4 ms·

This is what is so intriguing to me about education. We all go to school and learn about problems like these, but we retain so little information without brush

This is what is so intriguing to me about education. We all go to school and learn about problems like these, but we retain so little information without brushing the dust off of our old Comp classes and review the material.

jordache 11y ago
maybe we learned how painful those were and solution our ways around to needing them? :)
- nawitus 11y ago
  I would love to implement more algorithms at my job, but it's a really rare occurrence. Mostly it's just CRUD, gluing stuff together and making tech choices.
  - pramodliv1 11y ago
    My role is similar to yours too. But I'm not confident of solving tough algorithmic problems under deadlines yet. I'd rather work on a side project which involves designing and implementing neat algorithms.
GoToRO 11y ago
it's quite simple actually: football players train by doing all kinds of crazy exercises, none of which you will see in an actual match. But this is what training is. You won't hear a football player say "why do I have to do push-ups? I've played 1000 matches and never, not even once, did I need to do a push-up!". School is training too, it makes your brain stronger. School is also a filter for future scientists. In my country school was always about learning the fundamentals. What you will actually do on the job you will learn... on the job. Nowadays there are more and more voices asking for more practical classes but I feel this is risky: if you know the fundamentals you can quickly adapt. If you only learn how to do one practical thing you will have to retrain when that thing becomes obsolete.
- csallen 11y ago
  That assumes that the fundamentals you're learning are relevant to your job. Pushups are relevant to football players, because they help build and maintain the same muscles that players use in matches. Could you say the same about a UX engineer learning how to clone a directed graph? I think not. The problem is that we tend to lump all programmers together by assuming they should all know the same things. The reality, however, is that there are different kinds of programmers who need to be proficient at different skills. Wide receivers, quarterbacks, kickers, and linebackers all have different coaches, diets, and training regimens for a reason. Companies who realize this and incorporate this into their hiring will be at an advantage. Companies who don't will be at a disadvantage (unless they are so hot that they get 100s of resumes from over-qualified applicants every day, in which case it doesn't particularly matter what they do).

jordache 11y ago

maybe we learned how painful those were and solution our ways around to needing them? :)

nawitus 11y ago
I would love to implement more algorithms at my job, but it's a really rare occurrence. Mostly it's just CRUD, gluing stuff together and making tech choices.
- pramodliv1 11y ago
  My role is similar to yours too. But I'm not confident of solving tough algorithmic problems under deadlines yet. I'd rather work on a side project which involves designing and implementing neat algorithms.

GoToRO 11y ago

it's quite simple actually: football players train by doing all kinds of crazy exercises, none of which you will see in an actual match. But this is what training is. You won't hear a football player say "why do I have to do push-ups? I've played 1000 matches and never, not even once, did I need to do a push-up!". School is training too, it makes your brain stronger. School is also a filter for future scientists. In my country school was always about learning the fundamentals. What you will actually do on the job you will learn... on the job. Nowadays there are more and more voices asking for more practical classes but I feel this is risky: if you know the fundamentals you can quickly adapt. If you only learn how to do one practical thing you will have to retrain when that thing becomes obsolete.

csallen 11y ago
That assumes that the fundamentals you're learning are relevant to your job. Pushups are relevant to football players, because they help build and maintain the same muscles that players use in matches. Could you say the same about a UX engineer learning how to clone a directed graph? I think not. The problem is that we tend to lump all programmers together by assuming they should all know the same things. The reality, however, is that there are different kinds of programmers who need to be proficient at different skills. Wide receivers, quarterbacks, kickers, and linebackers all have different coaches, diets, and training regimens for a reason. Companies who realize this and incorporate this into their hiring will be at an advantage. Companies who don't will be at a disadvantage (unless they are so hot that they get 100s of resumes from over-qualified applicants every day, in which case it doesn't particularly matter what they do).