You Are Not Mark Zuckerberg, So Stay In School

theodp writes "Over at TechCrunch, Vivek Wadhwa offers some don't-be-a-fool-stay-in-school advice to students that sounds a bit like an old-school Mr. T PSA. TechCrunch CEO Michael Arrington's questioning of whether students need to get any degree or go to college at all may sound appealing — dropouts Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates did do alright for themselves — but Wadhwa gives some good reasons why you should probably take the school-is-for-chumps argument with a grain of salt. 'The harsh reality,' warns Wadhwa, is that for every Zuckerberg, there are a thousand who drop out of college and fail,' and many big companies won't even consider hiring you for that fallback job without a degree. And, believe it or not, you can still become a tech billionaire later in life even if you're cursed with a PhD." Tech entrepreneur Michael Robertson approaches this question slightly differently; here's an analysis he made a few years ago, with the conclusion that the college investment pays off only about half the time.

Comments

It's true

[papasui]

I'm not an unethical thief who would thinks nothing of stealing from friends.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey even Zuckerberg needed to go to school to find people to steal ideas from, right?

Re:It's true

[Dragonslicer]

Wait, are you talking about Gates or Zuckerberg?

Yes.

Re:It's true

[SigmundFloyd]

I'm not an unethical thief who would thinks

But you still are a college dropout.

Re:It's true

[0100010001010011]

Jobs even audited a few classes in calligraphy and claims thats where the WYSIWYG concepts came from.

Not sure if "Auditing without even being a student" is considered stealing though.

Re:It's true

[Rogerborg]

I'm not an unethical thief who would thinks nothing of stealing from friends.

That's a relief, because if there's one thing we know about unethical thieves who think nothing of stealing from their friends, it's that they're scrupulously open about their intentions.

Re:It's true

[tomhudson]

NO, it's not. If you ask the teacher and they say okay, then it's okay. The idea is

1. since you're not a student, if you cause problems, you're a lot easier to boot out,
2. if you're auditing the class, you're probably more interested in it (and more interesting) than most of the students who are just there for the grade
3. next semester, you enroll in the class, skipp all the classes, write the exams, get your grade. Teacher is happy, school is happy, you're hapy

So no, auditing a class isn't stealing - you won't get the credit unless you pay for it.

Also, auditing a class at the same time as you're taking one of the stupid prerequisites is a good way to cut down on wasted time - just skip the prereuqisite except for the tests and coursework requirements.

Re:It's true

[Surt]

If you take the teacher's time/attention from the students who are paying for it without their permission ...

Re:It's true

[retchdog]

I've seen many auditing/unofficially visiting students who contribute more to the class discussion than the "paying" students. After all, they are a pretty damned self-selecting group. Of course maybe this only applies to the more academic/fundamental courses. Not many people crash a quantum computation class looking for a quick buck. Intro to Java may be different.

I still think that any interloper who actually steals time in such a manner as you describe, would be asked to leave in short order.

Woe betide any society which identifies academia with training.

Re:It's true

[retchdog]

The sad thing is that they really are that open, more often than not. People eat that shit up. There is something alluring about being "in on an open secret," especially a profitable one. It tends to turn off critical thinking and activate denial.

Re:It's true

[tomhudson]

If a student who is auditing the class is better able to stimulate intelligent discussion, everyone benefits. You want to be spoon-fed? You're holding the class back.

Also, the teacher IS giving permission. The paying students have no say in the matter, since the teacher is the one who determines the teaching environment. Auditing classes is a normal part of education.

Re:It's true

[antdude]

Stay in school, Dragonslicer!

Re:It's true

[shentino]

Can ideas really be stolen, or just the credit for creating them?

Re:It's true

[tehcyder]

Are you using "audited" in the sense of "casually attended" or "sneakily listened to"? Because that's not a usage I've heard before. In the UK "audited" means "checked by a firm of auditors" as in a set of accounts.

I know the Latin root is from "to hear" but I've still never heard it used in this sense, is it a US thing?

Re:It's true

[Missing.Matter]

To audit a course is to attend for no credit. There are different rules, some don't want you to participate at all, others require you to participate.

Re:It's true

[operagost]

"Audit" means to attend a class without receiving credit. You'll still receive a grade from the professor, but it will not be reflected on your transcript.

Re:It's true

[FoolishOwl]

I try to hold back from outright cynicism about higher education, but my experience at UC Berkeley in the 90s suggested to me that only a minority of students were paying attention. In the last few years, I've been taking tech classes at a community college; in the classes primarily aimed at students preparing to transfer to four-year programs, only a minority are really participating in the class, but in the classes primarily aimed at vocational and professional students, the majority are participating.

There are other issues in play, most especially that the community college courses are much smaller, and the instructors are generally much better teachers, than was the case at UC Berkeley.

Re:It's true

[retchdog]

yes, most students have `learned' that the socialization and credentialization are all that matters.

on the other hand, that shouldn't have any bearing on how you conduct yourself (although, yeah, it's piss-annoying).

then again you may also, frankly, be a faulty observer. i have no experience with either UC Berkeley or community college. i went to a freaky liberal arts college for undergrad, worked like a demon on mathematics and research, and have done... mostly fine.

Re:It's true

[Arterion]

The paying students have no say in the matter

I don't know if I'd go that far. There are usually school policies and departmental guidelines. A paying student can always file a formal complaint, and is usually granted audience with a dean or whoever else they request to meet with. Ultimately, the students could all drop the class and not sign up for any further classes by that teacher, if they unionized. That would definitely force some kind of resolution.

Re:It's true

[tomhudson]

The student has no say in the matter. It's as simple as that. If the school policy allows students to audit classes, that's it. It's between the instructor and the school.

Sure, they can do what you suggested - but it defeats the purpose of allowing students to audit classes - they get to sample the class without depriving a paying student of a seat in the class, while at the same time both contributing to the class environment and being able to decide if the class and instructor are really what they want.

So your "solution" ultimately hurts, not helps, paying students.

-- Barbie

Common sense

[jawtheshark]

The harsh reality is that for every Zuckerberg, there are a thousand who drop out of college and fail

When I get into discussions about this topic with (young) people and they think they can play the "Bill Gates" trump card (For some odd reason, they think I should admire the man since I'm "into computers"), this is exactly what I tell them. It's just plain common sense.

If you can't or won't get a college degree, go into plumbing, carpenting or another trade. They are highly undervalued "socially", but I know many of those who make much more money than I do with my computer science degree and cushy admin job. Of course, you won't get "rich" in the "rockstar rich" sense, but if the goal is to make a good living, those jobs are very good choices.

Re:Common sense

[DarkKnightRadick]

As an electrician, one can make (under ideal circumstances) around $40/hr. As long ago as 1999 (not sure how true this is 10 years on) I heard that a *nix admin could make as much as $80/hr (under ideal circumstances).

Re:Common sense

[Kethinov]

When I get into discussions about this topic with (young) people and they think they can play the "Bill Gates" trump card (For some odd reason, they think I should admire the man since I'm "into computers"), this is exactly what I tell them. It's just plain common sense.

You don't have to be a beat-the-odds tech celebrity to do well without a college education. When I interview people, their academic degrees play little to no role in my hiring decision. My primary considerations are their portfolio of work (professional or otherwise), how well they can demonstrate their skills during the interview, and how well I believe they would integrate with the team.

Re:Common sense

[Aladrin]

Actually, as either, you -can- make hundreds of dollars per hour. Most don't, though. Discussing what you can make is pointless. Find some statistics about how much the average person makes and that's a lot more meaningful.

Re:Common sense

[ezzzD55J]

if you wanna get that tough, talk median, not mean ;)

Re:Common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

When I get into discussions about this topic with (young) people and they think they can play the "Bill Gates" trump card (For some odd reason, they think I should admire the man since I'm "into computers"), this is exactly what I tell them. It's just plain common sense.

You don't have to be a beat-the-odds tech celebrity to do well without a college education. When I interview people, their academic degrees play little to no role in my hiring decision. My primary considerations are their portfolio of work (professional or otherwise), how well they can demonstrate their skills during the interview, and how well I believe they would integrate with the team.

Problem is, they'd have to be lucky stumbling upon someone as you in an interview situation. Most companies require degrees when recruiting. Which also narrows down their opportunities to create a professional resume/portfolio of work, and proven team play ability, that would impress the people that are willing to look past missing degrees, a bit of a catch 22.

Re:Common sense

[WrongSizeGlass]

When I get into discussions about this topic with (young) people and they think they can play the "Bill Gates" trump card (For some odd reason, they think I should admire the man since I'm "into computers"), this is exactly what I tell them.

With you spreading that kind of thinking around how will 'the chosen one' ever drop out of college and create SkyNet? Have you thought of that, huh??

Re:Common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike IT jobs, that will invariably be outsourced overseas, skilled traders will always be in demand where ever you are. Locally, both plumbers and electricians want around $100/hour for smaller jobs. In twenty years time, there'll be less tradies and more demand. Guess which way their rates will be going? In 20 years, how many of today's programmers will still be considered employable for the few jobs not being done in China, India and Pakistan?

Re:Common sense

[h4rm0ny]

The thing is, it's true that getting a degree is not the only route to getting somewhere, but it's a route to getting somewhere. So if you have a great business idea or a fantastic job opening available, by all means compare your options and judge accordingly. But don't do nothing and pretend to yourself that by not going to University you're automatically taking another route to success. All you're doing is giving up one route. You still need to find something else to do instead and unless you're Bill Gates or Richard Branson, maybe you wont.

Know how to make money without a degree? Go do it. Sitting on your arse thinking a degree isn't vital to success so by not going to University you'll be a success? Bad logic.

Re:Common sense

[couchslug]

The electrician has a portable skill that CAN'T BE OUTSOURCED, is convertible to similar skills with minimum training, and complements other trade skills.

You can barter skills with other tradeshumans to enhance your living space, shop, or trade for vehicle work/parts. Plenty of opportunity to human network for side money.

You can be self-contained, with all your gear fitting in a truck or trailer.

Electricians are like auto mechanics. They may not get rich, but I've not seen one starve.

Re:Common sense

[thegarbz]

There should be more people like you. But one question, what do you do when hiring a graduate with no portfolio to speak of? Do you judge their suitability for the job by character alone and train them? Subquestion: are the people you are hiring the type of people who can be trained on the job?

I ask because I know now that I've worked for a major international oil company for several years no one is ever going to be interested in what uni I went to or what my marks were, but they sure as hell were when I first started.

Re:Common sense

[Misagon]

Yes, but you seem to be someone who has a clue, and in my experience, your kind of people are in minority among those who have the power to make hiring decisions.

In many many cases, in both tiny and large corporations, hiring is done first by a HR department, outsourced to a headhunter, or by some boss who knows accounting very, but where neither type of person has any clue about what person they are supposed to hire except for the directions that were given to them.
In my experience, it is not uncommon for HR-people to utterly misinterpret the directions so that they forward unqualified people or not forward qualified people.

Some classic mistakes when hiring computer programmers are confusing Java with Javascript, dismissing applicants who have written "several scripting languages" on their CV when they are looking for someone who knows "Pearl" -- or vice versa, looking for "scripting" but dismissing people who enumerate which scripting languages they have experience in, or to ask for n years of experience in something that is less than n years old.

Re:Common sense

[mikael_j]

Actually, the electrician can be outsourced, just not offshored.

This is happening in more and more fields, as a worker you and a whole bunch of others are employed by Company A which only pays you for the hours you work, the customer uses Company B which in turn has a contract with Company A for n man-hours of work available per week. The customer pays less, Company B doesn't pay as much per hour worked and Company A has a reason to exist. Of course, you as a worker for Company A are living without any job security, bottom of the barrel wages and the customer may have to deal with a disgruntled worker who doesn't give a shit. But hey, cheaper is better, right?

It already works like this for a lot of tech support and customer service jobs, everyone saves money and no one but "Company A" is really happy with it (but Company B wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't join the race to the bottom like everyone else and the customer has been brainwashed into thinking that cheaper is always better).

Re:Common sense

[Low Ranked Craig]

Well, I would hardly compare myself to gates but I was on the 5 year plan in high school, didn't go to collage and I've been making 6 figures in this industry since my late 20s. Of course, I did some of the course material on my own, so not going to college wasn't in terms of "can't" but because I didn't want to - I took a few courses and the culture in collage is little better than that in high school, and in some cases worse and I just don't want to deal with it.

The bottom line is that if you want to make a lot of money, in most cases that's simply not going to happen working a job for someone else. If you want to make a lot of money (career wise) you need to be in business for yourself. This means that you also have to understand bookkeeping and basic accounting, sales, marketing and all the rest of it, and also take all the risks.

Re:Common sense

[hedwards]

Actually the odds are even worse than you're making them out to be. Bill Gates would've never made it any kind of big had he not been able to tap his parents for a loan and contacts.

Re:Common sense

[hedwards]

You're right it can't be outsourced, it could if not for the IBEW have to compete with imported talent. That's already a problem in the IT industry and nursing as well.

Re:Common sense

[thopkins]

You didn't go to "collage"?

Re:Common sense

[aurispector]

Meh, that's just splitting hairs. How many IT people are getting outsourced to India? Vs. how many plumbers? Perhaps job security is less important these days than career security.

The big issue here is entrepreneurship - having an idea and turning it into a successful business. People seriously underestimate the value of entrepreneurship. Formal education is, well, too formal to foster a can-do sense of entrepreneurship. It's too much about connecting the dots, painting by numbers, checking off the boxes, following a previously existing program structure. It's the difference between doing what someone else is telling you to do versus forging your own path.

Starting and running a business, especially in a new field, requires an unusual amount of initiative and savvy. I can't think of any PhD program that's designed to foster entrepreneurship and initiative. You don't even need to be an innovator - it's about DRIVE. Gates never really innovated, at best he just used existing ideas, but he saw how things could be molded into a successful business.

Smart people are more likely than stupid people to earn a degree, land a job, start a business, recognize an opportunity. But regardless of intelligence, if you just sit there waiting for opportunity to fall into your lap you're going to be waiting a long time.

Re:Common sense

[Low Ranked Craig]

Damn spell checker and it's lack of context...

Re:Common sense

[tburkhol]

I ask because I know now that I've worked for a major international oil company for several years no one is ever going to be interested in what uni I went to or what my marks were, but they sure as hell were when I first started.

I suspect this is the single most useful result of college: access to better starting positions. A college degree stands, not for work experience, but for trainability and ambition. You put a college degree as a requirement for an entry level position as a filter because it would be too much effort to scan through all of the applications from people who couldn't master high school on the off chance that buried within that pool is one guy with skills and experience, but desperate enough to apply for an entry-level position.

Without the degree, a kid is likely to get stuck in an unskilled or menial position, and his only chance for advancement is to be 'noticed' by higher-ups during internal expansion, or to leverage his experience into a new company. It takes ambition to move up the corporate ladder. Why would an ambitious person forgo college, choose a more difficult starting position, and choose to leave a distinct void in his resume?

The point is: you can be wildly successful with or without a degree. You can be a fuck-up with or without a degree. Five or ten years down the line, your performance will speak for itself. To an employer looking at 100 resumes from kids with no experience, it's better to play the odds and take someone from the degreed pool who's shown at least a modicum of gumption.

Re:Common sense

[0100010001010011]

That's why so many people are OK with illegal immigration. Because they know that illegals will never be able to replace electricians and plumbers or other manual labor.
[/sarcasm]

Re:Common sense

[Smallpond]

Actually, as either, you -can- make hundreds of dollars per hour. Most don't, though. Discussing what you can make is pointless. Find some statistics about how much the average person makes and that's a lot more meaningful.

it makes a lot of sense to look at the statistics. Like College Degree Nearly Doubles Annual Earnings Deciding something based on a few anecdotes is stupid. I know a couple of people who are very successful in spite of dropping out, but they did so because they saw an opportunity, not because they thought college was a mistake.

Re:Common sense

[hairyfeet]

But you are missing the most important ingredient....being a ruthless bastard. What do Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg have in common? Being ruthless bastards. Jobs screwed Woz out of money back when they were selling to Atari, and to this day has no problem dropping his lawyer army and those that piss him off, Gates played nice with both Jobs and IBM until he could get what he wanted from them then fucked them over with Windows, as well as ripping off Spyglass for IE, and of course Zuckerberg and his infamous "dumb fucks" screwing his friends privacy.

So I'd say if you are really gonna shoot for being a Gates or Jobs you have to not only have a sense of entrepreneurship, but also being willing to fuck over your own momma to get ahead. It is being a truly ruthless bastard that makes the great ones, because as Jack Tramiel said "Business is war".

Re:Common sense

[flyneye]

I feel a bit outside this story with a unique perspective.
I was a poor rural kid out in the sticks. Early on, I found myself studying ahead of the others, consuming library books above the heads of my class like potato chips.
I was bored by the repetition of "facts" and found myself correcting text book teaching with facts found outside approved texts. This made me distrustful.
I never had the scholarships from academics or sports, due to my boredom, I gave up doing homework and lost grades but graduated on test scores. I pursued my passions for years independently, music, journalism,physics, mathematics, psychology and luthiery. I watched generation pass through college, indebting themselves more than they would for their future family house, car and a chunk of retirement. In many cases, I find that I've a far superior education than those on the traditional path of education. I've also noted over the years that the jobs they acquired were working for people and corporations that stole their precious time, underpaid them in most cases, gave them no security and ravaged their ability to deal with stress. All this for the privilege of owing some outrageous sum of money to the government for education by the over-venerated, overpaid ,
often driven by personal agenda ,higher education system. Well, talk about a complete rip off. This arrangement not only encourages low quality and sloth in teaching, but also encourages poor workplaces, low standards in employer conduct, less than a living wage and economic troubles across the board.( completely aside from subjects of gov't. involvement in business finance).
        Even with this said, I watch class after class graduate public school with less education than I was offered by middleschool.
Buddy, they are gonna be so 'tarded, no one will be able to pick up the slack. The workplace already suffers from educational malpractice. Soon , I can see the country falling into the Alpha,Beta,Delta,Gamma subsets of "citizens" illustrated in "Brave New World".
        So, when I hear your familiar little "stay in school, don't be a fool" cheerleading, I can think to myself," sure, at least it gives their parents time to earn half a living while they are sort of babysat". I still have little clue as to what the benefits are for society except to keep crime low for 6 hours a day. It certainly doesn't have to do with any fairytales about the "future of society".
          Me? I work a grunt job that pays enough. I make loads on the side from following my passions. I send my kid to private school and tutor her on the side. If she should decide to follow the college path at least it will be with some funding and without Beta,Delta,Gammma designations. If not, I can be sure she has chosen a full productive life over the Rat Race 500. Sometimes it is better to be not so successful and live happily than to be a fully equipped pack mule for an ungrateful master. How do you want to spend your precious, ever diminishing asset? Makes you think, donut?

Re:Common sense

[Wonko the Sane]

Why would an ambitious person forgo college, choose a more difficult starting position, and choose to leave a distinct void in his resume?

Because that person understands compound interest and what it means for student loan debt to be non-dischargable in bankruptcy.

Re:Common sense

[wwphx]

It's the same argument for kids who are going to become "professional athletes". Odds are that they're not, and even if they did, they have a fairly short earning period and a majority don't have the money management skills and discipline to parley a million or few a year into lifelong financial stability. (not that tech geeks are necessarily better at financial planning and management)

As any computer person knows, ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP PLAN.

Re:Common sense

[Surt]

Plumbers and electricians struggle to find 40 hours of work per week where I live. I was curious about how their incomes compared to mine, and the last couple guys I worked with said they typically had about 25 billable hours of work in 50 hours on the job. The rest was driving from place to place and other forms of non-billable time. So $100/hr for actual work doesn't translate into the same salary as someone who is paid that rate for a 40/hr job.

I used to get paid 65/hr as a software contractor. But I billed 60 hours a week. Care to guess who made more that year, me or the $100/hr plumber?

Re:Common sense

[Almost-Retired]

Yes, I have run into that attitude in job interviews, and it sucks.

But, I am one of those people who was a boy geek 4 decades before the name was invented. I have an 8th grade and a couple pieces of freshman in high school education, and at the time a rather severe food allergy that made attending and absorbing anything from school difficult at best. So at 14, I went out to fix tv's for a living. Then I found the food allergy and stopped drinking milk products for several years.

School had taught me how to read phonetically, and I was pretty good at it and enjoyed it, gobbling up everything I could find on the electronics and physical subjects.

