He doesn't say anything. I look around to see if my thesis is on his bookshelf, but no, it isn't there. Then I turn around & I find my thesis. It is in his trashcan. I was so stunned & shocked. My advisor says sheepishly - look its just a Master's thesis. Its not like you have discovered a new theorem or something. These results are well known in the literature.
I just put my floppy in that trashcan and walked out. Its been more than 2 decades now but I still remember that incident like it was yesterday. Literally, nobody gives a fuck.
you are taking a single experience and applying it universally - maybe most people don't care, but there are some people who do.
But yeah, Master's thesis are usually useless. (although if I had followed what I had written in my master thesis, I would be quite wealthy smh)
I worked on my master's thesis quite a bit, even worked on submitting a publication (it was in control systems and was only rejected because they wanted more empirical results). The stuff was extremely groundbreaking - we were able to get 2 orders of magnitude of better performance compared to existing solutions.
Fast forward to a few weeks back, when I was talking with a process team at a multi-billion dollar biotech company (yes, it's a huge) somewhat casually, when that idea cropped back up. Their response was basically "meh, we really don't need that much higher performance".
I'm sure if I were to start up around this, I would be able to get enough funding from the recent AI rounds from VCs. But I wouldn't have customers willing to buy this in the first place! I would be like the proverbial solution looking for a problem to solve.
The gesture is unfortunate and I understand that you were shocked. I'm curious if your view of it changed with experience however?
I mean, unless you actually discover something great - which very rarely happen, is frankly exceptional and would probably lead to a paper on top of the actual thesis - a master thesis is mostly something you do for yourself. The point of doing it is what you learn durint the exercise. It's not really intended for being read outside of your jury. An advisor might keep a few good ones to give as reference to future students but that's pretty much it.
Hopefully, your advisor actually gave a shit when he was advising you. That's where he could have been valuable.
Somewhat to my surprise, I've found that at least 90% of candidates who include a GitHub username, when I go look at their repositories, either have nothing but unmodified forks of existing open-source projects or obvious "go through the tutorial for technology X" projects. I can totally get how, after seeing that kind of thing ten times in a row, people might give up looking.
But I still always look, both at the person's public repositories and at their contribution history in other public repos.
Tip: If you're applying and want people to look at your repo. Mention this in either your cover letter or on top of your resume. If it's empty, better to leave the link out altogether.
So I’m thinking about with each major bullet point of what I did in STAR format, I’ll have a footnote to the open source code that came from it
My prior two jobs came from knowing someone who knew someone looking for my particular combination of experience and meeting them.
I’m not saying I’m a special snowflake. But I’ve previously been hired for more strategy/architect type positions where the CxO or director wanted someone who was vetted.
When I asked for this I was told they had looked at my GH account and that it was clear that I had the skills they needed. That was nice.
Something similar happened on the job after that.
But in the last two gigs I had to do a coding exercise and I was a bit disappointed that my GH didn't seem to have an effect.
The difference? In the last two jobs the companies were big organisations, with a clear interviewing process, and the technical interview was on hands of almost random engineers that could even not be part of the team I was joining.
When I have been involved in the process, I always look for public open source code. So far I have never had a candidate with an active GH account.
Personally, I have been happier working with the people that cared about these things.
On the other hand, I get a guy who I can see is optimistic, friendly, humble, hungry etc and know I’m going to be happy to give him his raise every 6 months. He will be a good employee which is only really 10-20% about his skill. If he gets through our technical interview then why would I even bother looking at his repos? A homemade stupid flashy website tells me he has a rudimentary understanding of computers, he’ll figure out the rest if he doesn’t know it. Are these applicants going through my history or my companies history, painstakingly preparing questions about something tangentially related to their position? I hope not, there is simply too much movement to expect anyone to care that much.
You shouldn’t care in most cases. I wouldn’t care. I hadn’t had any open source contributions since 1994 when I submitted code to the ftp info Mac archive until 2020. The only reason I have any now is because I get paid for it.
> On the other hand, I get a guy who I can see is optimistic, friendly, humble, hungry etc and know I’m going to be happy to give him his raise every 6 months. He will be a good employee which is only really 10-20% about his skill.
Are you going to do a strategic hire who only has 20% of the skill you are looking for? Are you going to hire him as a team lead? Someone leading a major new initiative without having proven industry skills?
> A homemade stupid flashy website tells me he has a rudimentary understanding of computers,
And that’s why I don’t do coding outside of work. Every piece of code I have on GitHub is running at a company somewhere and they paid my employer to use it. I more than likely spent hours on calls gathering requirements, vetting the design, teaching them how to use it, etc.
As for hiring for my team, the results are unfortunately much less useful. The vast majority of GH repos are completely useless, half finished tutorials or some long abandoned project.
Sometimes I have found some really interesting work though, and this always earns the candidate an interview from me.
But I agree that I'm in the minority, most other senior developers or managers don't care about it at all. And I've never had a recruiter mention it.
On my resume while I can’t say who I did it for, I can say what I did and point to open source artifacts that came from it.
At my age now and at this point in my career, I would never spend significant time outside of work coding.
The problem is that a Github repo is too much time an effort to evaluate on technical merits. And even if the work is good, how fast can you do it? Some people turn out good work at 1/3 the rate their peers, I don't want to hire them. Between other parts of the evaluation I can give the repo 30-60 minutes max, just not enough time.
1. Correctness
2. Matching the content to the intended audience
I find that in general I have no time to check correctness, nor is it obvious who the intended audience is. A blurb and basic setup instructions is fine if the intended audience is the author. A tool intended for a particular set of power users may not require motivation. The author may well know how to write more accessible documentation and chose not to for a sensible reason.
It’s almost impossible to be a force multiplier without them.
My last two jobs before my current one and probably my next one aren’t really based on traditional submit my resume and interview. It’s based on networking and now mentioning “check out my GitHub profile” when you get a chance.
So keep doing it and talking about if it's your passion. Don't do it if it's forced. It's the passion that stands out and humans can tell if someone is really passionate about something or not.
If you do want nice notes, solicit them in the readmes. “If you see this, send me a note at foo@bar and tell me your thoughts!”
I rarely email a random person my random thoughts unless I have a smart question or bug report. Maybe only once have I sent a thank you this is so interesting email. Don’t want to bug people.