4 ms·

That just sounds like entitlement to me. "I had to go through a longer, more expensive program, and learned harder things, therefore, why do they deserve to be

That just sounds like entitlement to me. "I had to go through a longer, more expensive program, and learned harder things, therefore, why do they deserve to be given the chances I was?" It doesn't matter what you had to go through - what matters is whether you are capable to do the job. I went through a 4-year program. I'm a programmer at a startup. I use very little of any knowledge I acquired at school on a daily basis. Graphics? Compilers? Advanced algorithms? Nope. I just need to solve relatively simple problems and write code that's maintainable. The second part you don't learn in school - in fact, you probably learn the opposite. The first part requires a bit of a shift in thinking if you've never programmed before.. Hence bootcamps. I'm not deluded into thinking I'm really that much more capable at doing my job than someone who spent less time learning not-so-practical things. Obviously this depends on what you're doing - bootcampers can't just go be machine learning experts. But web devs? Of course. I've interviewed people from 4 year programs, and I've interviewed bootcampers. My guesses on their respective resumes pretty much matched up with how I graded them on their interviews. In both groups, you have the people who get it, and the people who don't. Obviously, the percentage was higher in the CS education group than the bootcamp group. But there are some really good bootcampers. There's also lazy fucks (get-rich-schemers) in both crowds. And I can tell the difference pretty easily in resumes. It's fine that you have that heuristic - if you're running a tight ship and can't afford the time, then that makes sense. But to justify it like that is a bit silly.

joslin01 11y ago
Both of you guys are implying that my cause is entitlement when really it's just part of the overall equation. I don't understand how judging character by simple generalizations such as "Ok, you went to college, which means you got into college, which means you must have studied, which means you must have XYZ..." makes me a callous person out of nowhere and acting out of mere entitlement. Your argument is fallacious because it sits on a false premise. I do not think I got scammed by university (as the guy below me said), but rather was gifted by it. Nor do I think that everyone has to go through the same path as me. Did I ever say I would deny a programmer who has been working in the industry for a few years with noticeable results despite a college education? I'm pretty sure my top foreign dev right now has no college education, but is self-taught. I read my sentence again and you know I'm just being honest with you guys. It's not about a "me vs them", it's about an overall character evaluation. I look at myself as someone who I think generally went about things in the right way. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it's how I make up my judgment calls for who's worth looking into and who's not. What works for me might not work for others. I think college did a lot for me. I like talking with people who did go to college because I can typically talk at a lower level. I don't like having to constantly mentor or teach topics I am skilled in, which is what I would have to do with the guys who learned to code, but don't know much else. Is it important? That's up to the person doing the hiring who is going to have to deal with them on a day-to-day basis. So, I need to worry a lot more about culture and productivity than I do some perfect ideal of hiring. In fact, I think by placing culture first and hiring who I think I would like the most, I do a big win for the company. In the future, when we're huge, maybe not so. Then it will be up to the hiring managers who actually have to work with them who they like.

joslin01 11y ago

Both of you guys are implying that my cause is entitlement when really it's just part of the overall equation. I don't understand how judging character by simple generalizations such as "Ok, you went to college, which means you got into college, which means you must have studied, which means you must have XYZ..." makes me a callous person out of nowhere and acting out of mere entitlement. Your argument is fallacious because it sits on a false premise. I do not think I got scammed by university (as the guy below me said), but rather was gifted by it. Nor do I think that everyone has to go through the same path as me. Did I ever say I would deny a programmer who has been working in the industry for a few years with noticeable results despite a college education? I'm pretty sure my top foreign dev right now has no college education, but is self-taught. I read my sentence again and you know I'm just being honest with you guys. It's not about a "me vs them", it's about an overall character evaluation. I look at myself as someone who I think generally went about things in the right way. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it's how I make up my judgment calls for who's worth looking into and who's not. What works for me might not work for others. I think college did a lot for me. I like talking with people who did go to college because I can typically talk at a lower level. I don't like having to constantly mentor or teach topics I am skilled in, which is what I would have to do with the guys who learned to code, but don't know much else. Is it important? That's up to the person doing the hiring who is going to have to deal with them on a day-to-day basis. So, I need to worry a lot more about culture and productivity than I do some perfect ideal of hiring. In fact, I think by placing culture first and hiring who I think I would like the most, I do a big win for the company. In the future, when we're huge, maybe not so. Then it will be up to the hiring managers who actually have to work with them who they like.