9 ms·

I have been working productively as a systems software developer for 32 years. I do not have a degree; I'm a high-school dropout. I've built systems you've pr

by mmjaa 8y ago

I have been working productively as a systems software developer for 32 years. I do not have a degree; I'm a high-school dropout. I've built systems you've probably used, and/or may still be using. The #1 technical lever I have found worth exploiting, worth far more than anything a university can provide, is the willingness to get the job done. It hasn't mattered if I wrote CP/M code ISR's, PROGRESS 4GL modules, Unix daemons, Pascal, .. Java, C, C++, Objective-C, Lua, Swift, &etc. - through the thick of it all, the fact that I was willing to get the job done, no matter what, is what made the difference. On the other end of this scale, is a bit of decadence. From my particularly tainted point of view, the ideological basis of the current cultural norm of "university==well-paid job" is entirely decadent. People seem to have expectations that, because they're in a certain class, they don't have to work hard at developing other real life issues, and too many times I've seen the well-educated, well-connected, nevertheless incompetent developer fall to pieces under pressure. I am grateful for these guys, because they make my life easier. Yet, those who are in this group, who haven't got a decadent ideal of their own worth, but rather get things done in computing, whatever it takes: great. So its really not a matter of educated-enough. Its whether the will to perform is, through whatever means, inculcated - and then manifest by taking the actions to get the state of things, done. Some of the best developers I've ever worked with, have come from utterly dire circumstances. Some of the worst, too. Likewise for the privileged, candied elite. The one differentiator, truly, is the will of the individual. Computers, being machines of will, equalise us all that way.

