If you make use of your university time correctly, then the primary value of virtually any degree is that it teaches you how to self-teach to an extent you coul

If you make use of your university time correctly, then the primary value of virtually any degree is that it teaches you how to self-teach to an extent you could not reach if you just started self-teaching on your own. Aside from occasional prodigies, the folks who are best at teaching themselves new things are folks who proved they could do it through degree programs. Don't get me wrong, though, a lot of people do not actually make good use of their university time, and they get through to graduation without learning much about self-teaching. I'll never understand why they would want to waste so much money for that. If I had my choice when recruiting, I'd select people in this order: 1. Someone whose degree and job experience clearly shows they are thoughtful and can self-teach. 2. Someone who acquired abilities by self-teaching even without a degree and/or prior experience. 3. Someone who has a degree and/or experience, but who clearly doesn't have much skill to self-teach. 4. Someone who does not have a degree, experience, or self-teaching ability. Really, I'd prefer to never hire someone from groups 3 or 4. But sometimes it can be hard to detect fakers from group 3. I think a lot of people share this opinion, which is somewhat tragic since very few hiring processes make even the faintest attempt to determine if a candidate is good at learning new things or self-teaching. Instead, just as with the tired old thread about HackerRank from yesterday, we spend all our time quizzing people on rote memorization of standard examples, which is something that the group 3 people are very good at faking their way through.