Getting tired of consumer electronics, I switched to broadcasting in 1962 shortly after obtaining an FCC 1st Phone. Never slowing my reading, in 1972 I passed the C.E.T. exams, again without cracking a book specifically to study for it. The sign on my usually vacant (because I'm someplace else actually working) office door has usually said Chief Engineer since 1977.

I retired in 2002 in my 67th year, or tried to, I still get odd jobs, from 18 years as the CE at a medium market station in West Virginia, I am blessed with having enough money to afford some hobbies and keep myself in things to do, although that is becoming limited because of type 2 diabetes, so the cold weather hunting and fishing sports are less enjoyable now, but I'm happy and I figure I've had a good ride as I look at my 76th birthday in about 10 days.

Am I a millionaire?, hell no, but I do have money in the bank and I didn't have to screw a lot of people over to get here either, I simply gave them a job well done, keeping them making the money they willingly paid me some of.

There is I believe, something to be said for honesty. I don't have any ulcers and I sleep as well as can be expected at my age.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between
the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.
                                -- Sydney J. Harris

Re:Common sense

[Surt]

$24K gain, on $20K avg cost (public school), plus loss of 27*4 years of income = 128K to make up. So about 9 years average before break-even, assuming you trust the economic situation in this country not to continue getting worse for college grads.

Re:Common sense

[Javagator]

the few jobs not being done in China, India and Pakistan?

The wierd thing is, we have people in my (American) office that were born in China, India, and Pakistan. They (or their parents) came over here to get jobs.

Re:Common sense

[Tablizer]

If you can't or won't get a college degree, go into plumbing, carpenting or another trade. They are highly undervalued "socially", but I know many of those who make much more money than I do with my computer science degree

And you can in large part thank offshore outsourcing for this. You can't offshore plumbing and good handy-work. Blue collar's revenge.
 

Re:Common sense

[dorre]

Perfect comment. This is really the only argument you need in this debate. (Also is similar to my understanding of the world).

Re:Common sense

[jawtheshark]

The carpenters I know make high-class furniture. Their customers are not you and me, but people with a lot of money who want quality made to measure and are willing to pay for it. English is a bitch on this one, "carpenter" is both used for the construction worker and for the one making furniture... In other languages the distinction is more clear. Another one like that is "painter". If I tell people, my brother is a painter, they think of the art guy, not of the guy who paints walls...

Re:Common sense

[Surt]

Better jobs vs any jobs. 15% of americans are unemployed right now because they can't (legally!) compete for jobs with people who make 30c/hr, or even $3/hr. The people who come this way want to make more than they can in their country.

Re:Common sense

[i_liek_turtles]

Not to mention that Bill Gates still had the support of daddy's money...

Re:Common sense

[ultranova]

Starting and running a business, especially in a new field, requires an unusual amount of initiative and savvy. I can't think of any PhD program that's designed to foster entrepreneurship and initiative.

And why would they be? You said yourself that it takes unusual attributes to become a succesful enterpreneur. A PhD is usual, and quickly becoming required. It simply doesn't make any sense to tailor the programs for something that's only relevant to a tiny percent of their participants.

Smart people are more likely than stupid people to earn a degree, land a job, start a business, recognize an opportunity.

And turning in ten lottery coupons means you're more likely to win than turning in just one, but that doesn't mean that you should bet your future on that.

Re:Common sense

[Gorobei]

Without the degree, a kid is likely to get stuck in an unskilled or menial position, and his only chance for advancement is to be 'noticed' by higher-ups during internal expansion, or to leverage his experience into a new company. It takes ambition to move up the corporate ladder. Why would an ambitious person forgo college, choose a more difficult starting position, and choose to leave a distinct void in his resume?

Assuming we restricting ourselves to ambitious people capable and able to attend a good college, one common answer I've seen is:

The person is already bored in college, finds it too slow or too like high school, and wants to learn and succeed in the real world. Sure, the starting position will be harder, but getting "noticed" should only take a month or two. Then it's up, up, up. The person needs a lot of faith in themselves that for this to be an attractive plan, but I've seen it tried often.

BTW, my group's hiring plan is "good degree from good place" for the junior roles, education unimportant (but successes critical) for higher-level positions.

Re:Common sense

[Reziac]

But you never stopped self-educating, and that's a big difference. A lot of kids nowadays fall out of high school or even graduate from college expecting the world owes them a living or owes them success. They don't realise that you have to BUILD it yourself.

BTW congrats on the personal achievements, and on possibly being the most senior slashdotter! Now I'll be gettin' off your lawn. :D

Re:Common sense

[tempestdata]

Agreed Completely.

My boss doesn't have a college degree and he is a good deal sharper than I am (I have a Masters in Comp Sci.) When I look at a resume, or interview a candidate, I look at the education portion the same way I look at the hobbies section if the applicant has included it. Nice to know, but not important one way or the other.

In fact, If a person spent 4 years of his/her life making some solid contributions to open souce projects (perhps became a core committer to some of them). I would actually be more likely to hire him/her than someone who had finished a 4 year college degree. Provided everything else was equal.

Re:Common sense

[Dan Dankleton]

As any computer person knows, ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP PLAN.

As any competent computer person knows, there's a second part to that... AND TEST IT REGULARLY. How does that fit in to your analogy, eh?!

Re:Common sense

[DesScorp]

As an electrician, one can make (under ideal circumstances) around $40/hr. As long ago as 1999 (not sure how true this is 10 years on) I heard that a *nix admin could make as much as $80/hr (under ideal circumstances).

You can thank the Internet for that change. Before the net came, IT was a highly profitable field, where all that specialized knowledge could make you a lot of money. But now you can find some guy in India or the Philipines with similar knowledge, and since all IT runs on the Internet now, he'll do that work for you at a fraction of a cost. All of that helpful remote management software that SysAdmins thought was so great because it let them work from home? It also lets "Peggy" work from Bangalore or Manila or Kiev. So like it or not, IT is now a commodity technology and a common, commodity skill field, no more important in entry level work than clerks or administrative assistants.

In fact, they have better job security. You can't outsource a file clerk or a plumber or a truck driver to India.

Bottom line, "Information wants to be free" and "the network is the computer" came back to bite the very people singing that song in the ass. In many places, an experienced plumber makes more money and has more job security than an experienced SysAdmin. IT is essentially a maintenance or janitorial job with higher technology now.

Re:Common sense

[pegasustonans]

So I'd say if you are really gonna shoot for being a Gates or Jobs you have to not only have a sense of entrepreneurship, but also being willing to fuck over your own momma to get ahead. It is being a truly ruthless bastard that makes the extremely wealthy yet widely despised self-important douchebags, because as Jack Tramiel said "Business is war".

FTFY

Re:Common sense

[SageMusings]

Locally, both plumbers and electricians want around $100/hour for smaller jobs

Where I live, there are day laborers that work far cheaper and give god results. Are they licensed? Nope. However, people with barely enough to get by will (and do) choose these guys over the local journeyman.

This is a situation of outsourcing coming to your neighborhood. If I were a plumber or electrician, I would be just as concerned as your average software developer.

It is a race to the bottom on all fronts.

Re:Common sense

[Compaqt]

While it's true that college grads (usually) make more, and that businesses look for grads, and that most people should try to get a college degree in the current job market, all of this ignores why it is that businesses require college degrees.

The Supreme Court established the "disparate impact" standard whereby employers can't do stuff (like employment tests) which would disproportionately affect minorities. All this is enforced by human resources departments.

So they use college degrees as a proxy for "sort of smart". (Irony of ironies, though, black people are less degreed than the rest of the population, making for, once again, disparate impact.)

The fact is, most jobs just do not require a college degrees. Program manager? Business apps developer? Office manager? Supply manager? Bring employees on at $10, train them, then pay real money when they're ready.

While liberal learning is an admirable goal, and should continue all your life, it has nothing to do with most jobs.

Re:Common sense

[wwphx]

Agreed. And I do. I have sitting next to me my oldest off-site backup, which was just tested and is about to return to off-site.

Re:Common sense

[luis_a_espinal]

Meh, that's just splitting hairs. How many IT people are getting outsourced to India? Vs. how many plumbers? Perhaps job security is less important these days than career security.

That is such utter crap. I've been hearing the same crap about how IT people are getting outsourced to India for the last 15 years. People who care or worry about being outsourced should ask themselves whether they have the skills (or inclination to get the skills) that make them irreplaceable or nearly irreplaceable. "Cookie cutter" programmers and tech support are replaceable. High-tech specialists are not. Your career security is your skills and in your ability and drive to stay ahead.

I for one I'm happy to see some people being outsourced. The IT and software industry has been saturated for quite a while, with salaries inflated beyond what a set of skills justify. If you have decent skills (even if fresh out of college) and do your homework and never let your career stagnate (job != career), you'll be fine even in the midst of an outsourcing feeding frenzy.

Re:Common sense

[DarkKnightRadick]

The electrician has a portable skill that CAN'T BE OUTSOURCED, is convertible to similar skills with minimum training, and complements other trade skills.

You can barter skills with other tradeshumans to enhance your living space, shop, or trade for vehicle work/parts. Plenty of opportunity to human network for side money.

You can be self-contained, with all your gear fitting in a truck or trailer.

Electricians are like auto mechanics. They may not get rich, but I've not seen one starve.

That's pretty much exactly why I'm studying to be an electrician. The training I'm receiving will enable me to work in industrial, commercial, and residential fields of the industry. I can work for myself making no more than 25k/job (my part only; state max for LLE (Limited License Electrician), state min for contractor's license). I may never be rich, but I'll never starve. (:

Re:Common sense

[DarkKnightRadick]

harsh, but there is truth there.

Re:Common sense

[timeOday]

In twenty years time, there'll be less tradies and more demand. Guess which way their rates will be going?

It's hard to say. A plumber in the US doesn't do anything different than a plumber in India. The reason they make more money than Indian plumbers is because they live among other people who do not have peers in India. If the day arrives that America isn't doing anything that India isn't doing, then living standards between the two will be pretty similar. (We still have some advantages, like a lower population density and more natural resources, which do add to our quality of life).

Re:Common sense

[genner]

Meh, that's just splitting hairs. How many IT people are getting outsourced to India? Vs. how many plumbers? Perhaps job security is less important these days than career security.

That is such utter crap. I've been hearing the same crap about how IT people are getting outsourced to India for the last 15 years. People who care or worry about being outsourced should ask themselves whether they have the skills (or inclination to get the skills) that make them irreplaceable or nearly irreplaceable. "Cookie cutter" programmers and tech support are replaceable. High-tech specialists are not. Your career security is your skills and in your ability and drive to stay ahead.

I for one I'm happy to see some people being outsourced. The IT and software industry has been saturated for quite a while, with salaries inflated beyond what a set of skills justify. If you have decent skills (even if fresh out of college) and do your homework and never let your career stagnate (job != career), you'll be fine even in the midst of an outsourcing feeding frenzy.

In other words...don't be average. This is a problem since most people are average by definition.

Re:Common sense

[phantomfive]

But you are missing the most important ingredient....being a ruthless bastard.

I'm pretty sure that's not the most important ingredient. If that were the most important ingredient, I know a lot of people who would be rich right now. It only seems common in famous rich people because it's common in everybody. A lot of homeless people will steal a dollar from their mate, too.

Re:Common sense

[16K Ram Pack]

The thing is that within a few years of work, college doesn't matter for shit.

So, why do college people do better than non-college people? Because the sort of people who go to college are more generally the bright, hard-working types. So "graduates make $x more than non-graduates" is more of a correlation than causation. Every software guy who makes big bucks that I know is a smart, hard-working guy. More than most have degrees, but the degree makes far less difference than their attitude and ability.

Re:Common sense

[AJWM]

It only seems common in famous rich people because it's common in everybody. A lot of homeless people will steal a dollar from their mate, too.

But statistically, higher IQ (we're talking better than Mensa level, not dime-a-dozen IQs of 120 or so) tends to correlate with higher ethical standards, more sense of "fair play". To become a Gates you need to be an anomaly that has both a high IQ and low ethical standards.

Re:Common sense

[phantomfive]

Really? Interesting, how strong is the correlation?

Re:Common sense

[phek]

Actually the better starting position is just a facade. In reality, someone who didn't go to college got their starting position at 18 or 19 so by the time they would have got out of college they already have 4 years of real world experience which is worth way more than a degree. The single most useful result of college is the connections you can make there. When looking for a position in your 5 - 10 year mark they could be a great asset to a new job. As for leveraging his experience into a new company, that's the way it goes with IT. You're most likely not ever going to get any sort of promotion at a company. Each company only has so many positions that need to be filled and after working there for say 2 years you may have way more knowledge/ability than when you started but not enough for a promotion so you're stuck at a job where you can do more than what you're getting paid to do but aren't likely to be able to learn enough staying at that company. Of course other companies are looking for people with your new level of experience and are willing to pay more than you're currently getting paid so you jump ship to them. Then the same thing happens again but now you have enough experience to do whatever job you couldn't get a promotion for at the last company so you jump ship again.

Re:Common sense

[couchslug]

Good on ya!

Anything you can add by way of mechanics, hydraulics, pneumatics, and welding will serve you well.

Re:Common sense

[DarkKnightRadick]

I was actually thinking of complementing it with industrial electronics.

Re:Common sense

[mini me]

Correlation does not equal causation. It takes determination to find a high paying job. Virtually all college graduates are determined people. That does not mean that all determined people are college graduates.

The numbers you submitted are skewed because they account for everyone, no matter what their personality type. If you eliminate the people who are not passionate about what they do, I think you will find that the degree has no real bearing on income.

Re:Common sense

[mini me]

You can't outsource a file clerk or a plumber or a truck driver to India.

Why not? The technology exists today.

While it is currently more economical to hire someone locally to perform those jobs than shell out for the necessary technology, that does not mean that technology costs will not decrease to the point that the numbers change and it becomes more economical to hire someone in India to drive your truck.

Re:Common sense

[asretfroodle]

English still has a distinction - I'd go to a joiner or cabinetmaker if I wanted some furniture made, not a carpenter.

Perhaps the lack of distinction is a North American thing?

Re:Common sense

[Your.Master]

I've never heard of this. Do you have a source?

The current pop culture trend is that dumb people have higher ethical standards. Which I also doubt. I just don't see why it would be correlated.

I bet that there's a lower crime rate (both conviction and actual guilt) among the very intelligent, but that's not quite the same thing.

Re:Common sense

[argontechnologies]

Yes, but I have seen a couple fry!

Re:Common sense

[drinkypoo]

If you really wanna make stuff then learning welding is actually an immensely useful skill. It's one of the things I kick my own ass for not picking up sooner, I'm still very bad at it and it comes up all the damn time. If I've received one consistent piece of advice it's to just jump into TIG and skip everything else.

Re:Common sense

[morari]

There are plenty of people out there that do go to college and still fail. In fact, the majority of people will fail regardless of what they do. The system is set up that way. College is little more than a bullet point on your resume. That little piece of paper that you get from school lets employers know that you have received the proper amount of social conditioning. Thus, they are more at ease with you. That's the benefit.

Re:Common sense

[AJWM]

I don't recall exactly. It came up in a discussion with a psychologist/psychiatrist about testing of high IQ kids (in the territory where most modern tests don't measure very accurately). Google turns up a lot of links citing "sense of fairness" as one sign of an intellectually gifted child, but I don't have the time right now to track down the original research.

Re:Common sense

[AJWM]

That personality type sounds more like the dime-a-dozen IQ 120 types (enough to be smarter than most other people but not smart enough to really be secure about it, so they bury their insecurity under assholery), but yeah, if fits some of the Mensa crowd too. (And lets face it, the very nature of an organization like Mensa tends to select people like that. A lot of my friends are ex-Mensa: joined, realized what jerks many of the other members were, and quit.)

But an asshole can still have a sense of fairness; they're just obnoxious about it.

Re:Common sense

[AJWM]

No readily available source. It was related to me by a psychologist who specializes in gifted kids, and a quick google turns up a lot of sites that say a heightened sense of fairness is one indicator of same.

Re:Common sense

[DarkKnightRadick]

Hehe, I will eventually be qualified to repair your TIG welder :p

Well I can only be a full-time trade student in one thing at a time. This isn't like academics where you can have two majors and it's just a few classes at most (if in related fields) extra.

Re:Common sense

[phantomfive]

I guess it makes sense, fairness tends to favor the intelligent who will be able to win on a fair field by virtue of their intelligence. Those who can't win the fair way, will be the ones who throw the board on the ground when they lose, or try to look for other ways to win.

Incidentally, I don't think it's fair to say that homeless people are less intelligent. Maybe on average, I'm not sure, but some of them are fairly smart.

Re:Common sense

[Smallpond]

That's an interesting observation. US astronauts are disproportionally Eagle Scouts, but nobody tries to claim that there's causation. It's because the type of person who achieves the top rank in scouting will be the type of person selected as an astronaut.

There must be some element of that with college also. However, I think that college prepares successful people by teaching them how to learn and them how to think. The specific things that you learn and do in school aren't important, and the knowledge may be obsolete or useless to you by the time you're working. But the patterns and techniques for solving problems, how to read critically, how to analyze, and how to write, are all things that you could learn on your own, but probably wouldn't. You need the pressure of assignments, competition and deadlines to goad you into doing it.

Re:Common sense

[penguinchris]

I appreciate your story and I'm happy for you, that you've been able to be successful in that manner.

However, perhaps you don't appreciate the position young people (such as myself) are in today. It's a lot harder to get started along a path such as yours than it seems to have been then. I currently can't just start working doing something I like or am good at, be it fixing TVs or computers or doing whatever else. There are huge barriers of entry for *everything*.

Yep, you can get a new job based on experience rather than education. In your case, you had the opportunity to get experience in lower-level positions, and use that experience to move up. In my case, I can't get that experience. The only realistic option is to continue going to school and hope to get an entry-level position based on my degree(s), certifications, whatever. Meanwhile I've been more than capable of doing this type of entry-level stuff for years, but it's impossible to get those jobs without experience or education. And yes, I *have* actually tried :)

It's impossible to get a foot in the door right now without experience, but it's impossible to get experience without already having experience! It's a catch-22 and as far as I can tell (from my perspective as a recent graduate who can't find a job) it's destroying any chances of most people of my generation becoming anywhere near as successful as you were.

Re:Common sense

[IAmGarethAdams]

No, most people are either better or worse than average. Very few are actually average

Re:Common sense

[luis_a_espinal]

In other words...don't be average.

No. In other words... don't remain sub par (at best) or perennially incompetent (at worst). There is no justification for a IT person with 5-6 years in the field still exhibiting programming skills below junior/senior-year level.

If members of a professional field happens to display sub par or mediocre skills, that's a 1) problem of education at a social level, and 2) a problem of work ethics at a personal level. People like that deserve to be replaced. Period.

This is a problem since most people are average by definition.

It is not a problem if by average people are not incompetent or mediocre. Only in software and IT do we see such amount of mediocrity. And, though the field is still young compared to other engineering fields, it is not a new one either (and thus, there is no excuse anymore for the sorry state of affairs we work with nowadays.)

If it is a problem to a large number of individuals because they are mediocre and easily replaceable, then too bad, even if they allowed their field to turn into shit to the point average == suckage. Tonight at 10PM news, life is not fair.

Re:Common sense

[SteveFoerster]

But statistically, higher IQ (we're talking better than Mensa level, not dime-a-dozen IQs of 120 or so) tends to correlate with higher ethical standards, more sense of "fair play".

Citation needed.

Re:Common sense

[tehcyder]

The big issue here is entrepreneurship - having an idea and turning it into a successful business. People seriously underestimate the value of entrepreneurship.

Most people have no interest whatsoever in entrepreneurship, and find that the character type necessary to be a good one (ruthlessness, self-obsession, indifference to other people's suffering, limited mental horizons, etc) is not a pleasant one.

For normal people, the pursuit of money for its own sake is not a great motivator.

Re:Common sense

[tehcyder]

But statistically, higher IQ (we're talking better than Mensa level, not dime-a-dozen IQs of 120 or so) tends to correlate with higher ethical standards, more sense of "fair play".

I'd love to know where you got that information from, so I can avoid it in the future.

There are plenty of examples of highly intelligent psychopaths throughout history

Re:Common sense

[couchslug]

"If I've received one consistent piece of advice it's to just jump into TIG and skip everything else."

I work at a community college structural/pipe welding course, and would modify that to either "learn stick/TIG" (DC machines can do both) or "learn gas welding first" (old school but great for learning puddle control). Do get some stick action because it's the most versatile process.

Go check out the weldingweb, millerwelds, hobart forums, and migwelding uk forums (google will get you there so I didn''t post urls) in that order for some very useful info.

