5 ms·

But before I went to college I was self-taught and after college I consider myself to be self-teaching all the time. Learning should never end. And while in co

But before I went to college I was self-taught and after college I consider myself to be self-teaching all the time. Learning should never end. And while in college were probably self-taught too. As an ex-academic I believe formal education is about credentialing. Being able to tell someone that you've acquired a degree of mastery we believe is appropriate to some level. And that's fine, but I fundamentally believe that all learning is really self-taught. Someone lecturing to you is just a different medium from reading it in a book or online video. In all these cases someone who knows the topic better than yourself has manifest some information in some way for you to learn. (It's not like anyone using the term "self-taught" actually means they learned how to do AI from first principles. They learned it by reading a book written by Russell & Norvig.) And with that said, let me say that CS isn't programming. No more than a degree in biology is the same as being a doctor. In fact the profession of doctor is so specialized they created a special degree just for it, with residencies in specialties -- and you don't need a bio undergrad degree to get into med school. And as a general rule, if you're passionate about an intellectual pursuit you'll probably be pretty good in it (not asserting how the causality works). Those that learn via books outside of a formal setting are self-selected as it requires a special type of discipline. Although as more people race to become founders and teach themselves, this pool probably gets diluted.

freshfunk 16y ago
Great thoughts. Entirely agree.
bartonfink 16y ago
As an ex-academic I believe formal education is about credentialing ... but I fundamentally believe that all learning is really self-taught. As an ex-academic with this view, how much stock do you put in credentials?
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Credentialing is useful, especially in cases where other forms of information are difficult to obtain. Medicine is a good example. As a patient you don't really have the expertise (and maybe not the time) to determine if your physician is of good quality. You rely, partially, on the credential received by getting a medical degree and passing the boards. While not perfect, it gives you some information. The same goes for computer science. If I were looking for an expert witness for some computer science related legal case I'd take their credentials into account -- in part because a jury will. But hiring a programmer is different. Like I said in my original post a computer science degree isn't a programming credential. There's some overlap, but the degree of overlap is variable and generally unrelated to program quality -- Stanford tends to have a lot more pragmatic "programming" courses than MIT, at least historically. Additionally with hiring a programmer you, the person doing the hiring is also usually an expert in the field. You can more easily ascertain their degree of knowledge and aptitude in areas you care about. Plus you have more time to do so (you'll usually get a full day if not more to question them). Now with that said, do I consider CS degrees when hiring? Honestly it depends. If I was hiring someone to do some signal processing work I'm more inclined to look for someone with graduate degree background in the field, as a starting point. It's a domain that tracks closely to foundational work. OTOH, for a web dev I'm just as likely to hire someone who dropped out of high school as a PhD -- since frankly the PhD probably has spent less time doing web development than anyone else. But in all cases, if you come to me with some asset that shows great skill in what I'm looking for -- maybe a portfolio, or a paper you wrote, or a program, or a recommendation from someone I respect -- that will always get you in the door, period.
  - sevenproxies 16y ago
    Unfortunately that isn't an efficient solution when you have hundreds of applications to process. Perhaps this is why degrees are often required for entry-level software positions as someone with a degree is seen to be better employees (compared to the high school drop outs).
- bootload 16y ago
  "... As an ex-academic I believe formal education is about credentialing ...how much stock do you put in credentials?..." read "After credentials" ~ http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    A lot of what pg says is accurate, but this line left me scratching my head, "No one likes the transmission of power between generations—not the left or the right." This is one of the core tenants of the right, which is to maintain the status quo with respect to power. The easiest way to do this is to end entitlements, get rid of taxes, most importantly the estate tax.
Xurinos 16y ago
As a self-taught developer, college-graduate, and continual learner, I propose that exposure is the most important benefit of the college experience. We have to know what questions to ask before we can ask them. We can accidentally walk into all kinds of concepts on our own, but the college experience is a kind of jumpstart, a dive into the large pond. Now we know some questions to ask and have an idea where to get answers. We have more patterns at our disposal, more tools in our belt. Also, there is that credential thing and the higher paycheck. And the networking.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  If only my own college experience had provided that. I get far more "exposure," new questions, and ideas from reading HN than I ever did in my CS classes.

freshfunk 16y ago

Great thoughts. Entirely agree.

bartonfink 16y ago

As an ex-academic I believe formal education is about credentialing ... but I fundamentally believe that all learning is really self-taught. As an ex-academic with this view, how much stock do you put in credentials?

kenjackson 16y ago
Credentialing is useful, especially in cases where other forms of information are difficult to obtain. Medicine is a good example. As a patient you don't really have the expertise (and maybe not the time) to determine if your physician is of good quality. You rely, partially, on the credential received by getting a medical degree and passing the boards. While not perfect, it gives you some information. The same goes for computer science. If I were looking for an expert witness for some computer science related legal case I'd take their credentials into account -- in part because a jury will. But hiring a programmer is different. Like I said in my original post a computer science degree isn't a programming credential. There's some overlap, but the degree of overlap is variable and generally unrelated to program quality -- Stanford tends to have a lot more pragmatic "programming" courses than MIT, at least historically. Additionally with hiring a programmer you, the person doing the hiring is also usually an expert in the field. You can more easily ascertain their degree of knowledge and aptitude in areas you care about. Plus you have more time to do so (you'll usually get a full day if not more to question them). Now with that said, do I consider CS degrees when hiring? Honestly it depends. If I was hiring someone to do some signal processing work I'm more inclined to look for someone with graduate degree background in the field, as a starting point. It's a domain that tracks closely to foundational work. OTOH, for a web dev I'm just as likely to hire someone who dropped out of high school as a PhD -- since frankly the PhD probably has spent less time doing web development than anyone else. But in all cases, if you come to me with some asset that shows great skill in what I'm looking for -- maybe a portfolio, or a paper you wrote, or a program, or a recommendation from someone I respect -- that will always get you in the door, period.
- sevenproxies 16y ago
  Unfortunately that isn't an efficient solution when you have hundreds of applications to process. Perhaps this is why degrees are often required for entry-level software positions as someone with a degree is seen to be better employees (compared to the high school drop outs).
bootload 16y ago
"... As an ex-academic I believe formal education is about credentialing ...how much stock do you put in credentials?..." read "After credentials" ~ http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html
- kenjackson 16y ago
  A lot of what pg says is accurate, but this line left me scratching my head, "No one likes the transmission of power between generations—not the left or the right." This is one of the core tenants of the right, which is to maintain the status quo with respect to power. The easiest way to do this is to end entitlements, get rid of taxes, most importantly the estate tax.

Xurinos 16y ago

As a self-taught developer, college-graduate, and continual learner, I propose that exposure is the most important benefit of the college experience. We have to know what questions to ask before we can ask them. We can accidentally walk into all kinds of concepts on our own, but the college experience is a kind of jumpstart, a dive into the large pond. Now we know some questions to ask and have an idea where to get answers. We have more patterns at our disposal, more tools in our belt. Also, there is that credential thing and the higher paycheck. And the networking.

nitrogen 16y ago
If only my own college experience had provided that. I get far more "exposure," new questions, and ideas from reading HN than I ever did in my CS classes.