clear then that you aren't representative.

> When hiring, I would basically ignore the degree and look at their work: their code and their ability to communicate their understanding of it.

This could well be a wise strategy. I'm not saying academic achievement is the best predictor of industry success - there are plenty of horror stories of seemingly impressive graduates failing fizzbuzz.

It seems clear to me though that for many of us, a CS degree is the proper way to start one's tech career.

> I'm more like OP and like getting down and dirty

But you're clearly quite capable at working with advanced topics 'behind the code'. This can't be said of all professional programmers. There are plenty of code monkeys out there who don't even understand basic data-structures, let alone the concepts behind compilers and rendering engines.

> Someone with a decent bachelor's degree in computer science will have a depth and breadth of knowledge far in excess of where they'd be if they'd spent that time teaching themselves web development on the job.

Also, zero professional judgement, and more likely than not, not even knowing what they are missing. Engineering curricula have their problems but at least fresh MEs and EEs IME realize that they don't know anything. Fresh CS grads come in and want to do a rewrite--in a language not used anywhere else in the company no less. Give me a self taught guy any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

> zero professional judgement, and more likely than not, not even knowing what they are missing. Engineering curricula have their problems but at least fresh MEs and EEs IME realize that they don't know anything. Fresh CS grads come in and want to do a rewrite--in a language not used anywhere else in the company no less

I agree with all of this.

I suspect it's due at least in part to the way the software world has an attitude of move fast and break things, whereas bridge engineers and aeronautical engineers are shown disaster photos to emphasise the point that If you screw up in your professional responsibilities, you may kill hundreds of people.

You don't ask a fresh graduate to single-handedly design a bridge. If you did, I like to imagine they'd be sufficiently terrified that they'd decline, and not just because of the legal regulations.

There is no such 'culture of responsibility' in the software world, excepting a few life-critical problem domains.

I suspect universities could reduce the fresh graduate know-it-all effect if they made the effort:

* Teach students about the cognitive biases that will cause them to overestimate their own expertise early in their careers

* Related: teach them the principle of Chesterton's Fence (especially valuable in junior developers)

Also, perhaps explicitly enumerate the skills that they simply will not have on day 1 in industry -- the skills that cannot really be taught in a university -- such as:

* The ability to work effectively with with legacy systems that are large, badly written, use inconsistent style, and are poorly documented (like a boxer, much of a developer's job is simply to cope with chaos)

* The ability to communicate effectively with non-technical customers (coursework is a poor simulacrum)

> Give me a self taught guy any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Perhaps if you're hiring them for a 6 month stint, this might make good sense.

I'm not saying a degree is a substitute for industry experience, I'm saying there's value in what's taught, and that developers are unlikely to ever learn those things on the job.

> developers are unlikely to ever learn those things on the job

On the job, you're probably right. But if someone happens to be the type of person that sees a link about a new asymptotically fastest multiplication algorithm and ends up spending an hour reading about karatsuba multiplication then he or she is likely to catch up after too many years, and then pass the formally educated that aren't so inclined.

So if you'll take a friendly amendment I'd say:

- If you want someone for a six month stint, go self taught

- If your company is using the tournament model and you churn through juniors in two or three years on average, go with CS grads (careful of those sharp edges though)

- If you are looking to invest in employees for the long term, go with lifelong learners regardless of credentials

> she is likely to catch up after too many years, and then pass the formally educated that aren't so inclined.

I'm not sure about this. It seems to me that this really downplays the value of attending a good university.

Speaking for myself, I really can't imagine 'catching up with myself' had I not gone to university.

I wouldn't have developed my writing skills. I likely wouldn't have seen what proper grown-up mathematics looks like. I wouldn't have seen how academics work, up close. I can't honestly say I would likely have studied the various dry-but-valuable topics that universities are known for. I'd probably have a much harder time reading computer science research papers.

Additionally, universities teach students how to learn independently. I don't think this should be underestimated.

> If you want someone for a six month stint, go self taught

Well, kinda. If you want someone for a six month stint, and your choice is somehow between a green-horn graduate and a seasoned developer who never went to university, then sure, you're probably best off with the experienced developer.