Re:Common sense

[tehcyder]

I used to get paid 65/hr as a software contractor. But I billed 60 hours a week. Care to guess who made more that year, me or the $100/hr plumber?

On what planet do tradesmen submit bills broken down by "billable hours" as though they're lawyers?

Re:Common sense

[tehcyder]

The carpenters I know make high-class furniture. Their customers are not you and me, but people with a lot of money who want quality made to measure and are willing to pay for it. English is a bitch on this one, "carpenter" is both used for the construction worker and for the one making furniture.

I don't think that most high quality furniture makers would actually call themselves carpenters, certainly not in the UK.

Re:Common sense

[daem0n1x]

I've been reading some management books that keep telling the same things about being ethical: Not treating subordinates like shit because they will repay you in good work, not wasting time in turf wars, always put the organisation's best interests above everything, etc.

This is exactly the opposite of what I've seen on many organisations I've been working. Leaders tend to have a profound contempt for the work of their subordinates, they will try to get rid of the best because they value submission over competence, they engage in the most childish wars that hurt the organisations very hard. They always justify their actions by saying their counterparts are greedy, evil motherfuckers that don't deserve any decency from them. As to the subordinates, these people have a belief that every human being is lazy and deceitful, so they always assume the main goal of their subordinates is to slack off and they have to be whipped to do any work. The ones they don't consider lazy or stupid are even worse because they're trying to ascend to their level, making them dangerous threats.

I'm not saying every one is like this, I have met several hard-working, honest managers that are usually exploited like hell by the sociopats above them.

I try to raise my kids to be polite to others and always have conscience that they're not alone. I'm trying to make them become intelligent, emotionally stable, mature human beings, so I give them all my love and attention and make great efforts not to spoil them.

I guess I'm doing wrong. The most successful people I know are selfish twats that obviously didn't grow up in a sane environment.

Re:Common sense

[daem0n1x]

In my country, being a computer engineer is regarded in most places like "make applications with Visual Basic and Access". If I had followed that path, I'd be in a management position right now.

Instead, I prefer to do more technically-challenging stuff so I'm irreplaceable but I'm stuck in my position forever. Lots of people look at me sideways because they don't understand how I'm still doing engineering at my age. They think I spend the whole day creating forms.

Now, I have two options, either I emigrate to a country where engineering skills are better regarded or try to move into project management. Not that I like it, but I have mouths to feed.

Re:Common sense

[aurispector]

The sheer number of fallacies in your post almost defies belief. It's not clear if you have even the faintest understanding, beyond a cartoonish parody, of what entrepreneurship actually entails. The many people I know who have started successful businesses did it to have more control over their lives. They also recognized that as employees, much of their effort went to the benefit of their employer. It's kind of a trade between security and liberty. The money (if you manage to make any) is a nice reward but it comes at the expense of great responsibility - including taking care of your employees if you want to keep them.

Another common characteristic of entrepreneurs is that they don't want to hear excuses for failure. Success requires hard work, astute judgment and a keen understanding of the economic environment. Talk to any business owner and they'll have plenty of stories about scams, rip off artists and moochers who all want something for nothing. The essence of entrepreneurship is the fair trade of goods or services. If you aren't dealing fairly, in most cases your business does not survive because your reputation suffers. Mind you that you DO have to provide something for your customer's money. No business survives without repeat customers - fool them once...

Starting and running a business is HARD. Equipment and materials are expensive. Customers do not materialize out of thin air. Competition from similar businesses forces you to do it cheaper and better. Overhead expenses can ruin you and God forbid you try to start one in a recession.

Only a certain kind of person with an entitlement minded victim's mentality might feel that business owners are indifferent to suffering - absurd considering a tax burden approaching 50%, not to mention voluntary charitable giving. Only the most naive would think that goods and services can and should be had for free. Who is stupid enough to work their asses off day after day, only to watch the fruit of their labors be consumed by others without compensation? Is the satisfaction of "helping people" supposed to be enough? At the end of the day how is one supposed to feed their family? Nothing is ever free.

Have you ever even worked? What sort of "mental horizons" override the need for a business to operate efficiently enough to avoid bankruptcy? How is making enough money each week to meet your payroll "ruthless"? How does wanting a better future than is offered by your average McJob "self obession"? An ambitious person can start an organization that can give jobs to thousands. A lazy, whining leach might object that it's somehow "unfair", but deep down they know they could never have pulled it off themselves - and THAT'S what they're really angry about.

Re:Common sense

[drinkypoo]

Do get some stick action because it's the most versatile process.

It's also the most difficult process, where TIG is continually billed as the easiest by everyone I know who can weld. Why start people on something hard? This is a mistake I continually see made in education. Start with what's easy and work to what's hard, not the other way around. Further, there's really nothing you can't weld with TIG, but there's stuff you can't meaningfully weld with stick, like thin aluminum or sheet metal, so if you're only going to learn one kind of welding, it ought not to be stick. Every community college I've seen separates TIG and stick, and I think that makes good sense.

Re:Common sense

[Missing.Matter]

College loans are some of the best most flexible loans around. That they're not discharged in bankruptcy is really inconsequential, as there are plenty of options to assist you if you have trouble paying your loans- options such as a graduated payment schedule, deferment, or forbearance. For loans like the Stafford, the government pays your interest while you're in college, so it doesn't compound. Finally, there are many financing options to work with loans, like work study and academic grants.

And of course, there's always the option of attending a school you can afford.

Re:Common sense

[geminidomino]

I would recommend that kids major in being ruthless bastards, so why dont colleges teach this?

They do. But they use the more politically acceptable term "MBA"

MBA:Ethics::IT:Security Breaches

Re:Common sense

[Surt]

They don't submit bills with billable and non-billable hours of course. They just submit bills with the actual hours they are on the property, and then kindly tell me when I ask how many other hours they aren't able to submit a bill for AT ALL when they aren't on ANYONE'S property doing work.

Re:Common sense

[Surt]

That was partly why I clarified that 9 was a minimum. 15 is probably a lot more realistic after you factor in investment growth.

Still, it's CLEARLY a good deal if you don't want to do anything fun like vacation in Fiji while you're young, or you get a lot of fun out of the college experience, etc. The longer your time horizon on that investment, the better, obviously.

Re:Common sense

[Wonko the Sane]

What are you, a bankster shill?

Millions of people are discovering that they are effectively debt slaves for life because the pay prospects of their chosen career was vastly exaggerated when they choose to take on the loans.

Then there's the fact that only 20% of 2009 graduates got a job right after graduation.

If you actually do the math except for a handful of degrees, you're financially better off not going to college at all than taking out loans to go to college because the advantage of increased salary prospects during your working life is more than completely consumed by extra debt service.

Re:Common sense

[jewens]

Don't most people use average to indicate within 1 standard deviation of the mean?

At least most people who understand what that sentence means.

Re:Common sense

[LanMan04]

Never in my life have I needed to weld something. When does this kind of thing come up, other than in keeping ancient cars or other "I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a new one, even though the amount of time I put into fixing this thing isn't worth it" objects from falling apart?

No offense intended; I'm curious.

Re:Common sense

[Civil_Disobedient]

"Cookie cutter" programmers and tech support are replaceable.

Cookie cutter plumbers are replaceable as well. The point is that they aren't out-source-able, as most jobs still require your physical presence.

Re:Common sense

[FoolishOwl]

If you can't or won't get a college degree, go into plumbing, carpenting or another trade.

The skilled trades require college coursework -- the courses are offered by community colleges and specialized trade schools, but just as those professions are socially undervalued, so are those schools. I had a roommate who was in an apprentice plasterer, and I remember looking through his textbooks -- they were more dense and challenging than most of the IT-related textbooks I've seen.

Re:Common sense

[FoolishOwl]

As someone with a community college certificate and limited experience, who's never made more than $30K/year, I have a hard time working out what I should ask. The usual advice is to avoid answering the question directly, yet in each interview, and most applications, I am asked to provide a specific figure, with no fudging.

I have trouble finding plausible numbers -- the numbers I find seem wildly exaggerated. For instance, according to salary.com, the bottom of the pay scale for Linux system administrators is about $65K/year, and in the San Francisco area, $85K/year. However, the jobs I've found advertised are only for senior-level positions, and they tend to range from $50-$70K/year.

On the other hand, I (finally) got a short term job moving computers around, for $15/hour. Half the people I'm working with are engineers, and from what the people I'm working with have said, that's all they were paid for full-time work at permanent jobs.

Re:Common sense

[phantomfive]

I'm not saying every one is like this, I have met several hard-working, honest managers that are usually exploited like hell by the sociopats above them.

Half the task of being nice is learning how to not be exploited by others when you are being nice. Not always easy.

Re:Common sense

[Missing.Matter]

Nope, I'm just someone who graduated from a 4 year, 45k per year institution with $20k in debt, and am now pursuing graduate studies in Robotics at a top not school.

I agree that there are fields where loans do not make sense, as the "softer" degrees as your link points out (art, music, russian literature).

But the "handful of degrees" you're talking about are the sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, computer), engineering (mechanical, electrical, civil, computer), medicine, law... these degrees make up over half of my undergraduate institution.

But the key mistake you're making is measuring a degree by lifetime earning potential. My friend went to Syracuse for Journalism (one of the degrees your source derides), and now writes for the Phillies. He gets to fly around the country and watch baseball for a living! How do you measure that in "lifetime earning potential"?

I get to work with millions of dollars of robotics equipment every day. I can pull a Honda Asimo off the shelf and run my latest algorithms any time I want. I would gladly take twice the loans out to do what I do today.

And what of those who don't have jobs? Well, I guess that's a shame but it s a tougher economic climate, and it's been shown that unemployment is lower for those that have degrees by almost 50%. I know it's tough now, but when employment is normalized, that diploma will be on your resume as.

So am I worried about compound interest and bankruptcy? No. My loans are deferred because I'm in grad school, but if I had to pay them it would be about $150 a month. That's less than the payment on a new kia subcompact. I'll save up during grad school and pay off as much as I can when I leave, and when I eventually pay them off my credit will be sky high (right about he time I'm ready to by a house, I wager).

So when I'm 65, looking back on my 47 years of productivity I'm confident I'll be looking back at a life lived doing what I loved, rather than a pile of cash and missed opportunities (although I'm also confident I'll be sitting on a pile of cash as well).

I know this reply was long, but it had to be, given your tone. To sum my position, you have to be smart about loans. Want to attend a $40k per year institution for a degree in photography so you can eventually do inner city social work at $30k per year? Not a good idea to take loans. Want to be a scientist, a doctor, a lawyer an engineer? You NEED to go to school, so decide at that point whether loans make sense or not. As in all things, moderation is key. You can leave with $80k in debt, or work through college and leave with $20k in debt or no debt at all.

Re:Common sense

[jawtheshark]

In French it's called Menuisier-ébéniste. I'd be glad to learn the English term.

Re:Common sense

[tandelaf]

Agree. May I add that most large corporations now (and this is from this decade) look for an employee that not only is capable of performing his work 100% but also capable of looking around his context and propose new ideas to change/improve processes and intrapreneurship... and in order to do that you need to have other skills that an engineer learns in school, like statistics, economy, logistics, HR management and so on. I hope I explained myself.

Re:Common sense

[tandelaf]

Actually the better starting position is just a facade. In reality, someone who didn't go to college got their starting position at 18 or 19 so by the time they would have got out of college they already have 4 years of real world experience which is worth way more than a degree.

That's only a short term view. In the long run the degree pays. What you propose is like doing an all-in rush in Starcraft. Maybe you will win, but if you don't, your mid and long term economy will suffer.

Re:Common sense

[genner]

In other words...don't be average.

No. In other words... don't remain sub par (at best) or perennially incompetent (at worst). There is no justification for a IT person with 5-6 years in the field still exhibiting programming skills below junior/senior-year level.

If members of a professional field happens to display sub par or mediocre skills, that's a 1) problem of education at a social level, and 2) a problem of work ethics at a personal level. People like that deserve to be replaced. Period.

This is a problem since most people are average by definition.

It is not a problem if by average people are not incompetent or mediocre. Only in software and IT do we see such amount of mediocrity. And, though the field is still young compared to other engineering fields, it is not a new one either (and thus, there is no excuse anymore for the sorry state of affairs we work with nowadays.)

If it is a problem to a large number of individuals because they are mediocre and easily replaceable, then too bad, even if they allowed their field to turn into shit to the point average == suckage. Tonight at 10PM news, life is not fair.

Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.

Glengarry Glen Ross was not supposed to be a management training video.

Re:Common sense

[couchslug]

It complements many trades and hobbies, and can serve you well if you want things made of metal or to modify them. With a bit of training, you can quickly turn out professional work.

My interests include repairing. modifying and building as much of what I own as practical, which has saved me stoopid money down the decades.

I'm welding a shop out of two (so far) ISO containers, routinely use welding to repair and modify parts (it greatly complements being a mechanic) build shop equipment and anything else I wish from (usually recycled) metal, work on equipment and vehicles (side money and fun), and make/mod my own shop equipment.

"other than in keeping ancient cars or other "I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a new one, even though the amount of time I put into fixing this thing isn't worth it" objects from falling apart?"

When one gets a bit proficient it becomes easy to keep _good_ vehicles for decades, or grab a junker and turn it serviceable for little money, or restore a classic. Quality "objects" may be swiftly repaired in trivial time, and my time has been WELL worth it. The money saved by going DIY easily buys professional equipment, which one keeps, as opposed to paying labor to someone who may not give a shit. Labor costs keep rising, but my costs to do my own work have barely changed and if anything gotten lower.

Almost never having to pay for vehicle/equipment/home repair and modification labor has saved self and wife (also a former jet mech) mad cash and enhanced our personal independence. No need for new vehicles and no need for new homes can slash your cost of living and leave plenty of money for toys (which you can also build!). It let self and spouse retire comfortably before age 50 without being rich or even upper middle class.

Having welders at hand has been very nice, but the average non-DIYer won't ask the questions that welding machines answer.

Re:Common sense

[phek]

either way you look at it its a short term view. if you have a degree, it doesn't guarantee you a better mid/long term. Even if the company cared about your degree when they were considering hiring you, they definitely don't care about it once you're hired.

No manager is going to be like, hey we need to be able to put some foo on our bar's, lets go through the resume's of everyone we've hired and see which one of them got their degree in foo.

Re:Common sense

[Aladrin]

Places like Salary.com rely on the numbers people claim they make. There are many incentives to gaming the system, so it doesn't surprise me that the numbers are high.

As for what to ask, you should ask for what you're worth. That's an intensely personal thing that you have to figure out. It includes education, experience, and how badly you want to get your foot in the door, among other things.

Cause and Effect

[lacoronus]

These dropouts dropped out because they were wildly successful. They didn't become wildly successful by dropping out.

Re:Cause and Effect

[HungryHobo]

This is probably the best summary.

If you've gone and already set up a company and are already quite profitable dropping out *at that point* to put more time and effort into making the business more successful can be fine.
You learn most of the useful stuff in the first year or 2 of any CS degree anyway.

Dropping out of college because "sure bill gates did ok" when you don't have any business or anything to build on isn't such a good idea.

Re:Cause and Effect

[dsginter]

These dropouts dropped out because they were wildly successful. They didn't become wildly successful by dropping out.

Right. When I talk to people who are going down the Computer Science route, I tell them to stick with it and use the acquired skills to develop that next big thing.

"If you graduate, then you have failed."

Failed at making the next big thing. But, in doing so, have a wonderful plan b.

Re:Cause and Effect

[ilikejam]

The mods dropped out.

Re:Cause and Effect

[h4rm0ny]

You learn most of the useful stuff in the first year or 2 of any CS degree anyway.

Interesting. For me. when I was at University I found the most useful stuff was in the last couple of years of my degree. The first year seemed to be easy stuff geared toward getting everybody up to the same position. Great for people who start a degree without a good foundation, but not so for those of us who spend the first year not having to think. Final year projects were where I really got some valuable experience and got to show off and work with a tutor on something a bit more challenging.

Re:Cause and Effect

[turbidostato]

"For me. when I was at University I found the most useful stuff was in the last couple of years of my degree."

It probably depends on your definition of "useful". Useful to know your trade and become a knowledgeful techie? Yeah, sure, your latter years are more valuable. Knowing enough about that "techie" stuff to become a bussinessman that hires techies? Probably you can save yourself the "petty details" from the advanced courses.

Re:Cause and Effect

[hedwards]

So, the next big thing never requires senior level coursework?

Re:Cause and Effect

[retchdog]

in a sense, no. you can almost always make a mockup that doesn't need it, and then hire some slaves to actually build the thing.

good coursework would help with getting good ideas but if you want to make money, I think you're better off with the mediocre ones anyway.

Re:Cause and Effect

[HungryHobo]

I did a full CS degree and graduated so I'm not talking from ignorance when I say that all the most useful stuff was covered in the first half of the course.
After that it was mostly refinement and odd stuff like learning prolog.

Re:Cause and Effect

[HungryHobo]

Oh but I did, first class with honours, 4 years + 1 year in industry.

Algorithms, data structures, your first couple of programming languages, basic networking,theory of computation the really important stuff was done by the end of second year.

3rd years was a load of fluff except for a decent sized team software project
final year was most unusual stuff that's less useful in the workplace but good for general understanding- prolog, Haskell, Computer Architecture,parallel(ok one actually useful one),Embedded Systems, graphics.

Re:Cause and Effect

[HungryHobo]

Even to become a half decent programmer the important ones- data structures, algorithms, your first few languages and if you want to be fancy, theory of computation are done by the end of second year.

they seemed to cover more of the project management stuff in third and final year.

Re:Cause and Effect

[dsginter]

So, the next big thing never requires senior level coursework?

Coursework is free or very affordable for those who want to pursue it on their own time. I met a lot of self-starters in college who had enough passion to spend their free time a little bit more productively than myself (and most of the other students). These people often cruised through classes without buying the text and, often, dropped out to pursue opportunities that came to them as a result of their curiosity-based knowledge and skills.

For example, I didn't learn proper relational database design until my junior year in college. But I know plenty of people who picked this up in high school (often by discovering all of the wrong ways to do something, which appears to be a very good method for obtaining mastery of a subject).

Re:Cause and Effect

[betterunixthanunix]

Funny, back when I was working for a software company, I found myself using things I had learned in upper level courses all the time. I had to write a parser once, because a regular expression would not have been enough for what I was doing. I dealt with cryptography all the time, and was expected to understand block chaining and CCA security at a minimum. Those are just the moments that stick out; if I were to take a look at what I was doing, I am sure many other "upper level" topics were covered.

Frankly, though, I find the focus on "useful stuff" to be more of a distraction than anything else. I went to college because I wanted an education, not because I was hoping for job training. I am in grad school now for the same reason -- I really do love my field, I love learning about it, and I want to keep learning about it right up to the edge of what is currently known. I certainly understand that not everyone is like me, and that some people really just want to get technical training so they can get a higher paying job -- and that is why I think people should stop acting like trade schools are inferior or a sign of failure. Vocational schools have their place, and people who just want to get a job should go to a vocational school, get a 2 year degree, and get a job.

Re:Cause and Effect

[wwphx]

Excellent Point! May many moderation points flow your way!

Re:Cause and Effect

[darth dickinson]

But I know plenty of people who picked this up in high school (often by discovering all of the wrong ways to do something, which appears to be a very good method for obtaining mastery of a subject).

This. Of all the skills I've acquired in my 15 years of being a network monkey, I'd say 90% of them were gotten by horribly botching a personal project and having to fix it. It's the best way to find out what really works, and what doesn't, at least IMO.

Re:Cause and Effect

[TheRaven64]

I had to write a parser once, because a regular expression would not have been enough for what I was doing. I dealt with cryptography all the time, and was expected to understand block chaining and CCA security at a minimum

These were all topics that I covered in my first or second year of university, so they don't directly contradict the original poster's point. The parser stuff was all taught in a second-year compilers module. The cryptography stuff in the first year, as one of the filter modules that they use to make sure you can cope with the mathematics that you'll need for the rest of the course.

The stated aim of the second year was to cover everything that all computer scientists should know. After that, it was all optional stuff in various specialist areas, including advanced versions of modules from the first and second years (e.g. Functional Programming II, Graphics II, and so on) and modules based on lecturers' research topics (e.g. Constraint Satisfiability Problem), and a final-year project which could be in any area you wanted.