poster123 8y ago
Interesting post, but referring to people with college degrees as a "privileged, candied elite" shows some bias. Besides the will to get things done, other important differentiators are knowledge, talent, and intellligence.
- mmjaa 8y ago
  "Privileged, candied elite" is just one end of the scale, yo. There are "Privileged, hard-working elite" too, in case that part wasn't clear. It really doesn't matter, if you've got the will to work, is the point.. knowledge/talent/intelligence: not finite resources, when there is enough willpower around.
annabellish 8y ago
> Computers, being machines of will, equalise us all that way. It's _complicated_. I mean, almost everything in society is complicated: it's like sphagetti code written by millions of people with no single coherent goal. There's a degree to which what you say is true, and a degree to which it is false. The most obvious way in which it is false is that learning how to use a computer well requires a) access to a computer (obviously), b) time you can dedicate to learning how to use it, c) resources to assist with learning (this one is mostly solved by ubiquitous internet connections _today_, but that was much less solved even fifteen to twenty years back, when many of the current self-taught mid/senior experienced people around today were learning), and so on. Tech is not a pure meritocracy, because not everyone has had access to the same resources or opportunities. I think that's getting a lot better - as this article flags up, the modern open source community is extremely accessible, and sufficient equipment to be competitive with the best is cheaper than it has ever been. With just a cheap laptop and a relatively inexpensive internet connection you're not _that_ far away from having the same tooling available as a rich professional, today. That doesn't mean that problems a and c are _solved_ by any means, but they're certainly better than they used to be. Point b may not be something we can solve with improving technology, though, nor the thousands of tiny factors involved in whether people unconciously gain an attraction towards programming or pass it by. These are really hard problems to solve. So, like, generally, I think we're _doing better_ than we were twenty years ago, but we still have a long way to go before we can unironically call tech a meritocracy where those with the will to thrive succeed and those without fail. Life is just more complicated than that.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Tech is more of a meritocracy than any other field. If you are a good developer, you will succeed. You are correct that access to technology and learning resources has greatly increased. People who wanted it bad enough could make it work though. I couldn’t afford a computer growing up so I would find ways to access the crappy Apple IIes my school had just to get some programming time. The library had books on Basic and magazines (which I would read for free in the grocery) used to have code in them. I don’t buy the lack of time argument though. Life is about prioritizing. Millions of poor people have substantial time to invest in football, basketball, TV, video games.. Learning to program just takes putting it above those less productive activities. The real issue (imho) is that very few people are cut out to be developers. This push to turn everyone into an engineer makes about as much sense to me as encouraging everyone to be a pro-basketball player. It’s great money, everyone should do it!
lockee 8y ago
I cannot shake the feeling that you're mixing here employability and "being good at ones job" here. Whether a candidate will "get the job done" an employer can only learn after hiring a candidate, so it cannot be used as a recruitment signal. I'm in this situation right now, where I've been always highly appreciated by the place I was working at. I've also built a few systems used by a few companies in a certain niche, and always strived for excellency in what I was doing. That had resulted quick series of promotions and raises in my career. This has turned out to be of very little help for me when trying to look for a new job. For various reasons, I'm trying to look for a new job and it is impossible for me to find one. I'm probably not very good at "selling myself" as I always thought my work should speak for me. My CV looks "average" - nothing special in there, just working here and there for x years doing y. I'm finding myself at a pay level and seniority level that other companies just cannot justify by judging me by my CV, so in the end they decide to pass on me. Maybe it sounds like a good problem to have, but it's a very big problem to me with a significant negative consequences for my life at the moment. What I'm trying to do now, is exactly trying to put up some impressive things on Github, speaking at conferences and in general try to "market myself" a bit more. I expect this to take quite some time before it bears any fruits, but I see no other way how I can get out of this situation.
- bgorman 8y ago
  Have you had your resume reviewed by other developers?
- w0rd-driven 8y ago
  What does your CV have on it? Are you highlighting technologies or are you showcasing business needs followed by solutions? My resume style used to highlight the former because I thought I had to prove that I used technology x to solve problem y. I do mention technology where applicable but it's to highlight the business need and solution. I'm trying to show that I can pick up anything at full speed to solve real problems. That's what both of us do day in and day out or else we wouldn't have been employed at all until now. Having to prove that we're not imposters when someone clearly believes we aren't is really the most annoying part about all of it. I'm in the same boat though around needing a solid GitHub profile even with what I feel is a very concise CV. At some point we do have to mark things as 'done' and just keep shopping out job opportunities until someone else believes us like our current employer.
52-6F-62 8y ago
As someone who was thankfully able to finish high school (though, being from rural Ontario, every school I attended in my home town was closed shortly after I attended), but wasn’t able to finish my degree in English, Linguistics and other mixed studies due to financial woes— You’ve said it. I won’t go into details now, but there is something to be said for sincere passion and interest in what you do. I’ve worked with a not insignificant number of CS and digital photography students who by default think they’re above practical work and (insert more snobby stuff here). I’ve been responsible for reminding people why they started those degree programs in the first place. Not due to ranting like this, but due to [foolish] added work I put on myself that came out of sheer interest that has bloomed into something really worthwhile— sometimes unbeknownst to them at the outset. Don’t get me started on the application of science and the scientific method and [oh god, the] politics. There’s a lot of rambling I could do on this subject, and it’s too early on a Sunday to formulate my thoughts correctly. I do like the subject and I enjoy hearing from a variety of positions on it. I at the very least wish it was easier for kids to acquire higher education outside of the bindings of finances and legalism that have long been lord of institutions that claim that kind of authority.
cup-of-tea 8y ago
> I was willing to get the job done, no matter what, is what made the difference. Even if it means building something unmaintainable and generally against your principles of good engineering? Many people will do that, but I hope there are some out there who would value a reluctance to work like that.
- rhencke 8y ago
  I don't see anything in the parent post that alluded to building things that were unmaintainable and against principles of good engineering. Given the rest of the tone of the parent post, I believe this sentence was more intended to emphasize that they did not make excuses for themselves - for example, that they did not know language X, or technology Y. Instead, they rolled up their sleeves and dug in, and figured it out, and got it done.
njoro 8y ago
Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Success is a matter of probability. Someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential. Someone who doesn't have one is more likely to lose potential money to contracting companies and landlords. Spend more time working lower paying jobs and navigating the job or housing market. And to not participate in the upside of company profits, shares, housing and investments. That you can succeed even as a high-school dropout by being in the right places at the right time or spending effort on the right things isn't a good argument against degrees. Because a degree increases your likelihood of doing those things. There are certainly downsides to recognizable degrees, but I don't think ones chances of success in the tech industry is one of them.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Success is a matter of probability. Someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential." Yes and no. Perhaps the degree is simply correlation? That is, to get a degree you need at least a certain amount of focus, ambition, the ability to start / finish something, etc. The point is, using the degree here is a false flag. And it can be, as the OP notes, deceptive. Just because so many fall for it doesn't mean it's right. Just the same, success is possible without a degree. How? All / most of the positive traits listed above.
  - njoro 8y ago
    Those might certainly be factors, but they aren't really relevant for my argument that someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential. Someone without a degree even with the same ambition and focus will face the burden of other things. Say you join a large tech company, gets a fair amount of stock, enjoy the stock increase and as a result make an additional $100k. That is not an unlikely scenario even in the early stages of a career for someone with a recognizable degree. If you don't have a degree it is certainly possible to do the same thing, it just isn't probable. For every step where you have to be aware of something, understand it and make a decision the probability of getting it right decreases. And the same is true for housing, career, startups and even relationships. It doesn't make sense to say that you can succeed if certain things happen. Because it is the if that is the challenge.
user5994461 8y ago
>>> I have been working productively as a systems software developer for 32 years. I do not have a degree; I'm a high-school dropout. It's easy to say coming from a generation where higher education was not the norm. A 20 year old saying he dropped out of high school will not be received well in any job interview. 98% of the population can do better than that.
- koboll 8y ago
  I've never been asked about any education in developer interviews, only experience. Obviously YMMV, but after a couple years of experience, employers simply stop caring about education level.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    There's a big element of selection bias: many companies that care deeply about hiring Stanford grads will pass on those who don't mention the school in their resumes. The companies that were willing to give you an interview obviously didn't immediately filter you out. In case there's any doubt, if you don't mention your educational background in your resume people will assume you don't have any college-level degree.
    - gmjosack 8y ago
      And there are also many of us put in situations of reviewing resumes and interviewing that don't have college experience who don't care what school you went to, or if you even did. Going to college definitely makes things easier, and I don't advise people to take the path I did but there are paths other than college that still work well for this industry.
      - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
        You're talking past the point. The original comment was: > I've never been asked about any education in developer interviews, only experience. > ... employers simply stop caring about education level. The reason he was not asked about education is not necessarily because 'employers by and large don't care', but rather that 'employers that do care about education would've already filtered him out after seeing the resume'. The interviews from employers that do care about education would never materialize in the first place. This is not a judgment about the role of education and pedigree, but rather pointing out that any effect would have likely played out in the resume stage.
duckduckno 8y ago
I've recently dropped out of highschool and I've been considering two options: promptly returning to school and finishing my degree or dedicating time to self-educate via the internet. Which pathway would you suggest? I have always felt conflicted about our current education system because it undervalues creativity and disingenuously puts forth the notion that school is for learning when clearly it is not. Teachers constantly remind us that attending school is imperative to our growth yet fail to explain that we are merely fufiling a social obligation to become stable adults. Education has always been about the indoctrination of social values and the apparent lack of effort by teachers to purvey this speaks quantities of their system. Mind you, I'm not necessarily blaming the teachers nor those who have constructed such educational pillars but rather I'm antagnozing our modern perception of the intended purpose of school. All I really hear about from students these days is which prestigious school people want to attend but whenever I question them as to why they wish to attend such facilities they respond with "to get a better job" or "to learn more and then get a better job." Is there something not inherently flawed with this kind of logic? We wish to obtain better jobs so we mindlessly waste hours cramming an entire textbook before an examination only to retain almost no knowledge of its contents afterwards. There are cultural nuances regarding this matter and my anecdotal argument is probably not very strong, but I do believe there is a problem with incessantly encouraging young students to pursue academia for the sake of acquiring a _better_ job. As someone who has always been interested with the philosophy and intrinsic beauty of learning itself, I find our current implementation repulsive. My aversion to school has led me to study various types of -- or perhaps attempts at -- artificial intelligence in the hopes that we may one day supplant this flawed approach to education with a more personalized view that can take into account my preferences. That being said, I'm still relatively young and by the duty of such a description, naive. There is still so much that I do not know about and I'm wondering now how I should proceed. Being a well informed and tech literate person, could you possibly offer me some quick guidance? Thank you.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  Hi! I have some experience with dropping out and coming back. My take: go back and finish. The signal you are sending is that you can put your feelings aside and deliver even under less than favorable conditions. You'll also need that inner strength if you decide to go your own way. Also, if you want to the non-CS route make sure you learn math, especially discrete mathematics and linear algebra. Besides the ability to finish that's the other foundation that will make you truly great at software, especially if you are interested in machine learning. Beyond that good luck! We need more outsiders in the field.
LrnByTeach 8y ago
very well said .. > So its really not a matter of educated-enough. Its whether the will to perform is, through whatever means, inculcated - and then manifest by taking the actions to get the state of things, done. > Some of the best developers I've ever worked with, have come from utterly dire circumstances. Some of the worst, too. Likewise for the privileged, candied elite.
forapurpose 8y ago
> the ideological basis of the current cultural norm of "university==well-paid job" is entirely decadent That assumes there is an ideological basis. It's not hard to rationally connect education with talent and skill, even if we debate the strength of the effect. It also assumes it is a 'norm', not a clear market signal - business unquestionably pay more to people with college degrees; you can argue the reasoning, but the fact is indisputable AFAIK. Yes, there are exceptions, but we are talking about vast trends; YMMV. People have complained since probably the first written rant that others don't work hard enough, or hard as they did in my day, or as hard as I do, etc. I'm not sure it tells us much besides the consistency of humanity, its capacity for work, and its perception of self and others.

