3 ms·

The trick should be how to set things up so other people get lucky in the same way. I could give you the same sequence of projects and goals I had as a curricu

The trick should be how to set things up so other people get lucky in the same way. I could give you the same sequence of projects and goals I had as a curriculum, and it wouldn't work for you. As an individual, if you follow this path, I think the answer is to continually be going back to fundamentals, because they will never stop being an inexhaustible font of inspiration for new ideas.

rbongers 4y ago
You bring up good points. In my opinion it's difficult to put together any kind of significant curriculum, and it's inevitable that it's not going to work for everyone and some people are going to struggle with it. However, there's probably some tipping point where the material just doesn't work for anyone. I don't know how to account for that. I don't know what the curriculum should be, or how to make it more digestible. I just know that, as as person who hires other programmers and got a taste of both a software development program and my own self learning, I don't like what schools are putting out, and MIT's change in course material seems to be a drastic turn in that direction.
- inimino 4y ago
  I am coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that organizational habits (hiring and promotion practices, VC preferences for engineering team structures, etc, etc) are more significant than what universities teach (or perhaps, ultimately, the former determine the latter) and we need a movement towards professionalization, and probably some kind of guild-like structure to gatekeep (that is, establish a competency floor) if there is to be any improvement over the status quo. Andrei Sorin's recent massive tome, though a bit of a rant, influenced my thinking quite a bit here.
  - rbongers 4y ago
    That's an interesting idea, I'll give it a read. The big problem I see right off the bat is lack of available talent and hiring pressure, but I reserve my judgement.
    - inimino 4y ago
      I'm editorializing a bit, his formulation of the idea is a little different from mine, but enough time in the industry makes it hard not to conclude that something is eroding the professionalism of the field, and I think his ideas about what it is are probably, if wrong, at least wrong in a very interesting direction.

rbongers 4y ago

You bring up good points. In my opinion it's difficult to put together any kind of significant curriculum, and it's inevitable that it's not going to work for everyone and some people are going to struggle with it. However, there's probably some tipping point where the material just doesn't work for anyone. I don't know how to account for that. I don't know what the curriculum should be, or how to make it more digestible. I just know that, as as person who hires other programmers and got a taste of both a software development program and my own self learning, I don't like what schools are putting out, and MIT's change in course material seems to be a drastic turn in that direction.

inimino 4y ago
I am coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that organizational habits (hiring and promotion practices, VC preferences for engineering team structures, etc, etc) are more significant than what universities teach (or perhaps, ultimately, the former determine the latter) and we need a movement towards professionalization, and probably some kind of guild-like structure to gatekeep (that is, establish a competency floor) if there is to be any improvement over the status quo. Andrei Sorin's recent massive tome, though a bit of a rant, influenced my thinking quite a bit here.
- rbongers 4y ago
  That's an interesting idea, I'll give it a read. The big problem I see right off the bat is lack of available talent and hiring pressure, but I reserve my judgement.
  - inimino 4y ago
    I'm editorializing a bit, his formulation of the idea is a little different from mine, but enough time in the industry makes it hard not to conclude that something is eroding the professionalism of the field, and I think his ideas about what it is are probably, if wrong, at least wrong in a very interesting direction.