Re:Cause and Effect

[drewhk]

Most of the people don't realize how useful is the theoretical background they receive. They think like "hey, why do we learn about XY, I will never use it in practice" but in reality we DO use lot of these stuff. Theoretical stuff changes your thinking and extends your abstraction capabilities. Your vocabulary grows as well. Just ask any outsider what do they understand when you start talking about technical matters. Maybe you will never use matroids or Galois fields or Laurent series in your life, but you heard about them and you will know where to search if needed. If you don't know the basics, then you cannot search.

Re:Cause and Effect

[spasm]

Amen. I dropped out of comp. sci. in 1989 because a side business I had modifying and making electronics for the handicapped started taking up enough of my time that I couldn't do both. Two years later, I was still barely scraping by, so I wound up the business and went back to university. 20 years later (ouch), I consider that two year stint running my own business to have been a crucial and valuable part of my education (even though I went on to get a PhD and now do completely unrelated research). If I'd burned my bridges in any way when I 'dropped out' of school, I would have been screwed. If you feel your business/idea are good enough, go for it, but always make a plan for what happens when the business doesn't pan out - statistically most first businesses don't.

Re:Cause and Effect

[SpzToid]

Only the people that turned on and tuned in matter, actually.

"Clothes do make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." -Mark Twain

Re:Cause and Effect

[shermo]

It was certainly the case with my physics/maths degree, and I'd be surprised if it's not the case for most people.

Quantum mechanical tunnelling? Not really that useful in my current job.

Fourier transforms, matlab, significance tests? I use them almost daily.

Oversaturated degree market

[ZigiSamblak]

There's only so many jobs for people with degrees. I dropped out of a multimedia design course over ten years ago. Then got into various jobs and ended up doing advanced technical support at a big company after 5 years of working there. A friend who had not dropped out after the first year and completed the degree could not find any steady employement in the designer field and ironically ended up doing lower paid technical support work through an outsourcing partner of the same company.

In the past when less people went on to college a degree was more valuable and basically meant a well paid job for life, but the market has changed and many more people are getting degrees. It pays more to carefully consider your options, getting work experience may be better than years of study in many cases.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Junta]

Saturation has devalued the prospects of a degree, but not having a degree is in no way an advantage over having a degree. While a degree is further away from guaranteeing a job, not having a degree will guarantee that you cannot get certain jobs.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[binarylarry]

LOLOL

A college degree required for tech support?

Haha, I can't tell if this is a great joke post or a troll.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[iceperson]

You don't have to give up work experience to get a degree. I got an entry level position at a company that paid for my school. Took me longer to get the degree, but I did it and now when I see a job opening that requires a degree I don't have to cross it off my list.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Kijori]

It's worth bearing in mind that the market is very different now compared to ten years ago. One result of so many people having degrees is that companies are able to take for granted that they can hire someone with a degree, which can make their selection process easier and save on training. The result is that it is more difficult to find a skilled job without a degree than it has been in the past.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[hedwards]

Close, not having a degree really requires having some sort of certification or apprenticeship to demonstrate that you have a valuable skill. There's a lot of high paying trades out there to work in. And others that aren't high paying, but definitely pay a living wage.

But technically speaking, having the wrong degree will exclude you from a lot of jobs as well. While simultaneously being the correct degree for other jobs.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[fermion]

A few quick points. First, on average there does appear to be a widening income disparity between those with less education and those with more, particularly a college degree. This may indicate the employers are willing to pay for a more educated workforce, even if the education has little to do with the job. My hypothesis is a college degree indicates an ability to problem solve and work without supervision.

Second, getting a college degree to get a specific job is not necessarily the best thing to do. This is why half of an undergraduate education s often in general courses, there just to make students more educated. Other than a pre-med program, college is not typically low level job training. Hopefully a college degree is a general education that provides a background for a number of different careers. A corollary to this is that is not wise for all students to build up large debts in hopes of gaining future employment. Reputable universities do not push the idea of building huge debt.

Third, as the world becomes more educated, it will be more important to have a higher education. Sure maybe all one can get is a tech support job, but in the US, where we are approaching 30% of the adults with a college degree, perhaps such a job would not be attainable without a college degree. It is almost the prisoners dilema. if no one has a college degree, then the employers are forced to hire and train high school screw ups. If enough people capitulate and go to college, this save firms money with a higher skilled labor force.

And lastly, not everyone can be an entrepreneur. Even if Zuckerberg did steal the idea or some of the code, even if was one of a thousand who had the idea and wrote code, he is the one who brought it to market. It is like Edison and Marconi. Who invented what is lost to the fact of who was able to sell what. Not everyone can start and run a business. If they could we would not be at 10%+ unemployment in the US. People would not be looking for jobs. People would be hustling. Within a mile of me is a huge amount of affordable retail space with high traffic flow. One would think that with more than 1 out of 10 people unemployed, some would go to the SBA and get a loan. A few are. There are some kids who did so and are installing speakers in cars. I am told that another is planning on selling cards. At the very least one would think that some of these 10% would try to compete with the immigrants that everyone is complaining about by getting a truck and doing some manual labor. Instead they just stay a home and collect unemployment, which is their entitlement as US citizens who previously did some work.

This is all just to say that a college degree is often useful as most people do not have the motivation to take a risk or put into the effort to start a business, or, for that matter, capitalize on a good idea when they hear it. For the people who are motivated and have some ability, they will succeed no matter what. One can anecdotally give a case of a high school drop out who is now a millionaire, or the son of millionaire who dropped out college and is now a billionaire, but it is just anecdotal, if not apocryphal.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[zlogic]

If you don't pay $100000+ for your degree, then not having a degree leaves you with some money which can be wisely spent, e.g. on starting your own small business.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Surt]

The advantage of not having a degree comes in opportunity cost. It takes (at least) a decade on average to get ahead from going to college. That's a long time to wait on that payoff, and assumes that you don't find even a single successful investment opportunity in that whole decade.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[russotto]

This may indicate the employers are willing to pay for a more educated workforce, even if the education has little to do with the job. My hypothesis is a college degree indicates an ability to problem solve and work without supervision.

I think it's more likely to indicate that many employers aren't willing to hire those without degrees at ANY price. The B.S. is the new high school diploma. For employers, it's just an often-arbitrary way of reducing the number of applicants to review. Some employers are demanding a bachelor's degree for help desk positions; that's arbitrary.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Kijori]

Some employers are demanding a bachelor's degree for help desk positions; that's arbitrary.

Surely it's just a sensible take on their position?

There are a lot of people with degrees - enough that they can be certain of filling the positions without looking outside of that group. Unemployment among the young is high, meaning that college graduates will work for low wages. Therefore if the skills you learn during a degree have any bearing at all on the job - and for a helpdesk role they do, even if they aren't as vital as in some other jobs - the employer may as well take people with degrees. The biggest loss for them will probably be that the more educated workers will be looking to change jobs soon, and given the turnover in helpdesk positions that doesn't create any extra trouble.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Junta]

I will say that more expensive is not always better. In most reasonable places, the degree requirement is little more than a technicality, with managers and local team far removed from HR making the call so long as HR allows them.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Belial6]

For the vast majority of people, getting a degree is purchasing a club card. A very expensive club card. So, much like joining that country club at $10k a year for the opportunity to talk to people that you might do business with, getting a degree is an investment. The question with degrees, is much like the question for most of the risks we take in life... "Is it worth it?" It takes a very long time to earn back a $100k education when you are only getting $5k more a year from it.

The opportunity cost that you point out is the piece that no one ever wants to talk about. If you took your $100k education, went to work instead, and invested the $100k in a moderate investment, many would likely make more money in your life.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Missing.Matter]

Average student loan debt coming out of college is around $20,000. I went to a $45k per year institution, and with loans, grants, and work study I was able to graduate in 4 years with just under that much. College debt is excellent debt to have. There are tons of repayment options, deferment options, rate discounts for on-time payment, and low interest rates. Mine vary from 2-4%.To top it off, when you pay them off your credit goes sky high, so when you're ready to buy that house in 10 years you'll be saving money due to a lower interest rate. I can easily afford my payments of around $150 per month.

Sure, that person $100k in the hole is not in a good position, but he's not in a usual situation.

Also, if you want to start your own small business, college is one of the best places to do so. You meet tons of talented people just like you who can be potential partners, and you meet professors and other business people who can be mentors and help incubate your business. It's called networking, and it's very difficult to do (though not impossible) if you're not in that kind of environment. I used to be president of the Entrepreneurship club at my university. I knew all the businesses starting up out of my school, local investors, and incubators who specialized in providing seed money to university startups.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[16K Ram Pack]

The main purpose of getting a Comp Sci degree is that it opens a 1st door for you, which allows you to get a job which gives you a couple of years experience which then means you have experience, which is what most people hiring care about.

I've actually wondered whether kids just offering themselves as a minimum wage programmer to a company is a good idea. Get paid shit, but get your 2 years of experience. You need the sort of company which isn't a large bureaucracy to manage that, though.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Surt]

That would clearly be superior to being out of work ... for the student. Not necessarily for the company. I'd consider a person straight out of school likely to be a net negative as an unpaid intern for the first year.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[AthanasiusKircher]

Saturation has devalued the prospects of a degree, but not having a degree is in no way an advantage over having a degree.

Depends on the job. Have you not heard of being "overqualified"? Lots of people don't get hired all the time because they are overcredentialed and would "cost too much," or a company sees them as a person just looking for a temporary job because they can't get something better (even if they want that job), or sometimes even because employers are afraid of people "too smart" for a job. Advanced degrees are even worse when looking for positions where advanced degrees are not expected.

I've known people to lie on resumes and hide the fact that they had a doctorate because they knew they couldn't get a job otherwise.

The fact is that a mismatch between your degrees and your prospective employer's expectations in terms of degrees is often a disadvantage -- regardless of whether you don't have enough degrees or too many.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[tehcyder]

Exactly, it's like saying that because five hundred years ago most people weren't literate, but now most are, that's there's no added value in being literate so you might as well not learn to read and write.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Missing.Matter]

What is with all the hyperbole when stating college loan debt. I graduated with $100k debt! $400k! $10 million dollars in debt!

In fact, the average graduate caries somewhere around $20,000 in student debt, and 93% of graduates have debt under $40,000.

After reading the source above, I see where the hyperbole comes from: horror stories about statistical outliers who racked up $100 in debt pursuing a degree in photography from a school they couldn't afford even with loans.

Look I agree that that much debt is a bad thing, but it speaks nothing of the situation of the VAST majority of those graduating. Most people are willing to take out much more than $20,000 in debt on a car which will last maybe 5-10 years, if that. Why is $20,000 in an education that will last the rest of your life a bad thing?

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Shadow99_1]

I can't even believe 20k total debt after college, from my own experience I owed 60k after 3 1/4 years my first time I couldn't get much if anything in grants (being 'white' and male kills most of these alone) and work study paid for me to not starve and usually have gas in my car (and not much else). Having gone back to college it's even worse now and I'm looking at as much as 120k in debt before I finish even though my 'new' college is a partially state funded one and so a year is about 12k (I'm getting crap for transfer credits though, which isn't helping)...

At least locally to me there isn't much in the one of investors, nor is there a desire from the teachers or staff in general to mentor students (though that seems a trend in general from those I know who are in college). I know how valuable 'networking' is, but it seems more and more schools aren't the way to do this.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Missing.Matter]

It sounds like your situation doesn't fit the average college student's, as it looks like there was some circumstance preventing you from finishing your degree.

But we're talking about averages here. According to the College Board, more than half of US undergrads attend a college with tuition and fees less than $9000. For four years, that comes to less than $36k+room and board. With family contribution, work study, grants, and scholarships it's easy to bring this cost down considerably.

I went to a school which now costs $40k per year, but then cost around $35. It had a considerable endowment, and therefore offered me a grant of $17k per year, cutting my tuition in half. And yes, I am a middle class white male. That combined with modest family contributions, my own savings (I worked each summer and all through school), and I graduated with around $20k in loans.

As far as entrepreneurship, you find it more in larger cities. I went to school in Pittsburgh, which is a growing location for tech startups (Microsoft, Google, and Apple all have offices near the two major area colleges). I don't know where you went to school, but I dealt with incubators from schools across the country. If there's not one where you live, there's one nearby.

Re:Oversaturated degree market

[Shadow99_1]

lol, well the first time I went to school it was in Columbus Ohio. More recently I was 100 miles north of Pittsburgh. Columbus really had no interest in new business as they were hand and foot with insurance companies and banks. Where I am now should be very interested in new business, but even after having been the third largest city in PA for over a hundred years, Harrisburg has spent the last 2 decades removing state funding from the area until now we are fourth of even fifth largest in PA. This however is where I was raised and sans money to move it's where I have to live.

My first college experience at DeVry ended when I ran out of money. My family was not middle class and couldn't do all that much to help me. But they made enough I couldn't qualify for any state or federal grants geared to lower income families. In fact they had to take out a parental loan they still have 11 years later because they can't afford to pay it... I worked all through that run of college, including at the school as workstudy but I could barely afford to keep my car running and to eat, buying books often required using credit cards each semester. Personally I'd wanted a lower costing college to go to, which funny enough I'm at now, but my parents felt DeVry would be better as they were impressed by the presentation done by the DeVry rep saying how I'd be rolling in money and graduate 'early' if I went there. It should be pointed out the tech bubble still existed when I started and popped during my first run through college.

Really my story isn't that odd either. Statistics aren't kept so well for college 'dropouts' as it is for college grads (which is sad I tend to find the reverse far more interesting), but what I have found is my story is not that rare or even uncommon. 'Dropout' numbers tend to fall into one of two categories: Financial troubles or Party kids. In particular when I went my first time financial troubles was actually a very large reason for those I went to school with to leave. Why? That I don't quite know. That is where the statistics get crappy as most don't care what exactly happens to 'dropouts'. I can say though that usually at best half of those entering college graduate, so the fact I didn't graduate my first time through shouldn't be abnormal at all. What is abnormal is I'm actually trying to finish my education again, that only happens in 10% of those who didn't complete their degree originally.

Don't bother with college

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, don't bother going to college. University is for dorks. If you're already there, follow your heart and drop out.

It'll give the rest of us less competition. ;-)

Re:Don't bother with college

[hedwards]

Actually, that's a real problem. Blanket encouragement to everybody to go to college was a big mistake. There's a fair number of people who would be both happier and better off if instead of going to college they picked up an apprenticeship or got a certification of some sort. It's a complete waste of resources to have individuals with a PhD serving coffee at the local coffee shop or waiting tables.

Re:Don't bother with college

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually, that's a real problem. Blanket encouragement to everybody to go to college was a big mistake.

Thank you. Yes, it is a real problem, and it hurts not only the individuals who can't find a job or lose useful time in college when they can do something else, but it also hurts colleges.

When a college degree is looked on as something useful for those who want to broaden their minds, it enhances the way colleges function and encourages better thinking and intellectual development.

But when (as is common today) a college is looked on a glorified trade school, it turns colleges into degree factories that aren't about learning anymore -- just about providing a few skills so people can make money. This harms both college students and our society as a whole.

College isn't for everyone, just like calculus isn't for everyone. I think everyone who wants to try hard and go to college should have an opportunity, but the standards should be high and the focus should be on broadening one's thinking and education, not teaching basic skills that could be better learned in a focused trade program or on the job in an apprenticeship.

Re:Don't bother with college

[tehcyder]

It's a complete waste of resources to have individuals with a PhD serving coffee at the local coffee shop or waiting tables.

You are assuming that education is purely concerned with cost-benefit maximisation.

College investment

[Zouden]

college investment pays off only about half the time.

Making it better than many other investments today.

Re:College investment

[Oligonicella]

Having to pay interest on it the rest of your life kind of reduces that 'better'.

Re:College investment

[jopsen]

college investment pays off only about half the time.

Making it better than many other investments today.

A college degree is not (only) an investment in a single student as is indicated when the return is measured in increased earnings... Where I live the government pays all education (and substitutes students during education), because it is not only an investment in a single student... But an investment in the society... In terms of future research and development.

Measuring the return on investments in education in terms of increased earnings... Is like building a house and measuring the investment in terms of brick prices...
- It's not the bricks that have value, but what they are used to build...

Those that leave School

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they are not call Entrepreneur for nothing, the fact of the matter is they left school early, and worked their butt of to get their business off the ground, played the market, took risks often big ones and are now rolling in money. But the flip side is there are also those that have gone bankrupt though similar actions. And unless those that leave school early already have something they wish to Sell or have a new tech developed to market in mind probably staying in school is the best choice.

Re:Those that leave School

[16K Ram Pack]

This is the other thing with Gates, Jobs, Ellison and so forth. They're entrepreneurs and you can't teach entrepreneurialism.

Harsher Reality

[jaypifer]

'The harsh reality,' warns Wadhwa, is that for every Zuckerberg, there are a thousand who drop out of college and fail,'

The harsher reality is that there is another thousand that finishes college and still fails.

Re:Harsher Reality

[jyx]

'The harsh reality,' warns Wadhwa, is that for every Zuckerberg, there are a thousand who drop out of college and fail,'

The harsher reality is that there is another thousand that finishes college and still fails.

And the even harsher reality that with all our knowledge and skills, thousands of babies die during childbirth in 1st world hospitals.

Question: Does this mean we should all go have our babies in replicated third world squalid conditions without doctors.

Seriously dude, if you actually attend college/university *properly* your in good shape for the future.

Pointing out the college 'failures' just stinks of tall poppy syndrome and/or a sad attempt to justify your own status by comparing it the target weaknesses of a peer group.

The better bet

[CharlyFoxtrot]

So according to the summary dropping out pays off 1 out of 1000 times (that sounds high to me) and staying in college pays off 1 in 2 times ? I think its clear which is the better bet.

Re:The better bet

[number17]

I would also like to see the comparison in lifestyles of the 999 that dropped out and failed to the 1 that stayed in college and failed. For some reason I think those definitions of failed aren't the same.

Re:The better bet

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty straightforward. If you can apply to more than 500 colleges and drop out of all of them before the duration of a normal college course, you have a much better chance at success.

Re:The better bet

[jogreen68]

It is a safety net which makes sense, really in the grande scale of things and extra year in college should make little difference, it is such a small proportion of our lives. I learnt more in my first year in the real world than the 4 I spent in higher education.

There is a link however...

[Anonymous Coward]

Between successful entrepreneurs and people who never went to university at all. For instance, I founded my own business when I was 19, now paying myself a decent wage off it 4 years later - and I would say most of the business owners I know didn't go to university. In fact, three of them, including my uncle (now a millionaire) are ex-cons...but maybe that indicates a different correlation...

I understand that this may well not be the norm - but I have seen many separate studies that indicate both of the following statements to be true:

a) University is a waste of money for most people who go
b) Not going to university will seriously limit your earning potential

I guess the truth is probably somewhere in the middle...

Re:There is a link however...

[zolltron]

University is a waste of money for most people who go

I hate these sorts of claims because they are absolute nonsense. How can you know if my university degree was a waste of money for me? Do you know how much I value the things I learned (both in and out of the classroom) at the university? No, of course not, because you don't know me. It's like looking at someone you've never met and saying that they were stupid to go eat at some particular restaurant.

Usually, these sort of studies assume that the only reason anyone would go to college is to improve their lifetime earning potential and then compare the average change in earning to the cost of the university. While this is an important consideration, it shouldn't be the prevailing one, and more importantly it shouldn't be translated into the only potential thing of value that might come out of a university education. We are all not mindless money generating machines that simply wish to take the quickest route to a buck. Some of us want to enjoy the journey too.

I am a far better person for my university education. Even if it cost me money in the long run, I'm happy I went.

Re:There is a link however...

[russotto]

I understand that this may well not be the norm - but I have seen many separate studies that indicate both of the following statements to be true:

a) University is a waste of money for most people who go
b) Not going to university will seriously limit your earning potential

Sadly, they aren't contradictory. It could be the case that while the actual earnings are much greater for those who get a degree, the difference isn't enough to make up for the cost of education.

Re:There is a link however...

[misexistentialist]

He didn't say "for all people". Certainly college doesn't make everyone a better person, and there are plenty of anecdotes of remorseful graduates, though it's true that "college" is diverse enough that it isn't itself that's evil, but the graduates' particular choices or random circumstances that turned out to be.

Re:There is a link however...

[Eil]

I hate these sorts of claims because they are absolute nonsense. How can you know if my university degree was a waste of money for me?

Just to point out the obvious: he said most people, not you specifically.

Some people go to college/university to better their understanding of the world or learn and contribute to their chosen field of study. And that's great, we need more people like that. But most people go to college/university because that's just what western culture says you're supposed to do if want to be successful and can afford it. Most people treat formal education like an extension of high school, only with less supervision and a lot more beer. And once they get out into the working world, they are shocked and surprised that nobody is handing them free money. Instead, they're all competing for the same low-wage entry-level jobs while staring down an education debt that will take them a large chunk of their productive years to fully pay off.