by mmjaa 8y ago

poster123 8y ago

Interesting post, but referring to people with college degrees as a "privileged, candied elite" shows some bias. Besides the will to get things done, other important differentiators are knowledge, talent, and intellligence.

mmjaa 8y ago
"Privileged, candied elite" is just one end of the scale, yo. There are "Privileged, hard-working elite" too, in case that part wasn't clear. It really doesn't matter, if you've got the will to work, is the point.. knowledge/talent/intelligence: not finite resources, when there is enough willpower around.

annabellish 8y ago

> Computers, being machines of will, equalise us all that way. It's _complicated_. I mean, almost everything in society is complicated: it's like sphagetti code written by millions of people with no single coherent goal. There's a degree to which what you say is true, and a degree to which it is false. The most obvious way in which it is false is that learning how to use a computer well requires a) access to a computer (obviously), b) time you can dedicate to learning how to use it, c) resources to assist with learning (this one is mostly solved by ubiquitous internet connections _today_, but that was much less solved even fifteen to twenty years back, when many of the current self-taught mid/senior experienced people around today were learning), and so on. Tech is not a pure meritocracy, because not everyone has had access to the same resources or opportunities. I think that's getting a lot better - as this article flags up, the modern open source community is extremely accessible, and sufficient equipment to be competitive with the best is cheaper than it has ever been. With just a cheap laptop and a relatively inexpensive internet connection you're not _that_ far away from having the same tooling available as a rich professional, today. That doesn't mean that problems a and c are _solved_ by any means, but they're certainly better than they used to be. Point b may not be something we can solve with improving technology, though, nor the thousands of tiny factors involved in whether people unconciously gain an attraction towards programming or pass it by. These are really hard problems to solve. So, like, generally, I think we're _doing better_ than we were twenty years ago, but we still have a long way to go before we can unironically call tech a meritocracy where those with the will to thrive succeed and those without fail. Life is just more complicated than that.

malvosenior 8y ago
Tech is more of a meritocracy than any other field. If you are a good developer, you will succeed. You are correct that access to technology and learning resources has greatly increased. People who wanted it bad enough could make it work though. I couldn’t afford a computer growing up so I would find ways to access the crappy Apple IIes my school had just to get some programming time. The library had books on Basic and magazines (which I would read for free in the grocery) used to have code in them. I don’t buy the lack of time argument though. Life is about prioritizing. Millions of poor people have substantial time to invest in football, basketball, TV, video games.. Learning to program just takes putting it above those less productive activities. The real issue (imho) is that very few people are cut out to be developers. This push to turn everyone into an engineer makes about as much sense to me as encouraging everyone to be a pro-basketball player. It’s great money, everyone should do it!

lockee 8y ago

I cannot shake the feeling that you're mixing here employability and "being good at ones job" here. Whether a candidate will "get the job done" an employer can only learn after hiring a candidate, so it cannot be used as a recruitment signal. I'm in this situation right now, where I've been always highly appreciated by the place I was working at. I've also built a few systems used by a few companies in a certain niche, and always strived for excellency in what I was doing. That had resulted quick series of promotions and raises in my career. This has turned out to be of very little help for me when trying to look for a new job. For various reasons, I'm trying to look for a new job and it is impossible for me to find one. I'm probably not very good at "selling myself" as I always thought my work should speak for me. My CV looks "average" - nothing special in there, just working here and there for x years doing y. I'm finding myself at a pay level and seniority level that other companies just cannot justify by judging me by my CV, so in the end they decide to pass on me. Maybe it sounds like a good problem to have, but it's a very big problem to me with a significant negative consequences for my life at the moment. What I'm trying to do now, is exactly trying to put up some impressive things on Github, speaking at conferences and in general try to "market myself" a bit more. I expect this to take quite some time before it bears any fruits, but I see no other way how I can get out of this situation.

