5 ms·

UC schools have already become dubious - the entitlement of grads, the actual LACK of skills, not remotely "hungry" enough to have any grit or motivation, etc.

UC schools have already become dubious - the entitlement of grads, the actual LACK of skills, not remotely "hungry" enough to have any grit or motivation, etc. My father (an engineering manager) always said: "If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. The best engineers in California come from Cal Poly SLO and Cal Poly Pomona. They are actually trained as engineers". This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases. If they are more trainable than your typical entitled university degree holder, they are a better ROI, hands-down.

legerdemain 5y ago
How many Cal Poly SLO grads at Stripe (or choose any stratospheric make-you-rich company you like) compared to Stanford grads?
- 0des 5y ago
  Show me how many GED students who had to fight certificate bias with get hired out of sheer skill.
  - legerdemain 5y ago
    At Stripe? None, to the best of my knowledge. It is what it is, sorry.
    - 0des 5y ago
      You don't have to be sorry, I'm lucky to be comfy with my current workplace. To me though, this is the dividing line in places that care about abilities, and places that are focused on 'checking boxes'.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  This might just be a numbers thing because their program isn't as large. It has a top-10 engineering program for schools that don't offer doctorates, so I'd be surprised if it's CS program isn't at least solid.
- capeterson 5y ago
  This person seems to be stating that grads of these schools are of good quality, not that they are necessarily successful in the workforce. In my opinion, the biggest upside of CSU's is that they provide a vastly more diverse student body. There's a greater range of financial situations, age groups, and ethnicities. I feel this experience working with folks from a variety of backgrounds is an essential part of a strong candidate. I'm personally not really on one side or another. "Alternative" paths (e.g. CSU's, community college, no school) seem to create candidates that have had a diverse life experience. Top UC's/private schools create candidates that are regarded as more academic. That's just my take on it, and I feel that people being on one side or the other is mostly due to which of these stereotypes that person prefers.
jwilber 5y ago
“ This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases.” How many students from Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley founded their own companies? How many from cal poly? Why the massive difference?
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  That's a backwards-looking indicator; the changes to admissions criteria under discussion now will have their effect upon businesses of the future.
- gammarator 5y ago
  Family wealth, for one.
WalterBright 5y ago
> If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. HAhahahahahaaaa (Caltech grad here. BTW, anyone who spells it Cal Tech knows next to nothing about Caltech.)
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  I have no problem with CalTech. I have several friends who work there. But... your comment does not reflect well on CalTech. I don't think you're doing a good job of defending your alma mater, here. You may want to reconsider your comment, if that's your intent. OTOH if you are being sarcastic and trying to insult CalTech, then by all means... Mission accomplished.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    It's Caltech, not CalTech. https://www.caltech.edu/ https://www.caltech.edu/ Caltech doesn't need defending. I'm just amused at xyzzy21's comment.
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      Whether or not it needs defending, your comments just keep dragging it down.
Der_Einzige 5y ago
[flagged]
- dang 5y ago
  Would you please stop posting flamewar comments? You've been doing it a lot lately and we ban such accounts. Regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are, it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
WalterBright 5y ago
> They are actually trained as engineers Caltech's engineering program doesn't actually train you to design machines, or how to operate a milling machine, or how to assemble an internal combustion engine. You can certainly get an engineering degree without ever getting grease under your fingernails. What it does do is teach you math. Every class is a math class. Statics, dynamics, newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, electromagnetics are all math, math, math, math, math. What you wind up with is not being afraid of math, and you've got some very powerful tools. Grease under your fingernails is learned on the job. But almost nobody ever learns math on the job. I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math. They'll always be second tier engineers.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  You are using a lot of handwaving to try to get across the finish line. Let's tease this apart: 1. "math vs no-math". All engineers learn math. Some are afraid of it. At elite unis, it's fair to say those afraid are weeded out. That does not mean that most who attend mid-tier schools are afraid of math, or don't know math -- that's wildly false. 2. "engineering versus operating". Elite unis prepare you better to go into research, which is not engineering. Yet you are pretending that research is engineering and that what other schools do is teach you how to "operate a milling machine", which is again wildly inaccurate and condescending. Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory. At elite unis there is more emphasis on theory and less on building stuff. 3. "I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math" Yes, as a mathematician I know a lot of engineers who think they know math because they like to throw around words like SDEs, or think they are math heroes for studying a bit of functional analysis or linear programming. But their knowledge is pretty shallow, which is fine. What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well. That is a real risk with the more theoretically educated engineer, just as not knowing theory well is a real risk for the more practically educated engineer. Also a lot of theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is. Fortunately elite and regular engineering schools today do produce good students. The main advantage of the elite school is sorting - smarter students attend these schools, which means on average they are better at their area of study. Caltech is notable for resisting the "equity" tide and still requiring standardized scores, so I'd hire from them if I needed someone to assist in more theoretical areas, or someone looking for a career change into a more practical area. I would be much more circumspect when it comes to UC schools. I would also hire from lower-tiered schools but would require more screening.

legerdemain 5y ago

How many Cal Poly SLO grads at Stripe (or choose any stratospheric make-you-rich company you like) compared to Stanford grads?