Re:There is a link however...

[Oligonicella]

"I am a far better person for my university education."

Except of course, for the English courses.

Re:There is a link however...

[kai5263499]

It's like looking at someone you've never met and saying that they were stupid to go eat at some particular restaurant.

Except, of course, if I know that you payed $100 for the same taco you knew full well you could get for $2 right down the street. Knowledge and personal development are not confined to universities, believe it or not they can be obtained elsewhere for a lot less money.

Re:There is a link however...

[Kjella]

Well, if you're running a startup you never have to prove your qualifications to anyone, the proof is in the pudding. But otherwise, I'd get a degree. I did go to university and got a Master's degree, and after ~12 years now (5 for degree, 7 years work experience) I feel my potential is hugely increased by my degree. I think I passed the national average (across all fields, all ages) somewhere around 4 years into my work experience. Now I'm at 150% of average and more like 300% of those the same age as me. And I still don't lead a single person, but the combination of a top degree and attractive work experience means companies go into a bidding war for me.

Of course I'm pretty sure I'd be just as smart and everything if I didn't take a degree. But only my employer would really know that, and to get paid what you're worth you have to be able to show it in the market. A top degree tells you so much that people's work references won't tell you, or that you can't trust. I never would have had the salary I have today if I didn't have a new job lined up. My old employer asked if there was anything at all they could do to keep me. To shorten the story a little, I asked for a $25k raise. I expected them to go "Oooooooookay, good luck with that new employer". Instead it was "Ummm, I really have to crunch the numbers on that but please don't sign anything yet". I still went with the new job though, seems they wanted me pretty badly too.

One of the smartest things you can do is remember economics 101, it's not the complexity of what you do that decides your salary but the supply and demand. If you can be attractive supply in short demand, your salary will be high. Across the whole world there's quite a damn lot of bright people out there, some of them willing to work for cheap. Find something to do where you're not in direct competition with them, there are many IT jobs that are somewhat location-bound.

Re:There is a link however...

[16K Ram Pack]

The big question is whether university actually makes you richer. I know that there are studies saying that graduates make $x,000 more per annum, but how much is that down to the degree and how much is that down to them being a hard-working, smart guy? Dumb, lazy guys don't get degrees.

But I've also met smart, hard-working guys who never went to university, and you know what? They do just as well as the smart, hard-working guys who went. They just went through different routes to success (like they're a bigshot in a small company rather than a senior manager in a large one).

Re:There is a link however...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Usually, these sort of studies assume that the only reason anyone would go to college is to improve their lifetime earning potential and then compare the average change in earning to the cost of the university. While this is an important consideration, it shouldn't be the prevailing one, and more importantly it shouldn't be translated into the only potential thing of value that might come out of a university education. We are all not mindless money generating machines that simply wish to take the quickest route to a buck.

Clearly you didn't learn any economics in college!

Re:There is a link however...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Oh Jesus Christ are you really going to sit there and say that anyone could pick up a book on any subject without guidance and get the same level of education they can get in college? Do you know what I went to university for? I went for a degree in aerospace engineering. That curriculum demanded that I learn a fairly developed set of engineering genres that aren't present in many other curriculum. I've taken course in ME, EE, IME, mathematics, sciences, writing, and a dozen others. I've learned how to piece together circuits as well as solve for the internal energy within a beam under a bending load. But none of that was even the creme de le crop of my education. Nah, I also got to learn orbital mechanics and control systems development. I can write Kalman filters, state estimators, and full-state feedback systems. Some of that high level stuff that I learned couldn't be found in any old text book. Some of it I had to learn from peer reviewed journals because it was so specialized that developing an entire textbook for the topic made little sense. What's more, a lot of the stuff I could find in a textbook would have been completely and utterly incomprehensible to me without a few professors explaining key concepts and how everything tied together.

So you think that paying a ton of cash for a university level degree is a waste? Well in some cases maybe it is. There still exist, however, extraordinarily specialized fields that you do need a university curriculum to learn. I promise you that if I had just started picking up space systems books upon HS graduation it would have taken me at least seven years to learn what I learned in four because I would have been like a blind man stumbling around in the dark. Add to that the value of social experience and good times had in college and I guarantee you that my university degree was well worth every penny I spent. So don't go sitting there saying that college is like paying $100 for a $2 taco. College in many cases is more like paying $100 for a new, amazing type of meal that nobody has cooked yet.

Re:There is a link however...

[kai5263499]

"Oh Jesus Christ are you really going to sit there and say that anyone could pick up a book on any subject without guidance and get the same level of education they can get in college?" Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I'm sorry you feel that knowledge is like a manufactured product and that humans, who have the ability to learn, are somehow analogous to machines. However that simply is not the case. Some people learn well in a college setting, others are able to read and comprehend the same information through other means. What it sounds like you are arguing is that people are somehow required to accept, a-priori, the notion that any education obtained outside of some "approved" means is somehow inferior. What you fail to realize is that such a notion is not only horribly elitist, but flat-out wrong. "So you think that paying a ton of cash for a university level degree is a waste?" Oh the piece of paper may be valuable, depending on the organization you purchased it from, but it is a mistake to confuse the piece of paper with the level of education one receives. The two are linked by correlation, not causation. If we are talking about the paper, I can see a case being made for it's value (which I would also contend is unfortunate). However, if we are talking about the education by itself, then I would have to say yes. Paying thousands of dollars to learn something you could have spend a fraction of your time and money learning is not a good investment. "There still exist, however, extraordinarily specialized fields that you do need a university curriculum to learn." Name one. Name a single field where it is impossible for someone to acquire a meaningful understanding of the subject matter apart from going to college to study it in a formal setting. What you are advocating here sounds a lot more like magic, or some sort of religious initiation than it does science. In fact, science rather presupposes that given ordered systems it is wholly likely that someone can learn enough to not only understand a body of knowledge but contribute meaningfully to it as well. Sorry bud, there is no holy priesthood required for any field. "I promise you that if I had just started picking up space systems books upon HS graduation it would have taken me at least seven years to learn what I learned in four because I would have been like a blind man stumbling around in the dark." So your personal experience is now the standard by which we can measure all other human beings against? "Add to that the value of social experience and good times had in college and I guarantee you that my university degree was well worth every penny I spent." This is another subjective measurement. However even this is a flawed line of argumentation. You don't think people who do not go to college can have the same social experiences and good times that you did for a fraction of the cost? "College in many cases is more like paying $100 for a new, amazing type of meal that nobody has cooked yet." That is pure rubbish. If that were true then we, in the real world, would not have to invest so much time into retraining college graduates to actually be useful when it comes to real products.

Plus parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates is not a success from the gutter, his family was already loaded and well educated. Likewise with a lot of these successful "college dropouts". The reality is by being raised by well educated and financially sound people, you already have a big advantage, let alone when it comes to making early deals using the extended family network. Family networks work so well, you can be a military deserter and still become the president of a large and power country.

Re:Plus parents

[dcollins]

Very well put. Consider recent New Yorker article: at age 11, Mark Zuckerberg's parents were hiring a private computer tutor for him, and soon thereafter driving him to graduate-level computer classes at Mercy College. How many parents could recognize/ know what to do to develop a prodigy like that? Not many.

Link.

Re:Plus parents

[tehcyder]

Family networks work so well, you can be a military deserter and still become the president of a large and power country.

Now you're just being silly. I suppose next you'll be saying that could happen in America, are you some sort of communist?

No

[cheekyjohnson]

If by "stay in school" they mean "stay in public school," then I'm going to have to decline their offer. Public schools are absolute trash. Too many useless classes (as in, something that some people may use, but others won't, due to their career choices) are mandatory, and they put far too much emphasis on worthless grades. It wouldn't be so bad if public schools merely granted you the resources needed to memorize information that will be important to you, provided a good teacher to help you when needed, and provide a useful curriculum. Right now, they're highly inefficient, and you run the risk of failing an entire year simply because you did poorly in a class you won't even need! Education is, of course, important. But until public schooling gets its act together and goes through total reform, I'm going to recommend that people find other means of educating themselves (self teaching, homeschooling).

Re:No

[RabbitWho]

I agree, and (don't take this the wrong way) i agree even from the perspective of someone from a country with a far superior public school system.
The only useful things I learned in school were how to read, how to write, add, subtract, multiply, divide, and how to socialize (albiet poorly). Everything else was a complete waste of time and I could have learned it 100 times faster on my own if someone had just given me a bit of information on how to learn.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"yet somehow you are not calling private schools "trash.""

When I said "public schools," I also meant private schools (even though they're not the same, sorry).

"I have met people who are "self taught," and I am sorry to say that in all but a few cases, they lacked certain insights or failed to understand concepts that seem elementary to someone with a more formal education."

Then obviously they didn't teach themselves what they needed to. This doesn't speak for everyone. The concept of self teaching is actually quite efficient if you have the means to do it, and many times (not all, of course, it depends on the person), faster.

"As for homeschooling, I have no problem with that...if you can afford private tutors in each subject you are learning"

There's no need. Willful parents are all you need. If they don't have time for that, then your parents homeschooling you obviously isn't an option.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"Sorry, but there are insights that are just not published in books. I used to think that I could teach myself certain subjects, but without the guidance of someone with years of experience, I missed things, even after reading every word of multiple textbooks. Getting by without a good teacher is not something I would expect anyone to be able to do, except for the absolute basics of a given topic."

This is why you need direction. No, this doesn't come from someone with "years of experience," it can come from just about any source. There's all kinds of curriculum and tutorials floating around that can be used. If you follow them in order and do as they say, nothing should be missed. Public schooling also has a curriculum, naturally. Without direction, you really will miss things. You simply can't say that someone that actually has the resources they need (something these people you're speaking of didn't have, obviously) can't learn efficiently.

"Are your parents expert enough in abstract math to teach that to you? How about world history? How about computer science? Again, when you go beyond the absolute basics, a teacher with experience in a given subject is indispensable."

Really? Do you honestly believe that every person that underwent homeschooling and didn't have tutors didn't learn anything? Please. See, this is the part where these great things called "books" and the "internet" come in handy. There is a plentiful amount of information circulating around, and you don't have to be a teacher or a tutor to get it. This is where the "willful" part comes in. If they actually attempt to do a good job of teaching you useful information by studying the material themselves and explaining it, they can succeed.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

This is why you need direction. No, this doesn't come from someone with "years of experience," it can come from just about any source. There's all kinds of curriculum and tutorials floating around that can be used. If you follow them in order and do as they say, nothing should be missed. Public schooling also has a curriculum, naturally. Without direction, you really will miss things. You simply can't say that someone that actually has the resources they need (something these people you're speaking of didn't have, obviously) can't learn efficiently.

When you make a mistake, who is going to explain what went wrong? Textbooks cannot publish every possible mistake that a student might make, along with an explanation of why it is a mistake. As the material gets more advanced, the number of possible mistakes grows very rapidly, to the point where you really need someone with a very deep and detailed understanding of the material to explain to you why your answer is wrong; this is part of the process of learning. Like I said, I am sure people can learn the basics without an experienced teacher, but there is more to learn than just the basics.

Really? Do you honestly believe that every person that underwent homeschooling and didn't have tutors didn't learn anything? Please. See, this is the part where these great things called "books" and the "internet" come in handy. There is a plentiful amount of information circulating around, and you don't have to be a teacher or a tutor to get it. This is where the "willful" part comes in. If they actually attempt to do a good job of teaching you useful information by studying the material themselves and explaining it, they can succeed.

I did not say that people who are homeschooled do not learn anything, I said that they will have trouble going beyond the basics, except perhaps in the particular subject their parents are experts in. Again, who is going to explain why their mistakes are mistakes? How are the parents expected to learn advanced topics in subjects they are not familiar with (and if their parents can do so, why not cut out the middle man), to the point of being able to teach those topics to their children?

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"When you make a mistake, who is going to explain what went wrong?"

This is where researching your information comes in! Always double check to make sure your information is correct (by using your resources).

"Like I said, I am sure people can learn the basics without an experienced teacher, but there is more to learn than just the basics."

Same as above. Really, if you're not able to learn it, you don't have the right resources. In which case, obviously you're going to make many mistakes and won't get very far.

I'm also not going to pretend that self teaching is for everyone. It really isn't. Many people will find it more difficult than homeschooling or public schooling, so they could always go with those. However, some people really are able to teach themselves what they need, and can do so quickly and efficiently (memorizing information also becomes more simple if you do it by yourself and solve your own problems).

"I said that they will have trouble going beyond the basics, except perhaps in the particular subject their parents are experts in"

Only if they don't have the proper resources!

"Again, who is going to explain why their mistakes are mistakes?"

What? Where are they getting their information from? Are they just making it up? If so, of course they're going to make mistakes. However, if they get their information from reasonably credible resources, they can always double check it. The parents learn as they go, too, remember. The key is willpower.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

You keep talking about "resources" without really specifying what those "resources" are. Books? Journal subscriptions? Library access? Can you clarify which "resources" you are referring to?

As for having mistakes explained, not all mistakes are the result of poor memorization. For example, I recently turned in a proof as a homework assignment for an introductory topology course. The conclusion of the proof was correct; the logic, however, was not correct. My mistake was subtle, and in another scenario, that same mistake would have led to the wrong answer. It is not at all inconceivable that a person with less experience than my professor would have thought I had just written a different but still correct proof.

Of course, topology is not a basic subject, so the sort of mistakes a topology student can make are far more varied and sometimes difficult to understand than a student who is learning basic algebra might make. This is precisely my point: as the material becomes more advanced, it is less and less likely that one can learn it without the help of an experienced teacher.

Re:No

[turbidostato]

"Then obviously they didn't teach themselves what they needed to."

Like the point when they learn what they should learn? It seems quite a catch 22, doesn't it?

And quite at the "real scotsman fallacy" or the "tautology" too:
-Hey, teaching oneself is the way to go!
-My experience doesn't follow that. I know the selfteached often have big holes in his knowledge.
-That's because they weren't *properly* selfteached. I know that, because proper selfteached are always the way to go!

Maybe it's because your selfteaching forgot about a bit of logics.

Re:No

[Sigma 7]

Are your parents expert enough in abstract math to teach that to you? How about world history? How about computer science? Again, when you go beyond the absolute basics, a teacher with experience in a given subject is indispensable.

In the computer science field, I was able to self-learn much earlier than what it was introduced in education. In fact, it's probably best to self-learn as much as you can, or at least build a personal reference that you can use later, since you will probably not encounter stuff otherwise. Basically, if you learn computers at the rate presented in public schools, you'd be there for quite some time (assuming they don't have some sort of asinine discipline system, in which case don't bother.)

For artwork, I haven't self-learned much, but I see much more potential than going through a teacher. Basically, drawing freehand circles taught things a bit better than what amounts to splashing paint on a canvas - since it's a technique that should improve other things in art.

Math was also self-learned by blitzing through textbooks. However, I managed to mess up one of the concepts and it was not corrected for at least a year, despite having a teacher allegedly review it. That's why you don't use learn by example> in a textbook with only one example.

Re:No

[hedwards]

That's really not true. Or at least not in all cases. I went to The Evergreen State College and it's known for turning out attorneys, teachers and doctors. Just because a school is public doesn't necessarily mean that the education is sub par. From what I gather a lot of the way that my alma mater handled classwork was actually fairly similar to the way that Harvard business school did it back before they sold out.

Ultimately, it's the only school I would've graduated from, because quite frankly most of the other ones lack the variety that was necessary to keep my interest. And today, I'm significantly better educated than most of the people I know, including the ones that shelled out way too much money on private schooling.

Private schools are an East coast phenomenon mainly, out west there are some really good public ones. The University of Washington is also a public school that is way above the curve. The main thing you get from a private school is the connections that come from hob knobbing with people willing to put way too much money down on an education.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"You keep talking about "resources" without really specifying what those "resources" are."

All of what you listed, plus the internet.

"As for having mistakes explained, not all mistakes are the result of poor memorization."

I never said that they were, and I even explained that double checking your work is always a good idea. If you're doing it correctly step by step, you'll be able to double check it.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"Like the point when they learn what they should learn? It seems quite a catch 22, doesn't it?"

No. Not quite what I meant. I meant that it is likely that they either did not have the resources to teach themselves properly, they didn't have any sort of direction, or perhaps self teaching simply wasn't the smart choice for them (not what I said, I know, but it is what I meant).

"Maybe it's because your selfteaching forgot about a bit of logics."

I wasn't self taught. I was taught in a public school.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

In the computer science field, I was able to self-learn much earlier than what it was introduced in education

In fact, when I was a teenager (actually, as soon as I received my first computer, on my 13th birthday), I also started teaching myself basic computer science. Throughout high school, I learned more and more from books, and was encouraged by my family who gave me the books as gifts.

Then I got to college, and learned all sorts of CS topics that I had missed. Algorithms, methods of proof, lambda calculus/CL, and so forth. Compilers was a particularly prominent example -- it is a topic that textbooks just do not explain sufficiently well, especially beyond the basic lexer/syntactic analyzer/semantic analyzer concept. Cryptography is another prominent example, one which is often poorly explained by books and which people frequently have misconceptions about.

I would say that this is even more the case with math. I thought I understood differential equations when I came to college, since my friend and I used to read textbooks on the topic and do example problems with each other. Then I took a formal course, and realized that there were connections between DE and a number of other fields of math, and that some of those connections were not even mentioned in the textbook.

It is not like I am completely closed to the idea of learning by reading books. I have done so myself, and continue to do so. However, formal instruction is necessary if you ever want to go beyond the most basic level. I would not call myself an expert on the history of World War II just because I have read a number of books on the subject; I would only say that I have read about it.

Re:No

[SomeKDEUser]

You cannot build an education system for the very few wealthy, bright, with highly educated parents!

The fact that there exists people like you describe is meaningless: in the end, everyone needs education. It must therefore be available for the greatest possible number, in a form that is most appropriate to that effect. Yes, the consequence is that some tiny minority of geniuses will suffer for it. But for them, it doesn't matter, because they will learn and succeed in any circumstances!

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"Just because a school is public doesn't necessarily mean that the education is sub par"

I didn't say the education was sub par (in most cases, the teachers actually do know what they're talking about, and the class has a decent curriculum to follow by), I said that it lacked an efficient use of time and lacked choice. Failing an entire year simply because you failed a class that you did not need in your specific career choice does not appeal to me, and it shouldn't to anyone else. A school should be a place where you are given the resources needed to learn, it shouldn't be a place where they force you to take useless classes and focus on worthless grades.

That is what I was getting at. If they fix these things, I will be alright with the schooling system.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

I never said that they were, and I even explained that double checking your work is always a good idea. If you're doing it correctly step by step, you'll be able to double check it.

Not everything has a step-by-step process for getting the answer. In particular, if you were asked to write a proof there is no step-by-step process for getting the answer, a statement which itself was proved by Turing. You might double or triple check your proof, and still have a subtle logical flaw that you are unable to see. Your proof might appear accurate, and you might go on thinking that you just found a different way to prove the statement than you saw in your book or on a website. This is particularly true of more advanced math; you might assume something is logical when it is not, or a counterexample to a statement might be very obscure or difficult to think up without more experience in the topic.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

Uh, yes, and it is available to most people. Now the public schooling system simply needs to be improved.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"In particular, if you were asked to write a proof there is no step-by-step process for getting the answer, a statement which itself was proved by Turing"

Yes, and in most things, there is no way to check your mistakes but to try out your methods yourself to the best of your ability. Chances are, someone has done what you're trying to do already (unless it's something completely new, but in that case, a teacher likely couldn't even help you). That is where the internet comes in.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

Yes, and in most things, there is no way to check your mistakes but to try out your methods yourself to the best of your ability. Chances are, someone has done what you're trying to do already (unless it's something completely new, but in that case, a teacher likely couldn't even help you). That is where the internet comes in.

Except that you might have a new or rare method of proof that is correct, in which case you really need someone with enough experience to say either, "Yes, this is correct, and a nice job on coming up with this proof" or, "No, this is not correct, there is a slight problem at this step..." If someone does not have a teacher who can tell them whether or not their proof is correct, and they wrote something which does not match their book or any proof they find online, what should they do? In most cases, they will err on the side of caution, assume their proof was in some way wrong, and try to understand the proofs they found -- which is detrimental to their learning whether or not their proof was actually correct.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"f someone does not have a teacher who can tell them whether or not their proof is correct, and they wrote something which does not match their book or any proof they find online"

The latter is an unlikely scenario. Still possible, but unlikely.

