3 ms·

I’m not a developer. My roots were in hardware engineering (communication/networking) in the 80s-mid 90s, moving into departmental IT leadership roles at senio

I’m not a developer. My roots were in hardware engineering (communication/networking) in the 80s-mid 90s, moving into departmental IT leadership roles at senior levels in the mid 90s till around 7 years ago. I sit in the product arena now as I move towards the sunset. In a general sense, I find the self taught to be simply more inventive problem solvers. What you are using as a critique— “Self-taught individuals don’t understand what they’re missing” —I would say that can be a strength. However, you should perhaps think of it instead as “Because they are not prejudiced by what they were taught by others as ‘what is possible/impossible or ‘the best way’ they are often willing to try ans do the things that a degreed person won’t even attempt.”

wakawaka28 1y ago
Given that you work in IT and not development, I should point out that IT is less intellectually demanding than software engineering. I am less skeptical of self-taught IT people because the nature of the work is almost entirely around familiarity with hardware that fits together like Legos, and proficiency with software tools that are designed for maintaining systems without much theoretical knowledge or mental reckoning required. >In a general sense, I find the self taught to be simply more inventive problem solvers. What you are using as a critique— “Self-taught individuals don’t understand what they’re missing” —I would say that can be a strength. It is true that an outside perspective can be useful sometimes. However, more knowledge tends to be a net benefit. If you don't have a certain amount of training, this ingorance-driven "inventiveness" overwhelmingly turns into reinventing wheels and spending major effort on naive approaches to problems that are known to be intractible. I think it is easier for a trained individual to learn to be creative, than it is for a self-taught individual to learn to not mess things up.
- kcplate 1y ago
  > I should point out that IT is less intellectually demanding than software engineering In those roles I lead development teams that were producing software products used both for internal and external customers. In my current role which sits product-side, I work directly with SWEs to produce a successful complex software product. I am pretty sure I understand the complexities of software engineering and can speak to my experience with different developers from different educational paths considering it’s been a big part of my vocational journey for the last 27 years. You may not have chosen a self-taught path and that’s ok for you. You may not be bound by a pattern bias because of educational rigidity like some others, but watch out that you don’t fall into elitism.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    >In those roles I lead development teams that were producing software products used both for internal and external customers. In my current role which sits product-side, I work directly with SWEs to produce a successful complex software product. So, there is a difference between "leading" teams and having actual deep competency in the thing. I could hire a civil engineer or architect and "lead" them by giving them requirements and feedback, and I might even know the rudiments of what they do. That does not make me a civil engineer or architect. >I am pretty sure I understand the complexities of software engineering and can speak to my experience with different developers from different educational paths considering it’s been a big part of my vocational journey for the last 27 years. With all due respect I've met people with decades of experience on their resumes who could not write a lick of code. These people were overconfident in their abilities to figure things out by searching Google. I'm not saying you are in that category. But appealing to experience is hardly better than appealing to educational background. At least there is an actual accreditation process for CS degrees. >You may not have chosen a self-taught path and that’s ok for you. You may not be bound by a pattern bias because of educational rigidity like some others, but watch out that you don’t fall into elitism. I am reasonably open-minded. But certifications such as college degrees are labor saving devices. If two people are similar in almost every way but one has a relevant degree, the degree wins obviously. It takes some of the guesswork out of hiring. Of course, even people with degrees also have to contend with elitism against them, whether it is the type of crap in this article ("no degree is better actually!") or someone nit picking about the rank of your university or even your GPA, or how many degrees you got, or the title of your program... My point remains, this article is wrong. Most training undertaken at reasonable expense is worth it, especially the standard bachelor's in CS degree.
    - kcplate 1y ago
      > If two people are similar in almost every way but one has a relevant degree, the degree wins obviously. In my original comment I said this: “I would have definitely given an advantage to a self-taught dev over a CS grad provided that they were generally equivalent in all other aspects for the role.” …and I stand by that wholeheartedly. I get that you are trying to justify (likely your own) education here, but what you characterize as obvious simply does not jive with my experience. My education provided knowledge value that lasted about 4 years into my career before tech evolved enough to make it effectively obsolete. Your CS degree will have about as much functional longevity considering how fast things are moving nowadays too. You get beyond 10 years out of school, the stuff you did in the last 3 years will have more bearing on your current than anything you did in university. Perhaps you are in a position now or will be in the future and you can use your own logic in your hiring criteria. I hope it works for you. My logic was certainly successful for me.