bgorman 8y ago
Have you had your resume reviewed by other developers?
w0rd-driven 8y ago
What does your CV have on it? Are you highlighting technologies or are you showcasing business needs followed by solutions? My resume style used to highlight the former because I thought I had to prove that I used technology x to solve problem y. I do mention technology where applicable but it's to highlight the business need and solution. I'm trying to show that I can pick up anything at full speed to solve real problems. That's what both of us do day in and day out or else we wouldn't have been employed at all until now. Having to prove that we're not imposters when someone clearly believes we aren't is really the most annoying part about all of it. I'm in the same boat though around needing a solid GitHub profile even with what I feel is a very concise CV. At some point we do have to mark things as 'done' and just keep shopping out job opportunities until someone else believes us like our current employer.

52-6F-62 8y ago

As someone who was thankfully able to finish high school (though, being from rural Ontario, every school I attended in my home town was closed shortly after I attended), but wasn’t able to finish my degree in English, Linguistics and other mixed studies due to financial woes— You’ve said it. I won’t go into details now, but there is something to be said for sincere passion and interest in what you do. I’ve worked with a not insignificant number of CS and digital photography students who by default think they’re above practical work and (insert more snobby stuff here). I’ve been responsible for reminding people why they started those degree programs in the first place. Not due to ranting like this, but due to [foolish] added work I put on myself that came out of sheer interest that has bloomed into something really worthwhile— sometimes unbeknownst to them at the outset. Don’t get me started on the application of science and the scientific method and [oh god, the] politics. There’s a lot of rambling I could do on this subject, and it’s too early on a Sunday to formulate my thoughts correctly. I do like the subject and I enjoy hearing from a variety of positions on it. I at the very least wish it was easier for kids to acquire higher education outside of the bindings of finances and legalism that have long been lord of institutions that claim that kind of authority.

cup-of-tea 8y ago

> I was willing to get the job done, no matter what, is what made the difference. Even if it means building something unmaintainable and generally against your principles of good engineering? Many people will do that, but I hope there are some out there who would value a reluctance to work like that.

rhencke 8y ago
I don't see anything in the parent post that alluded to building things that were unmaintainable and against principles of good engineering. Given the rest of the tone of the parent post, I believe this sentence was more intended to emphasize that they did not make excuses for themselves - for example, that they did not know language X, or technology Y. Instead, they rolled up their sleeves and dug in, and figured it out, and got it done.

njoro 8y ago

Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Success is a matter of probability. Someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential. Someone who doesn't have one is more likely to lose potential money to contracting companies and landlords. Spend more time working lower paying jobs and navigating the job or housing market. And to not participate in the upside of company profits, shares, housing and investments. That you can succeed even as a high-school dropout by being in the right places at the right time or spending effort on the right things isn't a good argument against degrees. Because a degree increases your likelihood of doing those things. There are certainly downsides to recognizable degrees, but I don't think ones chances of success in the tech industry is one of them.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Success is a matter of probability. Someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential." Yes and no. Perhaps the degree is simply correlation? That is, to get a degree you need at least a certain amount of focus, ambition, the ability to start / finish something, etc. The point is, using the degree here is a false flag. And it can be, as the OP notes, deceptive. Just because so many fall for it doesn't mean it's right. Just the same, success is possible without a degree. How? All / most of the positive traits listed above.
- njoro 8y ago
  Those might certainly be factors, but they aren't really relevant for my argument that someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential. Someone without a degree even with the same ambition and focus will face the burden of other things. Say you join a large tech company, gets a fair amount of stock, enjoy the stock increase and as a result make an additional $100k. That is not an unlikely scenario even in the early stages of a career for someone with a recognizable degree. If you don't have a degree it is certainly possible to do the same thing, it just isn't probable. For every step where you have to be aware of something, understand it and make a decision the probability of getting it right decreases. And the same is true for housing, career, startups and even relationships. It doesn't make sense to say that you can succeed if certain things happen. Because it is the if that is the challenge.

user5994461 8y ago

>>> I have been working productively as a systems software developer for 32 years. I do not have a degree; I'm a high-school dropout. It's easy to say coming from a generation where higher education was not the norm. A 20 year old saying he dropped out of high school will not be received well in any job interview. 98% of the population can do better than that.