"which is detrimental to their learning"

Not necessarily. Finding your own solutions can prove highly beneficial to your learning, not only because you'll likely memorize the information better, but because there is a good chance that you will find other things out in the process as well.

These mistakes that you say can't be fixed unless you have a teacher (even then, it would still be possible to find and fix them) are rare, and likely do not detract from the benefits of self teaching or homeschooling. They will have to be applied at some point, and that is when the mistake will become evidence. Finding your own solutions, as I said before, is highly beneficial to the learning process.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

"f someone does not have a teacher who can tell them whether or not their proof is correct, and they wrote something which does not match their book or any proof they find online"

The latter is an unlikely scenario. Still possible, but unlikely.

It is not as unlikely or rare as you seem to think, especially with more advanced topics. When I took abstract algebra, it was not uncommon for someone to turn in a proof that was not in the textbook or online, but which was still correct (as far as anyone, professor included, could tell). Yes, for basic problems, it is less likely, but all along I have been saying that it is the advanced topics which require the guidance of an experienced teacher.

These mistakes that you say can't be fixed unless you have a teacher (even then, it would still be possible to find and fix them) are rare, and likely do not detract from the benefits of self teaching or homeschooling. They will have to be applied at some point, and that is when the mistake will become evidence. Finding your own solutions, as I said before, is highly beneficial to the learning process.

It is not so rare to come up with a mistake that is not obvious, which appears to get you the correct answer, and which only someone with experience could spot, not at advanced levels anyway. I have seen it happen in CS and math at the very least, although I doubt that the phenomenon is limited to those two subjects. Yes, finding your own solution to a mistake you made is beneficial to learning...if you are aware that you made a mistake.

For example, it is common for students to assume that they will only ever deal with finite or countable sets, and they often unknowingly make this assumption in proofs. In higher level topics, it is sometimes unclear that this assumption was even made, and in some cases a student may wind up with a proof that looks correct but has a hidden assumption that is not valid. There are a few possible outcomes if a student does not have an experienced teacher to point this out to them:

1. They go on making the assumption, eventually reaching a level where it prevents them from getting the right answer, and are unable to understand why.
2. They go on making the assumption, eventually start getting wrong answers, and then drop the assumption but fail to review their previous work, thus missing a valuable lesson about an earlier result.
3. They go on making the assumption, and when it causes them to get a wrong answer, they are forced to repeat all their previous work, spending time rewriting many other proofs which they might have otherwise gotten correct had the problem been pointed out earlier.
4. They never reach a level where the assumption causes them to make a mistake, and thus never even learn that they had been making a mistake all along.

Sure, none of that applies to the absolute basic topics. Yet I started observing myself making these assumptions as soon as I took an introductory proof writing course, where we spent our time proving results about the Integers from the axioms. My professor was very good at pointing out where I had made an invalid assumption, even in cases where I ultimately had the correct answer. I also turned in a few proofs that were not in the textbook but that were still correct.

Eventually, after being shown where they have made mistakes, people will learn how to spot these things on their own -- and that point, they are ready to do novel work (i.e. research). Even then, mistakes are made, and sometimes papers are retracted years after being published because a subtle mistake was spotted. Someone who is not doing research level math (or any other topic, really) should be getting the guidance of someone with experience, especially for more advanced topics. Even Ramanujan needed the guidance of an experienced professor.

Re:No

[SomeKDEUser]

My argument is that although the system of education (any system of education) can and should be improved, it'll probably always involve some teachers, if only as a facilitators and guides. Because it seems to be the most effective structure for the greater number.

Also, if you want to improve the education system, and you can teach yourself, you are probably deeply unqualified to have an opinion on what works, because it puts you in the tiny minority of people who do not need an education system in the first place and will always wonder about what the point of it may be.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"which require the guidance of an experienced teacher."

What I'm saying is that if an experienced teacher knows something, chances are it has been done before. If it is not common knowledge, then you can do something about it. Make it common knowledge so that no one will make this mistake in the future.

"I have seen it happen in CS and math at the very least"

You memorize math formulas for a reason. The mistake is your own fault, and not a problem with self teaching or homeschooling. Double check your work.

In programming, there is an entire world of knowledge available online about which practices you should use and which you should avoid, as well as many, many tutorials. While obviously you will come in contact with bugs and glitches, these are unavoidable to even the most experienced people. Again, double check your work (code).

"For example, it is common for students to assume that they will only ever deal with finite or countable sets"

Apparently, information that tells you not to do so is available online (if it wasn't before, it certainly is now). If the information is not present, make it present. The more alternatives that are available, the better. But, like I said, so much information is already present that I doubt that there are many subjects left uncovered.

"My professor was very good at pointing out where I had made an invalid assumption"

I would think that it would merely require basic logic to figure such things out.

Re:No

[betterunixthanunix]

What I'm saying is that if an experienced teacher knows something, chances are it has been done before. If it is not common knowledge, then you can do something about it. Make it common knowledge so that no one will make this mistake in the future.

Except that in advanced math, the number of possible mistakes is enormous -- to the point where even if every possible mistake could be documented, there would be far too many for any one person to memorize or search for. Often a single mistake can be disguised or appear in an unfamiliar way.

You memorize math formulas for a reason. The mistake is your own fault, and not a problem with self teaching or homeschooling. Double check your work.

Math is not about rote memorization.

Apparently, information that tells you not to do so is available online (if it wasn't before, it certainly is now). If the information is not present, make it present. The more alternatives that are available, the better. But, like I said, so much information is already present that I doubt that there are many subjects left uncovered.

Like I said, it is easy to make those sorts of assumptions and mistakes without realizing it. The one I used as an example can crop up in all sorts of ways, especially when dealing with infinity -- and it is not always obvious to students when that is the case. Most students in upper level math courses will understand why assuming a set is countable is wrong for a given proof, but may not see that they made such an assumption without the guidance of someone who can spot it.

I would think that it would merely require basic logic to figure such things out.

Well, if you think so, then you should be spending your time publishing papers in math journals.

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

"there would be far too many for any one person to memorize or search for."

So, the resources you're using to learn this new material aren't enough but a single "experienced" teacher is? If there's so many possible mistakes that they all can't be memorized, I highly doubt that. It can be solved without a teacher.

"Math is not about rote memorization."

Technically, everything is.

"Like I said, it is easy to make those sorts of assumptions and mistakes without realizing it"

Yes, it is. That is why I've said numerous times to double check your work. Make sure it isn't filled with assumptions or mistakes!

Emphasis on Majors

[zmaragdus]

One factor I don't think is emphasized enough is the choice of major students select. With respect to Robertson's outlook, many liberal arts degrees are a waste of an investment. The odds of you landing a well-compensating job with one of those degrees is slim. On the other hand, if you pursue a technical degree the outlook is much brighter. Programmers, technicians, scientists, engineers, and other similar workers usually earn higher wages than what Robertson lists as his median.

One additional subject I would have liked to hear touched on is the investment potential of a 2-year degree (e.g. welder, certified mechanic, machinist, etc.). I would think that a 2-year degree would be a decent investment for many. Any thoughts?

Re:Emphasis on Majors

[hedwards]

If that's what you want, you're probably better off going the apprenticeship route. Right now there's places which'll pay an apprentice electrician for example $26/hour. And that's while learning. That's a similar starting rate for a linesman, who when fully trained up to journeyman makes nearly double that.

Re:Put in the time

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a college education, if you follow the 10,000 hour rule.

I assume you are referring to the idea that it takes 10,000 hours to become a true expert at something. The problem is that in many cases it is irrelevant whether you are an expert or not. What matters is whether there is evidence you are at least competent.

Most people do not end up being tech entrepreneurs, in the same way they don't become international spies for MI6 or top-flight football players. Most people will need to get a normal job somewhere and if you are looking for a reasonably good job, a degree or professional qualification is necessary, either because it is required in the field (eg accountancy, engineering) or because HR will use "has a degree" as a criteria to screen out half the applicants. Now is it possible that one of the people without a degree is actually the cleverest, most hard-working applicant? Yes. But the company is not prepared to quadruple its job candidate search time and costs on the off-chance that an unlikely candidate on paper may be a hidden star in practice.

In general ./ tends to idolize geniuses who single-handedly revolutionize the world through the sheer force of their intellect. That's fine, but genius doesn't scale. The things that can be done by genius alone are limited. To operate on a large scale to provide the goods and services that society wants takes organization and bureaucracy. It's less romantic, but that's the way it is. Negotiating that bureaucracy is just part of life, and today this means a college degree is needed.

Thank God

[Idiomatick]

Zuckerberg is a douchebag.

Ideals and reality

[erroneus]

Ideally, if you work hard, you will succeed. In reality, if you work hard, it will likely be for SOMEONE ELSE who will use your hard work for their success. This is why your boss drives a better car than you and has a bigger house while you do all the work.

This is a simplistic picture but generally accurate.

So what did we learn from this? If you want to "succeed" (whatever that means) then you have to be more like the people who are already succeeding. If you wish to study, then study those people and do what they have done. And if your conscience gets in your way, then you have two choices -- listen or don't listen. It's a decision you will have to live with either way.

The things Bill Gates has done to the whole world are impressive by any definition. Some people would have a hard time doing that due to issues of conscience while others would have no problems at all. These others are classically identified as sociopaths. Statistics have born out that the most powerful people on the planet are sociopaths as they are willing to do what most people are not, for reasons of conscience. But fear not! There may be some hope for you.

If you are one of those people who believe "if you are too stupid, ignorant or otherwise don't know what I know, then you deserve whatever happens to you" then you are already well on your way to being a sociopath. I know first hand, that there are a lot of people here on Slashdot who feel that way. (I'm sorry, but if you didn't know that truckload of explosives was heading your way while you were sleeping in your home, then you deserve whatever happens to you!)

Personally, I decided long ago, I don't have what it takes to do what "successful" people do... or, as I see it, I have what stops me from doing what it takes. (I can't knowingly make people miserable and call it "just business" as many others seem to be able to do.) I have accepted it and I will just keep working every day, try to save some money and hope I die before I retire.

Re:Ideals and reality

[skyride]

I read your comment thinking "what a dick", but then I reached the last paragraph, and I just feel sorry for you. By the sounds of it, you're so wrapped up in "being successful", that the fact you think you won't be just makes you miserable. The problem you have is that you directly equate "being successful" to "screwing people over". Its possible to do one without the other. I'm not of course saying you can become a multi-billionaire, but why would you want/need more money than you can possibly ever spend? Its possible to run your own buisness, selling to a small niche of the market without screwing people over. Quite simply put, someone else already is, so its easy to undercut them in price while beating them in quality of service. You won't steal their whole customer base, but you can certainly make a size-able dent and a fair bit of money in the process.

Cheer up. ;)

Re:Ideals and reality

[erroneus]

Okay then, let's make a short list of counter-examples. What modern-day success exists today did so without screwing over a bunch of people in the process?

What you are talking about in terms of running a small business is risky. It is risky because when Best Buy's Geek Squad, or any local large operator sees you as a threat, it won't be long before you are eliminated one way or another. Sometimes it's possible to operate "under the radar" but the fact that anyone would need to do so is clear indication that one already knows that there are risks of being destroyed by larger, predatory businesses.

It is possible to live and operate righteously. But it is quite possible that you will get destroyed in the process as had happened time and time again.

Anyway, that short list?

Re:Ideals and reality

[hedwards]

It's possible, it's just that way too many executives and investors believe it. Meaning that treating ones employees with respect is really hard to do if you're not some sort of a private concern. A lot of companies interpret employees that aren't constantly stressed about pay as being overpaid.

There are exceptions. Costco beats the tar out of Sam's Club and Walmart on labor costs because they can undercut the cost of training due to the competitive advantage of employee retention.

But it's really not the status quo, everywhere that I've ever worked was run the way that the GP states it. People interpret it as violating the executives responsibility to refuse to engage in unethical treatment for short term gains. And layoffs seem to almost inevitably result in a higher stock price. Which makes precisely zero sense since that shrinks the production capacity as well as future earnings.

Re:Ideals and reality

[jimicus]

Duncan Bannatyne immediately springs to mind.

He's a multimillionaire, he started out with an ice-cream van and today has a whole load of business interests. By his own admission, he didn't screw people over - most of his wealth once he sold the ice-cream van came from buying land that someone wanted to sell, paying builders who wanted to build, setting up a business in his new building and selling the business along with the building when he'd had enough of it.

Richard Branson? He openly admits in "Business Stripped Bare" that while not all of his businesses have worked out, he's always ensured that all the creditors were paid before he closed the companies down. Yet he didn't have to do that, the whole point of a limited company is that if it all goes to pot, you can walk away.

Gordon Ramsay? He started out by screwing over Marco Pierre-White, that's true. And he appears to have very little patience for anyone who doesn't have his passion. But if you look at how he's structured his businesses, the head chef in each restaurant is also the patron, and therefore directly enjoys the benefit of how well the restaurant does.

Re:Ideals and reality

[corbettw]

What modern-day success exists today did so without screwing over a bunch of people in the process?

First, what's your definition of "screwing people over"? Because my gut says you mean "out performed their competition", which millions of successful people have done without acting unethically (e.g., lying, cheating, stealing).

Re:Ideals and reality

[bfields]

"What modern-day success exists today did so without screwing over a bunch of people in the process?"

Most of the people I know?

Unless you have some bizarre definition of success that doesn't include making a living, doing quality work, contributing to a community, raising healty children, doing things you enjoy, learning about things that interest you....

Re:Ideals and reality

[Surt]

Just add exploiting (people) to your list of lying, cheating, stealing.
(Which unfortunately eliminates all the people I've seen held up as positive examples in this thread so far).

Re:Ideals and reality

[westlake]

This is why your boss drives a better car than you and has a bigger house while you do all the work

It's part of the boss's job to see that you have some work to do -
and to impose enough order and discipline so that the work he assigns you is completed on time and on budget.

It's his job to fit all the pieces together.

Finance. Production. Marketing and Distribution.

He can both the visionary and the public face of the business.

Edison. Ford. Disney. Sarnoff.

Re:Ideals and reality

[FallLine]

What you are talking about in terms of running a small business is risky. It is risky because when Best Buy's Geek Squad, or any local large operator sees you as a threat, it won't be long before you are eliminated one way or another. Sometimes it's possible to operate "under the radar" but the fact that anyone would need to do so is clear indication that one already knows that there are risks of being destroyed by larger, predatory businesses.

I beg to differ. No doubt being an entrepreneur is risky and requires a lot of hard work (in most cases), but the overwhelming majority that do fail fail for reasons that have little to do with any kind of direct response from the competition (let alone anything unethical), e.g., insufficient capitalization, poor financial management, il-concieved products/services, bad execution/implementation, etc.

Big companies have a lot more capital and resources to throw at problems, but the reality is that are often slow to respond to anything and, when they do "respond", their response is based on group-think and a fundamental lack of understanding for the marketplaces in which they operate. These big companies remain successful because they have inertia and a lot of capital to acquire younger companies, not because they are effective at killing the competition or finding new areas for growth.

I have seen this time and time again, first hand as an entrepreneur and coming from a family of entrepreneurs, many of whom that have gone head to head against some of the largest companies in this country and come to be the dominate player in their chosen the market or at least carve out a strong niche for themselves, allowing for the many stakeholders to profit handsomely (including employees), without any of the sorts of shady behavior you imply.

I have known at least a few instances where the founders have actually cheered when their primary competition was acquired by multi-billion dollar corporation since they have a strong conviction that these big companies, even though being known to try to play a little dirty at times and have more capital to spend on things like marketing, actually lack the discipline to be as an effective competitor as the relatively smaller prior-organization.

To re-iterate, most companies fail due the reasons of their own making. To the extent competition is an issue at all, it's more that their product or service fails to provide a sufficiently compelling reason from customers to switch from the existing products/services or have something enough different to attract wholly new customers.

Finally, I'll point out that it's not a zero-sum game. Many markets have a lot of potential room for growth. Sometimes new competition is the best thing that can happen for all (or at least most) market plaeyrs because brings in some ideas/vigour and creates vital competition where before little existed -- which spurs all the companies to invest in R&D -- which leads to growth for all as the products become substantially more attractive for all.

Re:Ideals and reality

[horza]

Person A has a great bachelor pad, drives a sports car, and has more money than he knows how to spend. Person B is happily married with two children. Who is the more successful? If you measure your happiness linearly with the amount of cash in the bank, then you know what you have to do to make yourself happy. Just be prepared to make a lot of sacrifices to get there.

It's perfectly easy to make plenty of money without screwing people over if you have good sales skills and have something people want. As skyride says, you just need to find that niche. I have a friend who set up an innocuous business which I didn't think would make much money, and was surprised to find it turned over 150k (mostly profit).

Phillip

Re:Ideals and reality

[16K Ram Pack]

Your boss drives a better car because he has more responsibility than you do. Your boss is ultimately going to take a kicking if your code screws up. He should also know how to manage plans, motivate staff, manage client expectations and have enough knowledge of what you're doing to manage what you're doing.

Good managers are worth the money. I've seen guys take a failing project and turn it around because they were brought the whole thing under control, worked out the problems with the project and got it running smoothly again. They aren't just parasitic pen-pushers. That said, I really hate managers who are nothing but parasitic pen-pushers. They aren't really managers, they're just producing pieces of paper that make it look like they are. They often have no understanding of the work being done, and so struggle to respond when required. One reason I don't like working in large corporations is that they're stuffed full of parasitic pen-pushers.

Re:Ideals and reality

[16K Ram Pack]

A lot of that is also good business. I do work for a few clients. One of my clients almost treats me like part of the team. They pay me quickly, offer to pay for any bits of software I need and don't expect miracles. The other client I have to hassle for payment, and they'll do stuff like email me saying "put the code live this weekend", but then be completely uncontactable, then get stroppy because I didn't put it live (because I needed to check something first).

Guess which one got priority when 2 requests for work came in soon after each other?

Re:Ideals and reality

[corbettw]

If someone pays you a wage to do a job, how are they exploiting you? Sounds to me like your bitching is more about having a piss-poor attitude than anything else.

Re:Ideals and reality

[Surt]

They are exploiting me if they take advantage of economic or social inequities to pay me less than a fair wage, and then pocket the difference for themselves.

Statistical anomalie?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"... dropouts Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates did do alright for themselves ..."

So from this limited sampling of two, we can conclude that dropouts do alright for themselves, but only by screwing everyone else over?

Re:Statistical anomalie?

[cheekyjohnson]

All you need (or should need) is knowledge. If you have that, you can get things done. Despite popular belief, knowledge doesn't just come from schools. It can come from your parents, books, and even the internet. The problem is, far too many places are too focused on ultimately worthless degrees. A degree by no means ensures that someone knows what they're talking about (it might indicate it more than if they didn't have a degree, but nothing can be certain). What really should matter is what you know, and far too many jobs seem to neglect this fact.

Re:Statistical anomalie?

[turbidostato]

"All you need (or should need) is knowledge. If you have that, you can get things done."

Maybe. But I prefer money and luck any day.

By the way, the cases of Gates and Zuckerberg seem to support my point much more than yours.

Re:Statistical anomalie?

[hedwards]

In America, that's basically how it works. The rich pay an extremely low marginal tax rate, while the first cuts to spending seem to generally be pointed at the low income earners and the ones that need a hand in order to move up in class.

The ones that don't typically started with a lot of money with which they could afford to take a lower rate of yield that comes from not screwing people over.

Community college is a much better deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The program I teach in usually has 100% of the graduates employed within six months of graduating. It takes three years. We're a community college so the tuition is quite low. Many of the students live at home with their parents, so they have cheap living expenses.

The bottom line is that, for some college programs, the investment is pretty safe and pays off.

Remember that the statistics for lifetime earnings take into account the History and English PhDs serving coffee at Starbucks. If you get a good job, your results are much better than average.

Re:Community college is a much better deal

[Non-CleverNickName]

I agree. I happen to go to a community college in New Jersey (every county here has it's own community college for it's residents), and not only is the tuition a fraction of the state universities but after you finish your 2-year degree, you're allowed to transfer into a 4-year university as an instant Junior. No picking and choosing which credits they want to accept, just instant Junior status.

I've completed half of a Mechanical Engineering BS degree at essentially little to no cost from myself (state/federal grants + scholarships), and will be transferring to one of the top engineering schools in the state next Fall to continue the BS program. Had I gone to that 4 year university initially, I'd be 20-25k in debt right now.