0des 5y ago
Show me how many GED students who had to fight certificate bias with get hired out of sheer skill.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  At Stripe? None, to the best of my knowledge. It is what it is, sorry.
  - 0des 5y ago
    You don't have to be sorry, I'm lucky to be comfy with my current workplace. To me though, this is the dividing line in places that care about abilities, and places that are focused on 'checking boxes'.
dehrmann 5y ago
This might just be a numbers thing because their program isn't as large. It has a top-10 engineering program for schools that don't offer doctorates, so I'd be surprised if it's CS program isn't at least solid.
capeterson 5y ago
This person seems to be stating that grads of these schools are of good quality, not that they are necessarily successful in the workforce. In my opinion, the biggest upside of CSU's is that they provide a vastly more diverse student body. There's a greater range of financial situations, age groups, and ethnicities. I feel this experience working with folks from a variety of backgrounds is an essential part of a strong candidate. I'm personally not really on one side or another. "Alternative" paths (e.g. CSU's, community college, no school) seem to create candidates that have had a diverse life experience. Top UC's/private schools create candidates that are regarded as more academic. That's just my take on it, and I feel that people being on one side or the other is mostly due to which of these stereotypes that person prefers.

jwilber 5y ago

“ This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases.” How many students from Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley founded their own companies? How many from cal poly? Why the massive difference?

everybodyknows 5y ago
That's a backwards-looking indicator; the changes to admissions criteria under discussion now will have their effect upon businesses of the future.
gammarator 5y ago
Family wealth, for one.

WalterBright 5y ago

> If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. HAhahahahahaaaa (Caltech grad here. BTW, anyone who spells it Cal Tech knows next to nothing about Caltech.)

SkittyDog 5y ago
I have no problem with CalTech. I have several friends who work there. But... your comment does not reflect well on CalTech. I don't think you're doing a good job of defending your alma mater, here. You may want to reconsider your comment, if that's your intent. OTOH if you are being sarcastic and trying to insult CalTech, then by all means... Mission accomplished.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  It's Caltech, not CalTech. https://www.caltech.edu/ https://www.caltech.edu/ Caltech doesn't need defending. I'm just amused at xyzzy21's comment.
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    Whether or not it needs defending, your comments just keep dragging it down.

Der_Einzige 5y ago

[flagged]

dang 5y ago
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments? You've been doing it a lot lately and we ban such accounts. Regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are, it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

WalterBright 5y ago

> They are actually trained as engineers Caltech's engineering program doesn't actually train you to design machines, or how to operate a milling machine, or how to assemble an internal combustion engine. You can certainly get an engineering degree without ever getting grease under your fingernails. What it does do is teach you math. Every class is a math class. Statics, dynamics, newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, electromagnetics are all math, math, math, math, math. What you wind up with is not being afraid of math, and you've got some very powerful tools. Grease under your fingernails is learned on the job. But almost nobody ever learns math on the job. I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math. They'll always be second tier engineers.

rsj_hn 5y ago
You are using a lot of handwaving to try to get across the finish line. Let's tease this apart: 1. "math vs no-math". All engineers learn math. Some are afraid of it. At elite unis, it's fair to say those afraid are weeded out. That does not mean that most who attend mid-tier schools are afraid of math, or don't know math -- that's wildly false. 2. "engineering versus operating". Elite unis prepare you better to go into research, which is not engineering. Yet you are pretending that research is engineering and that what other schools do is teach you how to "operate a milling machine", which is again wildly inaccurate and condescending. Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory. At elite unis there is more emphasis on theory and less on building stuff. 3. "I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math" Yes, as a mathematician I know a lot of engineers who think they know math because they like to throw around words like SDEs, or think they are math heroes for studying a bit of functional analysis or linear programming. But their knowledge is pretty shallow, which is fine. What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well. That is a real risk with the more theoretically educated engineer, just as not knowing theory well is a real risk for the more practically educated engineer. Also a lot of theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is. Fortunately elite and regular engineering schools today do produce good students. The main advantage of the elite school is sorting - smarter students attend these schools, which means on average they are better at their area of study. Caltech is notable for resisting the "equity" tide and still requiring standardized scores, so I'd hire from them if I needed someone to assist in more theoretical areas, or someone looking for a career change into a more practical area. I would be much more circumspect when it comes to UC schools. I would also hire from lower-tiered schools but would require more screening.