3 ms·

> developers are unlikely to ever learn those things on the job On the job, you're probably right. But if someone happens to be the type of person that sees a

> developers are unlikely to ever learn those things on the job On the job, you're probably right. But if someone happens to be the type of person that sees a link about a new asymptotically fastest multiplication algorithm and ends up spending an hour reading about karatsuba multiplication then he or she is likely to catch up after too many years, and then pass the formally educated that aren't so inclined. So if you'll take a friendly amendment I'd say: - If you want someone for a six month stint, go self taught - If your company is using the tournament model and you churn through juniors in two or three years on average, go with CS grads (careful of those sharp edges though) - If you are looking to invest in employees for the long term, go with lifelong learners regardless of credentials

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
> she is likely to catch up after too many years, and then pass the formally educated that aren't so inclined. I'm not sure about this. It seems to me that this really downplays the value of attending a good university. Speaking for myself, I really can't imagine 'catching up with myself' had I not gone to university. I wouldn't have developed my writing skills. I likely wouldn't have seen what proper grown-up mathematics looks like. I wouldn't have seen how academics work, up close. I can't honestly say I would likely have studied the various dry-but-valuable topics that universities are known for. I'd probably have a much harder time reading computer science research papers. Additionally, universities teach students how to learn independently. I don't think this should be underestimated. > If you want someone for a six month stint, go self taught Well, kinda. If you want someone for a six month stint, and your choice is somehow between a green-horn graduate and a seasoned developer who never went to university, then sure, you're probably best off with the experienced developer. (Assuming of course that the problem domain doesn't require any particular technical specialism.) There's a reason large companies run training programmes for fresh graduates: they want people with formal training and the necessary working knowledge. > If your company is using the tournament model and you churn through juniors in two or three years on average, go with CS grads I'm sure this happens, but I'm not sure it makes any sense. I know it's the norm for software professionals to move jobs every few years to get the raise they deserve, but I'm not convinced this is in the interests of the employers. They have spend considerable effort bringing their replacement up to speed. > If you are looking to invest in employees for the long term, go with lifelong learners regardless of credentials I don't follow. Credentials reflect expertise and achievement, it's just that they aren't the whole picture. Do Google recruiters discount the grades of their applicants? No, they're looking for top-flight hires, and grades are an important part of that.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago

> she is likely to catch up after too many years, and then pass the formally educated that aren't so inclined. I'm not sure about this. It seems to me that this really downplays the value of attending a good university. Speaking for myself, I really can't imagine 'catching up with myself' had I not gone to university. I wouldn't have developed my writing skills. I likely wouldn't have seen what proper grown-up mathematics looks like. I wouldn't have seen how academics work, up close. I can't honestly say I would likely have studied the various dry-but-valuable topics that universities are known for. I'd probably have a much harder time reading computer science research papers. Additionally, universities teach students how to learn independently. I don't think this should be underestimated. > If you want someone for a six month stint, go self taught Well, kinda. If you want someone for a six month stint, and your choice is somehow between a green-horn graduate and a seasoned developer who never went to university, then sure, you're probably best off with the experienced developer. (Assuming of course that the problem domain doesn't require any particular technical specialism.) There's a reason large companies run training programmes for fresh graduates: they want people with formal training and the necessary working knowledge. > If your company is using the tournament model and you churn through juniors in two or three years on average, go with CS grads I'm sure this happens, but I'm not sure it makes any sense. I know it's the norm for software professionals to move jobs every few years to get the raise they deserve, but I'm not convinced this is in the interests of the employers. They have spend considerable effort bringing their replacement up to speed. > If you are looking to invest in employees for the long term, go with lifelong learners regardless of credentials I don't follow. Credentials reflect expertise and achievement, it's just that they aren't the whole picture. Do Google recruiters discount the grades of their applicants? No, they're looking for top-flight hires, and grades are an important part of that.