Now I give that advice to all of my friends still living in NJ. If you're not entirely sure what you want to do but have at least realized that you can't sit on your ass forever, either go to a vocational school or a community college. After your 2 years are done, either use your Associates or vocational certificates to help find a relevant job in your field, or transfer to a university to complete a Bachelor's in 2 more years.

If after those initial 2 years you realize more university isn't for you, stick with your Associates/vocational certificates. You didn't spend tens of thousands of dollars to realize "University isn't for me.", and you're still in a better position than you'd be with no degree/certs at all.

College is not an investment

[betterunixthanunix]

I know, in the 21st century, everyone is supposed to be some sort of businessman, and we are supposed to seek returns on anything we spend money on. Really though, people (in theory) go to college to be educated, not just to get vocational training. If you want vocational training -- and there is nothing wrong with that -- then you should go to a trade school, get a 2 year degree, and wind up with the same job you would have had if you spent four years getting a bachelor's.

The sooner the "college is an investment" crowd gets out of our universities, the better.

Re:College is not an investment

[Anonymous Coward]

you've got to be kidding. People get their degree and are 100k in the red at the beginning of their professional life. That degree has to pay for itself in a foreseeable future thus it is an investment. If it doesn't, you've just fucked yourself for the rest of your life.

Re:College is not an investment

[Darkness404]

The problem is that people see college as "success" and a tech program as "failure". And I think we can lay the blame squarely on high school administration. For example, at my school if you wanted to do anything that would qualify as vocational training, you had to sacrifice upper level classes, in the mind of the high school admins, someone who would take advance chemistry, calculus or college English had no place learning a skill. And so it became associated with "oh, you can't do academics, here do this program and take the 'stupid' classes and you will get your diploma" the idea that someone who did well academically would want to learn a skill never really crossed their minds. Tech programs were seen as a way to boost graduation rates of the stupider students, letting them get a "free pass" and only take a minimum of actual classes.

Re:College is not an investment

[tomhudson]

And of course if they're part of a couple, have a kid, and split up, they have yet another debt. Gubbiment takes a third, student loads take a third, other debts take a third, child support takes a third ... must be the new math.

So expect to see many of these grad go bankrupt to get rid of the government and other debt, and still have to pay out 2/3 of their income.

Re:College is not an investment

[srw]

Exactly. And the reason for that is the public school system is completely staffed by academics. It's also the same reason they cut the shop budget.

Define "fail"

[betterunixthanunix]

Since when is "not being a billionaire" the definition of "failure?"

Re:Define "fail"

[I cant believe its n]

Since Sunday September 26, @02:32PM.

Re:Define "fail"

[hedwards]

I don't think he meant that, I think he's referring to the ones that get the degree but can't actually use it and end up doing something menial for which they didn't require the degree. Usually that's a result of poor timing, or not having the connections to make it work.

Or getting a stupid degree in something which is already completely saturated.

Re:Define "fail"

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole point of your joke was that you were being overly precise, and yet you left out a timezone. you, good sir, fail utterly.

Re:Define "fail"

[baKanale]

Maybe "failure" means "being 25 or older, single, and still living with your parents".

Common sense way to try to get rich...

[LordNacho]

TFA is pretty sensible. Get a degree so you can get a job in an established business. Then learn about the industry while you're being paid a salary. And then, if you like, try opening your own shop.

I've worked for a few failed startups, right after college, as well as in an established financial business. I'm now running my own in partnership with some friends I met at a previous job. You can't really get in without the credentials, and it's worthwhile to learn a few things in college anyway. The problem with the alternative is that in any business, there's a load of unknown unknowns (thanks Donald). If you just leap into it, you won't know anything about industry norms, and you'll have to hope that a VC comes by and teaches you. To put it simply: you've either got a stunning new product that will change the world. Or you're a clown who should have known why that wouldn't work. Zuckerberg got pretty lucky.

I'd add this: Roll the dice a few times with startups. It's fun, and you'll probably be able to get back on the ladder when things go wrong. But you can't roll the dice forever, as you might want to have a family. So if you don't make it big, you've at least tried, and are still able to feed yourself. But definitely try. Forget the ladder while you're in your mid 20s.

Rich parents helped Bill Gates more than college.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich parents helped Bill Gates more than college. Colour me unsurprised. If someone wants to be like Bill Gates and drop out and be successful, then they should first arrange to have billionaire parents.

This can be somewhat difficult to do, since adoption is rather a buyers' market at that level...

Don't be fooled by the Education Lobby

[webalimaster]

Young people don't be fooled by the Education Lobby! I too started by business when I was 19 and quitted my first degree due to lack of time to do both Degree and Business. Later I took my degree on a fast track. But it's a bad a idea, it's a wast of money and TIME (very valuable). I would be much richer today If I just skiped university altogether. University degrees are for stupid people who can't study on their own. What you need is to read books (according to your specific needs) on your own.

Re:Don't be fooled by the Education Lobby

[vadim_t]

Thing is both you and the grandparent had some sort of plan, and the ability to get it done.

The vast majority of people pointing to Gates of Zuckenberg don't. Gates didn't get where he is by just pointing to "Einstein did badly at school" and then sitting on his butt. He did work, and lots of it. He got into Harvard and left it to found MS, not because he wasn't able to finish it. He also had a lot of luck in having rich lawyers for parents, which I'm sure helped with getting him access to hardware, and probably some legal advice and perhaps financial help to fund MS. Then there was the sheer luck with DOS.

Also, business isn't for everybody. Many people don't have the dedication or the skills to get a business off the ground.

Re:Don't be fooled by the Education Lobby

[mikael_j]

Then there was the sheer luck with DOS.

And here is the real kicker.

Most "self-made men" aren't nearly as self-made as people like to believe. Most of them got lucky more than once in their lives in order to get where they are. That's not to say luck in itself is all it's about, just that skill, perseverance and having an idea with potential isn't enough. Luck plays in, if you have an idea a little too soon the world may not be ready for it, and if you're a little too late then it might not be different enough from something else to grab everyone's attention.

Re:Don't be fooled by the Education Lobby

[Eil]

On the other hand, you can buy all the schooling you want and still be a arrogant prick. Did you stop to think that maybe English was his second language?

Maximize cost/benefit ratio.

[Junta]

First, I want to see *some* sort of check and balance on college expenses. Every examination of college prices over the past 30 years has shown horribly high growth relative to earning. Most things I read agree the problem was good intentions, making loans for education extremely safe, but has lead to colleges taking the blank checks, running up expenses through the roof, and the payback protections to lenders turning graduates practically into indentured servants, unable to escape that creditor no matter how little they have and even bankruptcy not being a way out. The answer is not insanely easy loans, there has got to be a better way.

In terms of going with what's there, start with a community college. It's a total waste to piss away more money on the basics in the first two years of college. After a couple of years, go to a state college with a good co-op/intern program. Use the co-op program, do not simply take the classes and get out, get some professional experience on your resume and subsidize the extra cost of state college with your pay.

Do *not* get too hung up on the prestige of one school versus another. At least when I look at resumes, professional experience matters most, low GPA can give me concerns, and which school figures prominently in the don't care area. One exception being I laugh at people with 'bachelor's' degrees from ripoff places like devry, phoenix, etc. I'd personally rather have someone without a degree than a sucker who fell for those places. However, I'm not allowed to entertain people without 4 year degrees by company policy, so unfortunately your chances of dropping out and making it within the rules of established company is nearly zero. All the examples of rich dropouts are those who were never 'hired' by anyone, but sold product and services directly to people who only look at the quality of the product and promise, not at their resume.

Re:Maximize cost/benefit ratio.

[Surt]

First, I want to see *some* sort of check and balance on college expenses. Every examination of college prices over the past 30 years has shown horribly high growth relative to earning.

But they had a lot of ground to recover. Technically, for optimal pricing, they would charge you just enough so that the long term profitability of going to college was, on average, a dollar. Maybe a little more, because they have to entice you to take the risk. But not a LOT more, because then they're just wasting the opportunity to make more money.

Re:Maximize cost/benefit ratio.

[swillden]

In terms of going with what's there, start with a community college. It's a total waste to piss away more money on the basics in the first two years of college. After a couple of years, go to a state college with a good co-op/intern program. Use the co-op program, do not simply take the classes and get out, get some professional experience on your resume and subsidize the extra cost of state college with your pay.

Exactly. College is so often a poor investment simply because kids pour too much money into it. It's like whining that you lose money on your real estate investments when you pay 10 times what the property is worth.

Going to an inexpensive school and working your way through school, paying the bills as you go in stead of racking up huge loans, will leave you not only with a degree and little or no debt, but it will also give you some valuable life experience and skills that your debt-ridden colleagues will miss.

Re:Maximize cost/benefit ratio.

[Missing.Matter]

First, I want to see *some* sort of check and balance on college expenses.

I think this will be the next bubble to burst. A friend of mine is on the administrative staff at a local (smaller) college, and knows of the situation at others in the area, and she reports that they are out of money and they are living semester to semester on tuition checks. You don't usually see a college or university go bankrupt, but I think this will start happening more and more until tuition gets in line.

Do *not* get too hung up on the prestige of one school versus another.

There is something to be said for school brand. Some alumni are very clicky. I've met hiring manages who say "When I see someone from X school come across my desk, they go to the top of the stack." Where x is either their alma mater or brand name school.

I recently asked the CEO of a company acquired by Cisco (for $800m) about they value of his Harvard MBA in acquiring seed funding (they raised over 90m from investors). I think the word he used was "invaluable." He put it to me this way "Two similar business plans come across your desk. One from a team of Harvard MBAs, and the other from a team of Little Known State University. LKSU might have some quality grads, but if your job is all about hedging bets, the Harvard team might be the better choice. Yeah, I know it may not be fair, but it's the reality of the VC mindset.

College's role in my life...

[jesseck]

I attended a 2-year technical school for a networking degree (plus another 1 yr. towards programming). Did it help? Hell yes, I learned a lot. Did the degree get me a job? Nope, but I came onboard with a technology company as in intern my last semester, and was hired full-time about 4 months later. I probably didn't need a degree for the job (but the school knowledge helps), but I sure wouldn't have been offered an internship with my employee either.

Trust fund baby

[AnonymousClown]

Gates had a million dollar trust fund - he's a trust fund baby.

Therefore, he could take obscene amounts of risk and never have to worry about ending up in the gutter or having bill collectors after him. And if you add in that his Dad is a high powered attorney ...

Gates was a perfect storm of trust fund, brains, timing, and ambition.

Re:Trust fund baby

[SomeKDEUser]

And luck. Never forget luck.

I am sad for all those people who live in a determinist universe where all that happens to you can be explained by hard work and ambition, modulated by the amount of money you started with.

Fact, sometimes things happen to you, good and bad. Fact, these sometimes cannot be offset by any amount of brains and work.

Which is why a civilised society recognises that and helps out those people that ran into an unexpected and impossible to plan for problem. Which is why also, the richer and more advanced society is, the more taxed should be extracted, because a more complex society means also that many more things can go awry, and need to be planned for collectively -- and because more taxes do not affect your lifestyle after you are rich enough.

People saying "this is my money", "I refuse to pay for someone else lifestyle choice", "I provide for my family, why can't they?", are a problem, because they think that given the same circumstances another Bill Gates would happen. Therefore, they think that is they play their cards just right, they will become rich. And if they do become rich (this happens), they think it is purely due to them -- refusing even to acknowledge the importance of living in a society whose infrastructure allowed it. And if they become a significant minority, they will eventually destroy society.

Re:Trust fund baby

[16K Ram Pack]

Luck is a factor. I know someone who started a small business doing the bill printing. Because a cellphone company was nearby (and this is when they were still the size of bricks), they gave him a call about doing their billing. He was doing their billing on a single PC with 1 other staff member from a garage with a single HP laserjet. Within a few years, he was doing millions of bills, and sold the company for millions. If they'd phoned someone else, he'd have never made a fortune.

On the other hand, there's a saying "it's funny, the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get". The more times you throw 2 dice, the more double sixes you get. I work for myself, and when I'm without work for a few days, I spend it on training, contacting clients to explain some interesting new technology or some sort of marketing. Sometimes, the work that comes from those things can be a huge fluke. I was doing a presentation to a local business group about RSS feeds and a guy collared me, we started talking, and it turned out that he had a whole bunch of broken systems, he'd fired the programmer the day before, and I was in the right place at the right time.

Re:Put in the time

[Seth024]

I'm counting a good part of my college education into those 10,000 hours. (comp sci & engineering)

Re:Put in the time

[AnonymousClown]

All the above - with a caveat.

a degree or professional qualification is necessary, either because it is required in the field (eg accountancy, engineering)

Right now accountants, especially new graduates, are also having a really hard time. A LOT of folks saw that as a safe way to make a decent living and jumped on the bandwagon - now there's a glut. It may not last because everything runs in cycles, but don't forget, accounting can be offshored just as easily as programming.

It's the same for engineering.

Nursing: with this economy, many folks are jumping in because it's a "safe" job now BUT there will be a glut and employment will get bad - I don't care what the predictions say about population aging and whatnot. Talk to a nurse who's been in the field for at least 25 years and ask her about the late 80s - layoffs of nurses. Granted, if you were a laid off nurse, you weren't out of work for too long but....

There is also a trend to bring nurses from overseas. I know a nurse who works with many many foreign nurses. Add in the nurses that the military is training and I see employment problems down the road. Nurses don't have an organization like the AMA that's great at "discouraging" foreigners from coming over here.

My point, don't jump into a field because it looks like a shoe in for employment now - things change.

Just ask everyone who got CS degrees in the 90s or those of us who've hit 40 hoping to have their lifetime employment at 6 figures.

Re:How did they get a portfolio?

[Kethinov]

You don't have to have professional experience or go to school to build a portfolio of work. Many applicants have portfolios of projects they cooked up themselves, contributions to open source projects, and other sorts of volunteer work.

Bill Gates is a poor example...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates is not a good example of the typical young person who drops out of college and strikes it rich. His family was upper middle class and had enough money to send him to a prestigious college prep school. You can bet that before he earned any money on his own, his computer interests were heavily subsidized by his family. He certainly got a head start in life that few of his generation never had. I'll bet that parental support was worth quite a few years of college.

Re:Bill Gates is a poor example...

[Surt]

He certainly got a head start in life that few of his generation never had. I'll bet that parental support was worth quite a few years of college.

That parental support was quite a bit more than the average lifetime earnings difference of college/noncollege, and it was an upfront investment, which meant he should expect to do no worse than the average investment income off of it.

If you have a solid idea and are driven..

[amanicdroid]

If you have a solid idea and are driven to get it on the market then go for it and hire the college kids later. College graduates are trained to assist leaders. They're the most highly trained servants in the world.

Zoho Don't Need No Stinking Ph.D. Programmers

[walterbyrd]

Zoho also does not need any bachelor degree programmers. Zoho prefers to hire right out of high school.

I think college degrees are only worthwhile for jobs that actually require the degree: doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc.

I consider my own degrees (math, business, and comp. sci.) to be a complete waste of time, money, and effort.

Here's the Zoho stroy:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/01/208222/Zoho-Dont-Need-No-Stinking-PhD-Programmers?from=rss

Re:Zoho Don't Need No Stinking Ph.D. Programmers

[Missing.Matter]

Zoho also does not need any bachelor degree programmers.

There's no such thing as a B.S. in Programming, let alone a Ph.D. (well, maybe there is but not ant any university I know about). This is a mistake many people make: Computer Science is not programming.

Zoho's applications are clones of software already done to death, like word processors, spread sheets, and CRM. Why would they hire a Ph.D. or B.S. to do the job any code monkey can be trained to do? Show me a highschool grad who can talk intelligently about graph theory, particle filtering, or pattern recognition (Incidentally if you do manage to find one, I'll show you a highschool grad who doesn't want to do menial programming for Zoho).

I'm a TA at a large university for both introductory programming and senior thesis courses. The difference in competency between freshmen and seniors (competency both at programming and general life skills like problem-solving, initiative, and independent creative thought) is staggering. I'm sure I could train any of the freshmen to spit out any piece of code I tell them, but I would never hire one and expect a well-rounded and independent worker. Freshmen need their hands held at every step of the processes, but sometime during their 4 year stay at university they undergo some sort of metamorphosis when they become self-sufficient and free thinking.

I consider my own degrees (math, business, and comp. sci.) to be a complete waste of time, money, and effort.

I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet this is more of a function of how much you applied yourself while at school, and your general attitudes rather than the degrees themselves. I hold degrees in physics, business, and computer engineering, and now knowing how useful they are I would have spent twice as much time and twice as much money to get them. The reasons why are another long winded post in itself, but it suffices to say I have countless advantages over my peers (graduate students in computer engineering) because of the exposure from all of these degrees.

Harshest Reality

[Dystopian Rebel]

The harshest reality is that the jobs are leaving.

The jobs of the CEO and his/her pals will be staying, of course.

A university degree won't make you less expendable to a corpocracy that wants the cheapest workers. Unless you are willing to cost the same to the employer at 35 as you did at 25 (and use your benefits as little), your days are numbered.

Code Poet, Rockstar Programmer, Unit-Test Guru, Meme Zealot, Jedi Knight of the Latest Methodology, or (what is likeliest) red-tunicked member of the Roddenberry Landing Crew or Storm Trooper cannon-fodder, the real masters of this game are the Bean Counters.

The corpocracy has docile subjects. It has seen that it can lay people off without having to report it (IBM -- for years), take huge local tax breaks (which your family and community paid for) and then ship jobs overseas, and claim to be "a good citizen" while loudly claiming there are "insufficient numbers of skilled workers".

Of course, you can take the Blue Pill and go back to your pasting your face into pictures of Gates and Zuckerberg. (o:

Re:Harshest Reality

[rtaylor]

The jobs of the CEO and his/her pals will be staying, of course.

That's not true, actually.

There are several examples of companies which outsourced production and later design to a 3rd party firm. These companies now have direct competition from the companies they outsourced to as the 3rd party gained through experience or hired lower cost senior management roles.

The original company now has zero internal knowledge except how to import the good but higher overhead costs. At best, they may survive as a highly specialized importer, but most will not survive.

At least one Chinese manufacturer I know of is running into this problem now. They exported manufacturing work to Indonesia and, of course, now that remote manufacturer is bidding directly to their clients.

Re:Harshest Reality

[Surt]

The jobs are not leaving forever. The average pay in every nation that doesn't have war risks is climbing pretty fast, so given another 10-15 years it just won't be as much of a disadvantage to be an american worker.

Of course, it won't come with the perks it used to either, like owning a home that would make the rest of the world think you were a millionaire.

Re:Harshest Reality

[tehcyder]

the real masters of this game are the Bean Counters

Most of us bean counters really wanted to be lion-tamers, I for one have still got the hat.

No college degree here

[bigtallmofo]

I didn't spend a minute in college. I became a computer consultant right out of high school at 17, started my own consulting company at 20, sold it at 25 and started working for corporate America.

Since then, I've risen to the highest ranks of IT (including CTO of a mid-sized publicly traded company).

In my experience, smarts coupled with people skills and a strong work ethic will open just about any door for you regardless of degree or lack thereof. One of the biggest problems I see though are people generally overestimating their "smarts". Generally I think if you are not widely considered very intelligent by everyone you regularly interact with, including those people that don't necessarily care for you, then you are probably better off getting a degree.

Re:No college degree here

[Surt]

Generally I think if you are not widely considered very intelligent by everyone you regularly interact with, including those people that don't necessarily care for you, then you are probably better off getting a degree.

And even if you ARE considered very intelligent by everyone you meet, you are probably better off getting a degree. You might be an outlier for luck, you might not.

Re:No college degree here

[tomhudson]

I only know one person who is actually using their education for what they got it in the first place - and that's because of government restrictions imposed in the medical field.

Nobody else - not even engineers, are using their education in their current job.

In fact, during a recession it's a barrier to getting work, because they figure you'll jump ship when the economy picks up and you get a better offer. It's called "being over-qualified" and it happens every down-turn.

So lie about your education - say you dropped out to get into what you're doing now because you enjoy it, not because you went to school for it.

Re:No college degree here

[jawtheshark]

When was this? If you started doing this in the seventies and eighties, I can easily see that happening. Nineties, perhaps... mainly because of the dot-com bubble. Now? Much less probable. Not saying you can't these days. Having a healthy interest in technology does help, and can get you a long way in the IT sector. Now, people look at your experience and that's why you (still) get hired.

Re:No college degree here

[bigtallmofo]

When was this?

I first became a computer consultant in 1989, started my own company in 1992, sold it in 1998 and went off to work for corporate America. I became CTO of a publicly traded company for the first time in 2006.