wakawaka28 1y ago

Given that you work in IT and not development, I should point out that IT is less intellectually demanding than software engineering. I am less skeptical of self-taught IT people because the nature of the work is almost entirely around familiarity with hardware that fits together like Legos, and proficiency with software tools that are designed for maintaining systems without much theoretical knowledge or mental reckoning required. >In a general sense, I find the self taught to be simply more inventive problem solvers. What you are using as a critique— “Self-taught individuals don’t understand what they’re missing” —I would say that can be a strength. It is true that an outside perspective can be useful sometimes. However, more knowledge tends to be a net benefit. If you don't have a certain amount of training, this ingorance-driven "inventiveness" overwhelmingly turns into reinventing wheels and spending major effort on naive approaches to problems that are known to be intractible. I think it is easier for a trained individual to learn to be creative, than it is for a self-taught individual to learn to not mess things up.

kcplate 1y ago
> I should point out that IT is less intellectually demanding than software engineering In those roles I lead development teams that were producing software products used both for internal and external customers. In my current role which sits product-side, I work directly with SWEs to produce a successful complex software product. I am pretty sure I understand the complexities of software engineering and can speak to my experience with different developers from different educational paths considering it’s been a big part of my vocational journey for the last 27 years. You may not have chosen a self-taught path and that’s ok for you. You may not be bound by a pattern bias because of educational rigidity like some others, but watch out that you don’t fall into elitism.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  >In those roles I lead development teams that were producing software products used both for internal and external customers. In my current role which sits product-side, I work directly with SWEs to produce a successful complex software product. So, there is a difference between "leading" teams and having actual deep competency in the thing. I could hire a civil engineer or architect and "lead" them by giving them requirements and feedback, and I might even know the rudiments of what they do. That does not make me a civil engineer or architect. >I am pretty sure I understand the complexities of software engineering and can speak to my experience with different developers from different educational paths considering it’s been a big part of my vocational journey for the last 27 years. With all due respect I've met people with decades of experience on their resumes who could not write a lick of code. These people were overconfident in their abilities to figure things out by searching Google. I'm not saying you are in that category. But appealing to experience is hardly better than appealing to educational background. At least there is an actual accreditation process for CS degrees. >You may not have chosen a self-taught path and that’s ok for you. You may not be bound by a pattern bias because of educational rigidity like some others, but watch out that you don’t fall into elitism. I am reasonably open-minded. But certifications such as college degrees are labor saving devices. If two people are similar in almost every way but one has a relevant degree, the degree wins obviously. It takes some of the guesswork out of hiring. Of course, even people with degrees also have to contend with elitism against them, whether it is the type of crap in this article ("no degree is better actually!") or someone nit picking about the rank of your university or even your GPA, or how many degrees you got, or the title of your program... My point remains, this article is wrong. Most training undertaken at reasonable expense is worth it, especially the standard bachelor's in CS degree.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    > If two people are similar in almost every way but one has a relevant degree, the degree wins obviously. In my original comment I said this: “I would have definitely given an advantage to a self-taught dev over a CS grad provided that they were generally equivalent in all other aspects for the role.” …and I stand by that wholeheartedly. I get that you are trying to justify (likely your own) education here, but what you characterize as obvious simply does not jive with my experience. My education provided knowledge value that lasted about 4 years into my career before tech evolved enough to make it effectively obsolete. Your CS degree will have about as much functional longevity considering how fast things are moving nowadays too. You get beyond 10 years out of school, the stuff you did in the last 3 years will have more bearing on your current than anything you did in university. Perhaps you are in a position now or will be in the future and you can use your own logic in your hiring criteria. I hope it works for you. My logic was certainly successful for me.