koboll 8y ago
I've never been asked about any education in developer interviews, only experience. Obviously YMMV, but after a couple years of experience, employers simply stop caring about education level.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  There's a big element of selection bias: many companies that care deeply about hiring Stanford grads will pass on those who don't mention the school in their resumes. The companies that were willing to give you an interview obviously didn't immediately filter you out. In case there's any doubt, if you don't mention your educational background in your resume people will assume you don't have any college-level degree.
  - gmjosack 8y ago
    And there are also many of us put in situations of reviewing resumes and interviewing that don't have college experience who don't care what school you went to, or if you even did. Going to college definitely makes things easier, and I don't advise people to take the path I did but there are paths other than college that still work well for this industry.
    - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
      You're talking past the point. The original comment was: > I've never been asked about any education in developer interviews, only experience. > ... employers simply stop caring about education level. The reason he was not asked about education is not necessarily because 'employers by and large don't care', but rather that 'employers that do care about education would've already filtered him out after seeing the resume'. The interviews from employers that do care about education would never materialize in the first place. This is not a judgment about the role of education and pedigree, but rather pointing out that any effect would have likely played out in the resume stage.

duckduckno 8y ago

I've recently dropped out of highschool and I've been considering two options: promptly returning to school and finishing my degree or dedicating time to self-educate via the internet. Which pathway would you suggest? I have always felt conflicted about our current education system because it undervalues creativity and disingenuously puts forth the notion that school is for learning when clearly it is not. Teachers constantly remind us that attending school is imperative to our growth yet fail to explain that we are merely fufiling a social obligation to become stable adults. Education has always been about the indoctrination of social values and the apparent lack of effort by teachers to purvey this speaks quantities of their system. Mind you, I'm not necessarily blaming the teachers nor those who have constructed such educational pillars but rather I'm antagnozing our modern perception of the intended purpose of school. All I really hear about from students these days is which prestigious school people want to attend but whenever I question them as to why they wish to attend such facilities they respond with "to get a better job" or "to learn more and then get a better job." Is there something not inherently flawed with this kind of logic? We wish to obtain better jobs so we mindlessly waste hours cramming an entire textbook before an examination only to retain almost no knowledge of its contents afterwards. There are cultural nuances regarding this matter and my anecdotal argument is probably not very strong, but I do believe there is a problem with incessantly encouraging young students to pursue academia for the sake of acquiring a _better_ job. As someone who has always been interested with the philosophy and intrinsic beauty of learning itself, I find our current implementation repulsive. My aversion to school has led me to study various types of -- or perhaps attempts at -- artificial intelligence in the hopes that we may one day supplant this flawed approach to education with a more personalized view that can take into account my preferences. That being said, I'm still relatively young and by the duty of such a description, naive. There is still so much that I do not know about and I'm wondering now how I should proceed. Being a well informed and tech literate person, could you possibly offer me some quick guidance? Thank you.

hodgesrm 8y ago
Hi! I have some experience with dropping out and coming back. My take: go back and finish. The signal you are sending is that you can put your feelings aside and deliver even under less than favorable conditions. You'll also need that inner strength if you decide to go your own way. Also, if you want to the non-CS route make sure you learn math, especially discrete mathematics and linear algebra. Besides the ability to finish that's the other foundation that will make you truly great at software, especially if you are interested in machine learning. Beyond that good luck! We need more outsiders in the field.

LrnByTeach 8y ago

very well said .. > So its really not a matter of educated-enough. Its whether the will to perform is, through whatever means, inculcated - and then manifest by taking the actions to get the state of things, done. > Some of the best developers I've ever worked with, have come from utterly dire circumstances. Some of the worst, too. Likewise for the privileged, candied elite.

forapurpose 8y ago

> the ideological basis of the current cultural norm of "university==well-paid job" is entirely decadent That assumes there is an ideological basis. It's not hard to rationally connect education with talent and skill, even if we debate the strength of the effect. It also assumes it is a 'norm', not a clear market signal - business unquestionably pay more to people with college degrees; you can argue the reasoning, but the fact is indisputable AFAIK. Yes, there are exceptions, but we are talking about vast trends; YMMV. People have complained since probably the first written rant that others don't work hard enough, or hard as they did in my day, or as hard as I do, etc. I'm not sure it tells us much besides the consistency of humanity, its capacity for work, and its perception of self and others.