(Assuming of course that the problem domain doesn't require any particular technical specialism.)

There's a reason large companies run training programmes for fresh graduates: they want people with formal training and the necessary working knowledge.

> If your company is using the tournament model and you churn through juniors in two or three years on average, go with CS grads

I'm sure this happens, but I'm not sure it makes any sense. I know it's the norm for software professionals to move jobs every few years to get the raise they deserve, but I'm not convinced this is in the interests of the employers. They have spend considerable effort bringing their replacement up to speed.

> If you are looking to invest in employees for the long term, go with lifelong learners regardless of credentials

I don't follow. Credentials reflect expertise and achievement, it's just that they aren't the whole picture. Do Google recruiters discount the grades of their applicants? No, they're looking for top-flight hires, and grades are an important part of that.

And I do think that they where referring to the advanced vocational training route and not a traditional craft apprentice.

Hell if you had called any of my pears on my Mech Eng Btech (termo fluids) course an apprentice we would have told you where to shove it.

>I sincerely doubt it. For learning the non-practical fundamentals of, say, computer science, there is no known learning environment that beats a university.

I think you kind of just made the point. Why would I pay for something that isn’t practical?

Because what may prove practical over a long term may not do so in the short or medium term.

And because what counts as “practicality” changes as people progress through their careers, but the foundations required to meet each new standard of what counts as practical often remain the same (or change less).

That's perhaps the key point. I have engineering degrees (not CS) yet I work for a software tech company and do a lot of things that are much more about a broader liberal arts education and extracurricular activities than they are about specific technical courses I took. And, even when I did work as an engineer, it mostly wasn't in an area where I directly applied coursework.

And my business courses have helped a lot more in both undergrad and as an MBA dropout.

Most of us are working to increase business value for companies - either by making them money or by saving them money. They could care less about “Cracking the Code” and LeetCode.

As long as I have been doing this professionally - over 2 decades and before that 10 years as a hobbyist writing 65C02 assembly and C. I can honestly say that at this point in my career, the computer science part of what I learned hasn’t really helped me besides one course in data structures. That was only because I spent over a decade doing C.

Most developers won’t be doing that these days.

As my career has progressed, it’s moved further away and at higher levels of abstractions. These days even hardware is abstracted behind an API with cloud providers.

I think "non-practical" was perhaps poor wording.

I assume what the parent meant was a "data structures and algorithms" course, compared with say, "How to code in Java using the standard library".

The latter is "practical" - you can take what you learn and churn out code in Java.

The former is "non-practical" - you can't make the theories you now understand function without a practical implementation. But you can recognize the implementation in any environment, and understand its implications.

The general assertion is that an understanding of the "non-practical" will serve you longer than a purely "practical" education. I tend to agree.

Well put. Yes, I might have phrased that better.

A concrete example: My firewall rule is set to deny all incoming TCP connections except those originating from port 80, and destined for port 80. Why is it blocking all my HTTP connection attempts?

If you understand TCP, you'll understanding that we shouldn't be filtering on source port at all. If you have only the vague sort of understanding that comes from using a technology in practice but never having properly studied it, you might have no idea.

And yet I'd still count that as 'non-practical knowledge'. It isn't something you're ever going to apply 'directly', unless you're one of the handful of people implementing their own TCP stack.

There's similar value in studying complexity theory (why does this seemingly simple code take so long?), operating system fundamentals (aren't containers and VMs roughly the same though?), and compilers (for a deeper appreciation of programming in general, and, my personal favourite, to instil a due sense of terror regarding undefined behaviour in C-family languages).

While not everything learned in an undergraduate computer science program is practical in the sense that you'll use it all the time in the real world, there are a fair number of topics that while not necessary 99% of the time turn out to be the best solution that other 1% of the time. Finite state automata, for example, isn't something I'd bother to learn about but has proven helpful a handful of times.

You pay for many things in life that are not practical. Why would you expect from education to be 100% practical?

If practicality doesn't matter, why not study Pokémon?

There’s a lot of numbers between 0 and 100...

Why have you have not learnt to code at high school if you wanted to do CS

Reply on news.ycombinator.com