Hello Kevin,
Kevin Spencer said:
Hi Nick,
I've been kind of hoping that this could remain *above* the level of a
flame war. So far, it has skirted that level a few times, and I'm about
done with it. But, I did want to clarify a couple of issues you brought
up:
First, I am hoping that what you meant by the first statement was purely
subjective. In other words "you are more valuable than someone without a
degree" * as far as I'm concerned*. Otherwise, the statement does not hold
logically. There is no guarantee that someone without a degree will not be
as good or better than someone with a degreee. Take Artistotle, for
example. Or Bill Gates. Yes, these are statistical anomalies, but they
indicate that the predictability is not certain, but only probable.
I guess I wasn't clear. First off, /all/ statements I make are purely
subjective. Secondly, my statement was meant to be taken in context with
respect to the amount of competition in the marketplace. Neither Aristotle
nor Gates were applying for jobs in a marketplace saturated with people with
comparable degrees. Their statistical anomalies aside, if you were to start
your own company or author unique and brilliant thoughts (or works of art,
as in Cor's example), I would say that you are not seeking employment, but
rather seeking excellence in your chosen vocation. There is a HUGE
difference. You see, with vocation, you are judged by your real output.
With employment, you are judged by your /perceived/ value with respect to
the needs of the employer and the competitive marketplace of applicants at
the time. Totally different things. (As your tag line indicates).
So when I say that a person without a degree is less valuable, I do not mean
'human value.' On the contrary, I believe strongly that all humans beings
are priceless. What I am saying, though, is that in the marketplace of
employment, your value is substantially less by comparison to others also
applying for the same position if you do not have a degree and a substantial
number of those competing against you do.
As for the statement "All you prove by forgoing a degree is that you have
no patience for learning how to think," again, that may be a less probable
probability, but it is far from certain. There are many reasons why people
may not have attended a university or obtained a degree. For example, in
my case, by the time I realized what it was that I was designed for, I did
not have the time or money to attend a university or obtain a degree, and
of necessity taught myself.
I applaud you personally. I have seen the real output of your abilities in
your frequent and valuable posts.
That said, your programming resume probably wouldn't make it past the
recruiter to the hiring manager in most companies if 30 resumes come in, and
20 have degrees. Therefore, the degree becomes necessary, even if it means
going back to school to get it. (A family member of mine holds three
Masters degrees, the last of which she earned after her 45th birthday.
Don't tell me it cannot be done.)
But I certainly had the self-discipline and will-power to teach myself and
to find mentors who could help me. Is that the way I'd recommend anyone to
follow? No. But again, it addresses the rather demeaning statement
regarding the personality flaws of anyone who does not have a degree, for
any reason.
I do not mean to imply that your personality is flawed. I do intend to
imply that there is a the message that you send by choosing not to get a
degree. You send a clear statement: that a degree is not important to you.
If the hiring manager values his or her degree, they may choose to ignore
that message... but it's often a strike against you. If they do not ignore
that message, you are stuck.
Just as you choose the clothes you wear to your interview, you chose the
credentials you bring with you. Choosing not to get a degree has a similar
effect on the hiring decision as choosing to wear blue jeans. Not everyone
can afford a nice suit, but face it, without nice clothing, you may get a
strike against you, regardless of your talents. This is life. Life ain't
fair.
In fact, the value is not in the degree itself. The value is in the
knowledge that has been obtained by means of getting the degree. The
degree is only evidence, of use to the employer considering a candidate,
but not necessary for the developer.
The degree is evidence that you completed a rigorous program of study
including courses in a wide array of difficult subjects (and a few easy
ones). It is evidence that people with scholarly intent and considerable
education judged your efforts to be substantive and worthy of the name of
their college. It is not evidence of time spent in lecture halls, but
rather evidence that a set of educated people have chosen to hold you in
high esteem. The effort needed to earn that esteem is valuable to the human
being, regardless of what profession they seek. It is intensely valuable to
a software developer, given the amount of change in our field (as compared,
for example, with mechanical engineering or literature, which are fields
that change but not quite so wildly or so frequently).
Agreed. All I've been saying is that it is necessary to discern between
what is valuable and what seems to be valuable. Knowledge, creativity,
self-discipline, motivation, these are valuable. A degree may or may not
be. And, in some cases, it is of no use whatsoever. Still, in general
terms, it usually is. But statistics are something completely different
from the individual cases that comprise them. A dependence upon statistics
*alone* is unwise. It is important to understand the underlying causes of
the statistical outcomes in order to be as successful as possible, and
when possible, to apply that understanding.
The value of the degree comes from the student. If you chose not to value
the experiences you had, then it doesn't matter if you were getting a degree
or trekking to Antartica. Both can be unique and formative experiences, or
not, depending on the student. That said, a degree takes substantial time
and money. If you manage to spend that much time and money and still you
manage to devalue your own experience, then you are not typical. Those
folks fall out during the phone screening fairly quickly. (You see, I don't
rely on statistics either. I actually test the folks who come in for the
interview. They have to have the degree and they have to have become better
for having it before they get to my technical questions.)
A university can provide one with knowledge, but it can also have the
effect of limiting one's ability to think in certain ways, as it is often
demanded of the students that they change the way they think in order to
succeed in the university.
Yes. It is true that universities can demand changes in the patterns of
thought. That said, most universities do not demand that particular aspects
of thought be /discarded/, just that some specific methods be encouraged
while you are learning those methods. If your mind is so limited that you
cannot hold two ideas in it, then university studies will hopefully put a
reasonably useful one there. For the vast majority of folks, however,
University does not replace one mechanism with another, but enhances the
ability to think by providing multiple alternative approaches.
In fact, any teacher/student relationship can have that effect. This can
have the effect of destroying creativity.
The only folks I've seen come out of University less creative than when they
went in were not terribly creative people to begin with. I have no evidence
that they would not have simply lost that creativity on their own. In other
words, if you take 500 not-so-creative folks, and put 250 through a
university program, my hypothesis is that the rate of loss of creativity
will be the same or less for the university group than for the control group
after 10 years.
It may have the effect of encouraging creativity as well, depending upon
the teacher. Creativity is what gives us the ability to derive new
information from existing information. It is how we move forward.
Most university programs in the West have, as an underlying principle, the
notion that creativity is fundamental to learning. For this reason,
professors will work to create a creative environment. Students reinforce
and build creativity as well, in study groups and classroom labs and social
gatherings. Universities are wildly creative and stimulating environments
that are not just a collection of courses, but an atmosphere in which
willing participants share together in the joys and trials that come with
expanding their universe.
Last thought: There are valuable programmers who do not have a degree.
However, their numbers are becoming proportionally smaller over time, a fact
that produces a 'tipping effect' away from them. If history is a guide, 80%
or more of programming will be practiced by folks with four-year technical
degrees within 20 years.
--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
