Comment by dougmwne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dougmwne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I never shied away from interviewing a person without a degree, and honestly tried to never count that as a mark against a person since making it in the professional world without a degree is a challenge that I think shows a certain character. A lot of doors are just closed by default and that can be tough on a person's sense of self-worth.

That said, I think the degree holders were better candidates usually, but I strongly suspect it wasn't because of the education. Colleges attract people who are good at carefully following complex instructions, have a healthy respect for authority, and can delay gratification in the extreme. They are also experts at navigating a system from within. The degree acts to filter out people who are too independent to fit well within a hierarchy.

I don't think I ever noticed much difference between different kinds of degree holders aside from a broad separation between analytical degrees and humanities degrees, which again might have had more to do with the initial filter than anything taught in the classes.

> have a healthy respect for authority, and can delay gratification in the extreme.

What does these qualities have to do with being a effective software developer?

> The degree acts to filter out people who are too independent to fit well within a hierarchy.

Wouldn't people that fall into the category of "free-thinkers" make for better engineers — or at least engineers that are more capable at creating novel solutions to hard problems?

One isn't Always creating novel solutions to hard problems. Sometimes there's boring work that Has to get done; respect for authority (understanding that the boring stuff Needs to be done) and delaying gratification (working on the boring stuff) is thus useful.

Delayed gratification means that you are willing to work on tasks that are not immediately fun or are frustrating or when manager is not looking. It means that you are more likely to keep doing tasks whose benefit is in the future (like writing tests). It means that you dont need pat on the back and managerial supervision so often to keep motivating.

Lack of healthy respect for authority typically means more fights about who will do which task and more likely to unilaterally refuse to follow random parts of code standards. It may mean refusal to close jira tasks or open them. It may mean that analysts have much harder time to convince that one person to do what is needed, again.

Software development is typically strongly team work and requires quite a lot of coordination among people with opinions. When one person decides he does not accept authority of analyst, architect or manager, yes there are consequences for whole team.

There's a difference between actual respect for authority and knowing when to shut up as well. I could not like management but I have nothing to gain from getting into a fight.

If we cannot have your love, then your fear will suffice.

> Wouldn't people that fall into the category of "free-thinkers" make for better engineers

No. However "freethinkers" can launch their own companies. It is like people say that Steve Jobs would not get hired at Apple today as if it were some great insight. It is simply company is looking for a set of skills and willing to pay money for it. SJ would rather launch a new company "Apricot' instead of working at Apple.

Besides 'freethinker' is just an euphemism and part of linkedin cliches nowadays. And the definition of free is anyway restrictive and bound to cultural and societal norms.

How much of the ACTUAL scope of work needs to be novel? I'd say a limited amount. There is a LOT of work that is just running ops. For example, a billing system doesn't need to be novel it's been pretty well worked out many times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com