Re:No college degree here

[tehcyder]

Generally I think if you are not widely considered very intelligent by everyone you regularly interact with, including those people that don't necessarily care for you, then you are probably better off getting a degree.

Being perceived as "very intelligent" is no great advantage in itself for most jobs.

Re:No college degree here

[Shadow99_1]

I gotta say you most likely need to add location to the things you need. I grew up only a year or two behind you, but... My consulting never got me any real money (two many already larger and better funded competitors) so I ended up going to school for my associates when I was finding it impossible to get hired after my failed consulting business and education looked to be a good way to look better to those looking to hire me as they all complained at my lack of education. Out of college with my associates in CIS I got hired as the Director of Technology for a school district. Then about a year ago I lost that job so the school board could balance the budget (dropping IT as a department in the budget all together). In the last year I have applied everywhere and most won't even look at me because I don't have at least a bachelor's to work at that level. They also won't hire me for 'lesser' jobs, stating I'm either A) to expensive (without asking me what I would want!) or B) overqualified for what they need (which tends to scare my potential bosses). So After a year with nothing I decided my only option was to go back to school _again_ for my bachelor's...

It's great things worked for you, but your situation only applies to you even with other factors nearly identical.

Re:Put in the time

[turbidostato]

"a degree or professional qualification is necessary, either because it is required in the field (eg accountancy, engineering)
Right now accountants, especially new graduates, are also having a really hard time."

And this has to do with the thread... how?

Are in any way ungraduated accountants making any better than the graduated ones?

Windows and Facebook?

[Murdoch5]

Okay lets think about this, Bill Gates made Windows and it's a 1/2 decent Operating System which kinda works. Mark invented Facebook which is a site who's use is to share pictures and join pointless groups. Both of these men have invented a product which in the end isn't that great or special. I'm not saying they haven't done well for them selfs but to pick a fair field, Linus invented Linux ( An actual decent OS ) and he went to school, So the real lesson should be, if you want to end up being successful with a great product, go to school. If you want to be a success and end up with a 1/2 ass product then drop out. A billion dollars made from a shitty product is a shitty billion and thats exact what Facebook and Windows have made for Bill and Mark.

Re:Windows and Facebook?

[bistromath007]

A shitty billion could be used to atone for a whole lotta sins, least of all making a half-assed product.

Re:Windows and Facebook?

[s!lat]

I'll still take the shitty billion though. Money's Money

Re:Windows and Facebook?

[Murdoch5]

I'm be to ashamed of having developed windows. I'd rather have quality.

Re:Windows and Facebook?

[PingSpike]

I'd rather sit on my ass all day eating money sandwiches until I died from a cash overdose.

Seriously though, I don't want to work.

status of parents seems to be the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Upper middle class parents seem to be the key to success without a college degree. They essentially are the college education proxy for these kid billionaire. Without the parent's initial funding and connections they would be like the millions of other non degreed young startup founders; begging for a job at Walmart.
So if your Mom can set you up with IBM executives or your Dad can set you up with VC's, don't bother going to college. You will be fine. However if your parents are just average joe's, college is the only realistic path to the upper middle class.

comcast seems to be that way bad for customers

[Joe The Dragon]

comcast seems to be that way and it seems to be bad for customers when there over scheduled techs are not on time and when some times the phone people have no idea about why it's not working and they need to get some other person to help you.

Trying looking for story's about comcast and cable card to tru2way to see how bad it can be.

also there subcontractor techs need to move in house as some cable guys don't do a good job or don't even know what they are doing.

Comcast needs to make big changes and they to start by moveing most subcontractors and contractors in house so it's easier.

Dropping out ... and getting back in.

[Misagon]

I dropped out of college. Then after a short job, I found it quite getting a job that I thought that I was qualified for. Then a few years later, I went back to college to finish my degree in Computer Science.

However, I did find that retaking courses at college was more difficult than the first time. Because the course schedule had changed, some courses I needed to take were at the same time as others, or changed to another semester. Therefore, I could not not complete my degree in the same amount of time than I would otherwise have done.

After college, I found that the time gap was a big mark on my resume. I was dismissed as many times in the first iteration as when before I had gone back to college.

There is also a lot of ageism. At least over here in Sweden, most recruiters want people who are ideally no older than 25, with a completed degree and exactly three years of experience, so that the company can put the guy to work directly, make work long hours, easily mold in the company's way of doing things ... and pay a lower wage.
If you are over 30 and do not have much commercial work experience in the field, then you are practically no longer wanted. Even people over 40 with 15 years of work experience in IT are having problems finding work.

Re:Dropping out ... and getting back in.

[sethstorm]

That's a case to make it harder for employers to do that. Make the company have to take some of those people.

They shouldn't be allowed perfection while asking people to take less.

Re:Dropping out ... and getting back in.

[dbcad7]

Personally, I would rather hire someone like you. I would imagine that you would have a greater appreciation for the classes you took when you went back. Having some work experience also gives you an idea on how things taught, did and did not apply in real life.

So, if we take these two assertions together...

[bistromath007]

Basically what we are told is that gainful employment is so 1970.

The real upshot

[Rambo Tribble]

All this really shows is that Michael Arrington's education was a futile endeavor.

Fraudwha, the offshoring guy.

[sethstorm]

Ah, the pro-offshoring guy that says your qualifications would never be enough?

That kind of obliterates any point he wants to make.

More of a case against business

[sethstorm]

More of a case to make it harder for companies to filter out people without degrees, or anything that would indicate it.

Make the business take less and give them hell if they try otherwise.

Change company policy then.

[sethstorm]

N/T.

More about colleges being successful

[Shivetya]

than the graduates. Far too many colleges are all about the money they can bring in. Hence they jumped for joy when the feds took over college loans. The costs of education soared in proportion with how much money was being poured into financing and paying for it by the government.

Military experience

[haggus71]

I've found, for me and others, that military experience weighs in more as far as employment and the skills needed in the workplace, than a college degree. If you are an employer, do you want someone whose experience includes operating for long periods of time in a high-stress job that emphasizes teamwork and initiative, or someone whose experience adds up to 4 years of college and, "Can I refill your iced tea?"

Let's not also forget that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard, not Podunk State University. And Zuck dropped out when Facebook took off. They both had entrepreneurial ideas and they were on the ground floor of booming industries.

Student Loans

[ggraham412]

"And, believe it or not, you can still become a tech billionaire later in life even if you're cursed with a PhD." But if you're cursed with a PhD, you're probably also cursed with student debt and years of lost earnings. That makes it harder to get seed money to start up an enterprise.

Re:Put in the time

[AnonymousClown]

It relates this way:

Most people will need to get a normal job somewhere and if you are looking for a reasonably good job....

Getting a degree is no guarantee for a "reasonably good job" anymore regardless of what degree you get.

I can't draw pictures here....

Sorry for the snark.

[AnonymousClown]

I can't draw pictures here....

I apologize. That was uncalled for.

Of course there are lots of dropouts

[HalAtWork]

'The harsh reality,' warns Wadhwa, is that for every Zuckerberg, there are a thousand who drop out of college and fail,'

That's because the harsh reality is that those students don't go to college for the right reasons and enter generic programs that they feel lead them nowhere and since after a while they don't see the point, they drop out. Since they haven't figured out their aim, having a false goal doesn't really help and probably only serves to discourage them further. Schools are set up in a way where if you already have enough experience to know what you want to do it's pretty easy to follow through, but that doesn't work for everyone.

Re:Of course there are lots of dropouts

[drinkypoo]

Probably the worst thing about most schools is that the counselors are motivated in a variety of ways to put students into certain programs so they steer them there whether they ought to be on that track or not. Some counselors are great but mostly I've found that they don't give a shit about you unless they have some reason to do so. When I went to Cabrillo straight out of High School the counselors gave me no real help, I was bewildered and they did nothing to help me not be that way. When I went back and went to Yuba I had a better idea of what I wanted which of course makes the biggest difference, but since I just wanted a liberal arts degree (i.e. I was killing time) that was pretty damned easy. And then I went to work there and got to know the counselors and so they were always happy to help me actually get what I wanted out of school. Making friends with at least one counselor is the key to getting through college successfully, meaning getting what you want.

A minimum of some college is good.

[jjrff]

College doesn't just teach a given profession or skill sets at the associates and BS levels; it also helps broaden the view(s) of the student. Some college is good because it helps round out not just general knowledge but personality as well. I went to college after the military and it really did change the way I look at things for the better. I also stumbled across topics that I never thought I would be interested in but now I like to track (physics being one of them) as a hobby. Additionally just socializing with people far out of the circles I was used to helped me out a lot when I communicate with peers and others where I work. I have met some so called wunderkinds who skipped out on college and went straight to work programming or doing administration. For the most part, their communication skills were horrible, their social views myopic (or ethno/socio-centric) and a basic understanding of how to take another perspective outside of their wise ass know it all view lacking. Of course that is not always the case, but I have been doing this since 1989 and it does seem to be the majority. I also know, for a fact, at some places the door will not open unless you have a degree. Period. So it is good just to have it. Hiring people who are in school of some sort works out well too I have noticed even if it is just part time. They are growing in many ways at school and have the opportunity to take all of those skills, socializing, improved communications, their core degree - and really nurture them on two fronts.

degrees get you past HR...$40k for that?

[cenobyte40k]

There is a big difference between does the degree help you get jobs and does it do anything to make you a whole person. I don't have a degree and was lucky to be able to work my way up in a very large company so HR never got to look at my resume. However if you wanted my job today HR wouldn't let you past to get interviewed without a degree and a decade of experience. No one on my team that had a degree has one in Computer Science or anything like it, when we interview people with them they seem to lack all the real world knowledge that we need and end up just getting the guy with experience instead. My point here is that experience is far more important to your ability to do that job than any degree could ever be. So what degree's really do is get you past HR. If we as a people could come up with better ways to asses someones talents maybe we could get HR departments to stop sucking so bad.

You Make Your Own Luck

[dma1965]

I believe in luck, but I do not feel it comes about purely as a result of random chance. I believe you can make you own luck (or dramatically skew the odds in your favor) by your actions.

I dropped out of college and immersed myself in the technology world after 17 years of professional foodservice (which I did enjoy, and did quite well in) and through lots of reading, practical hands on experience, and enormous amounts of networking I managed to rise to CIO of a mid-sized private company (actually 2 companies owned by the same person), and then left to start my own business. I now consult for multi-billion dollar publicly traded companies and earn far more than many of my friends who finished college (but not all of them).

I did not waste a lot of time going out drinking, boating, and golfing during this time. I went to tech conferences (many of them are free to attend) and met many people and pursued the relationship. I joined standards and regulatory groups (i.e. NIST groups) and listened in, and then contributed. I networked my ass off, and got lucky a lot more often than others I knew.

They missed one

[Tablizer]

One argument they should include is that Windows would be better had Gates stayed in school.

Re:They missed one

[Pop69]

One argument they should include is that Windows would be better had Gates stayed in school.

I suspect Windows would be better if it was written by illiterate chimps on acid

Re:They missed one

[Tablizer]

Republicans wrote Windows? ;-)

Re:Put in the time

[darth dickinson]

In what way can you count "English Literature" and "Modern Medical Ethics" towards a technical degree?

Robertson: Or, You Might Work Less

[dcollins]

"Tech entrepreneur Michael Robertson approaches this question slightly differently; here's an analysis he made a few years ago, with the conclusion that the college investment pays off only about half the time."

Robertson compares income for high school versus college graduates, and concludes that a better payoff would come from taking college tuition and investing in stocks (historical ~7% payoff versus 4% public college and 2% private). However, this overlooks things like the amount of effort put in to make that income.

Take my case as an example: With my Master's degree I can teach college part time, make about the U.S. median income on 10 hours of work/week or so, live in New York, and devote most of my time to artistic pursuits. So my income doesn't look much higher, but it's because I've decided that I'm happy with a given level of income, and having satisfied that, don't need to work any more.

Some data to flesh this out: Robertson concludes, over 40 years, graduates of high school make $1.2M, public college $1.8M [http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=226]. U.S. Census bureau reports hours worked per day: graduate of high school 7.86, college 7.42 [http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0625.xls]. So median hourly salary is something like (assume 250 days worked per year) high school $15.30, college $24.11.

U.S. median income is approximately $21,587/year [http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html]. How much do you have to work per year to make that level of income (assume 8 hour days, 5 days/week)? High school graduates 1,411 hours = 176 days = 35 weeks. College graduates 875 hours = 112 days = 22 weeks. The difference would be more stark if I had data on actual days worked per year (i.e., vacation time, etc.)

I agree that income payoff is one factor that people should look at when considering college (along with things like self-fulfillment, reward of intellectual pursuits, networking potential, etc.) At some hyper-inflated level it definitely wouldn't be worth the risk, but I'm doubtful we're at that point yet. Perhaps more a important gauge is overall quality-of-life or satisfaction level (mine, for example, being exponentially higher than if I hadn't gone to college, even though my total income might actually be less).

Re:Put in the time

[Kijori]

I doubt I'm the only person who can confidently say that many of the hours I spent in lectures or seminars at university were worth much more than an hour of individual study, either because of what they learned or because they made the individual study that followed more productive. Slashdot has always played host to the idea that only stupid people need to go to university, smart people can learn on their own, but I think that a smart person should be able to appreciate the value of learning from real experts.

Re:Rich parents helped Bill Gates more than colleg

[drewhk]

It is not just about how much money was actually received from the parent. Just knowing the fact that there are your rich parents to save your ass if you fuck up your business is a big boost. Also, richer kids have greater ego as well, and that helps them.

College is The Easy Way

[b4upoo]

If one is totally self centered and ease of life is all that is wanted then college is the only path. Then again, if being a blessing to society rather than a curse to all is your goal then college is still the only game in town. These days many college grads may well make less than a union plumber. But then again a union plumber has far more schooling than a college grad believe it or not. The trades have become highly protective and they make excessive demands in order to keep the gates closed to new people. In many cases a family or small group of families may well control a trade such as plumbing in a county or even across several counties. That means that no matter what you do or how well you do it you will fail in an effort to get a certificate. I have seen a situation in which Federal programs for apprentices were dummied in such a way that certain people could get certificates without attending the mandatory courses. Even the instructors were absent. It gave them a pay check and they might have spent an hour or two a week in classes designed to occupy every evening except Sunday and all day Saturdays as well.
                      For those wanting to make a ton of money then go to college and work your ass off and acquire recognized expertise beyond all requirements. If you can be a star you can succeed. As most people simply can not be a star then find a happy spot and weld yourself into that happy spot.

Re: College is The Easy Way

[SnowDog74]

Good point. Another thing I'm noticing is that the market for certifications is so overpriced. A week of CCNA instruction will cost you $3000. In the 90's I paid half that for a full load of courses per quarter, or about $4500 a year in tuition. I have a friend who did an Oracle DBA cert for $14,000 and has little to show for it in this market. Then there's keeping up with all those certs. If you don't move into management, you'll find yourself recertifying every three years or so. My brother was a couple weeks away from completing a Novell cert when he got promoted (he also had a BSEE, so without that he'd have no managerial opportunity). He's now a program director at AMD making in the upper $100k's base salary, and yet more in bonuses. Is it a lot of work? sure.

But how many developers keep track of just how many hours they work for less than that amount of pay? You might have a coder making $80,000 a year thinking that's a lot... his employer is happy to let him work remotely or in his shorts, because that'll get him to commit more hours for the same money. Some developers are working 16 hour days just like my brother, but with considerably less income to show for it.

Quality of life

[sgt101]

First, there is a concentration of low earning people in hard circumstances in big cities. Look at the buses - the people who are sleeping on them at 6am on the way back from their shift are in the survey. The 2 hours on the bus, the fact of being on shift from 11pm to 6am, and the fact of having to work up to your elbows in sh*t do not appear in the survey.

I know that many people who do have a degree experience these conditions (vets, doctors...) and many who do not, do not. But I think that the fact is that the people on the bus mostly don't have a degree and that they mostly don't want to be on the bus.

It is also clear that people who have strong vocational educations often have similar earnings to people with degrees, and often have fulfilling and pleasant roles that bring them respect in their communities. This is an excellent route for anyone who doesn't feel that a university education suits them.

Final point; the last 40 years and the next 40 years are not the same thing. No one knows what the future will bring, it might be the case that the rewards of a degree will be much greater in the future, and it might not. But I had my perspective sharply altered by this truth when I was in my mid thirties and two close friends with educations died. Now, their earnings were sharply curtailed, so their investment looks bad from the point of view of this table. But on the other hand they had done something, gained a degree, had a great time at college. They had lived - just as someone who had climbed mountains, joined the army and had a fun surfing career could say that they had lived.

But be clear. People who work in chicken factories until they get cancer do not feel that life has treated them kindly.

I don't want to sound harsh but...

[aepervius]

"multimedia design course" multimedia is about as saturated as you can go, and you can't really compare that to say, a master in physic or chemistry or biology. If we go for anecdotal evidence, *ALL* my colleague from the master course and from the PhD course , without any exception, have a well paid job (lowest get 80K$ per year, not getting rich, but very comfortable, highest has currently 160k$ per year). To wit I got my job about 10 days BEFORE finishing my PhD in physic, in the software development. The things is, the skillset we had (cobol, fortran , C programming of physic simulation) made us much more attractive apparently than a true IT guy of the same level. All colleague I have which did come from real IT course with Master and PhD in various high level stuff , earn *LESS* than what I got at entry level. Naturally except 2 of us, none went into physic research (not enough place).

The bottom line is, some cursus are LESS asked for, and are quickly saturated. But you cannot generalize to a decision enry "into college/drop out" as you seem to do. And in average as far as I can tell, unless you are going for hard skill like elctricity/plumbing which are always in demand, you are better off with a university degree (you demonstrated the will and knowledge and endurance to go through it, and hopefully elarned to adapt to learn other sutff) than without.

Re:I don't want to sound harsh but...

[16K Ram Pack]

The other thing is to always do an "fundamental" degree. Do proper comp sci, and you learn about how computers work at their most fundamental level. Whatever comes along tomorrow in computing, it's still going to apply.

Degrees should not be vocational, because when the world changes, your degree may be worthless.

Personality matters

[danaris]

I am widely considered very intelligent by those I regularly interact with. I have not come across, in my region, anyone more generally competent with computers (including diagnosis and repair of common problems) than I am. I am quite sure that someone with my computer skills would have had little trouble setting up their own business here right out of high school and prospering.

But I would have found it very hard to do so, because my brain just isn't wired that way. I'm generally pretty risk-averse, and would have been stressed out pretty badly if I were depending on irregular customers for my livelihood.

Personality matters in these things. Not only would I have worried about it all the time, but I'm terrible at sales, and I hate talking to people I don't know on the phone. You really need to be an extrovert to be able to start your own business successfully.

Dan Aris

Re:Personality matters

[bigtallmofo]

danaris said...Personality matters in these things.

bigtallmofo originally said...In my experience, smarts coupled with people skills and a strong work ethic will open just about any door for you

We are in agreement. Definitely need people skills and a good personality to start your own business.

Humanities != Engineering

[dcmoebius]

I have a hard time lending much credence to the "college is a bad investment half the time" school of thought, if only because it only looks at college graduates in aggregate, not by field of study.

I can pretty much guarantee that the person walking out of college with a degree in electrical engineering will probably have a MUCH better chance of a satisfactory return on investment than the person that leaves with a BA in English Lit.

However, this isn't to say that the english degree is necessarily a bad decision. To echo some of the posts above, the value of a college education isn't exclusively monetary, and as such, shouldn't be viewed merely as an "investment".

Gah.....

[Unsichtbarer_Mensch]

What if I actually *am* Mark Zuckerberg you insensitive clod?!

They're called the Liberal Arts for a reason.

[DingerX]

Liberal Arts = the things that are worthy pursuits for Free Citizens*. *Only slaves learn "useful" trades. Oh yeah, and don't forget the class system. $100k/year and being branded "working class" doesn't go further than $60k a year and "elite". Still, if it's earning power you're interested in, don't go to school. Make a ton of cash. Robertson's right insofar as if you spend a ton of money on an education only to become a wage slave, you screwed yourself. Still, some of us have fond memories of college. Would you rather retire at 57 and possibly enjoy 8 additional years of screwing around, or take four at age 18? Hell, I'll take those four years in the reminiscence bump, thank you very much.

Re:Put in the time

[phantomfive]

It's so hard to follow the 10,000 hour rule. Unless you are highly self-motivated, you're not going to be able to keep it up. Remember that's 5 years worth of time if you are following a 40-hour work week. If you can't spend 40 hours a week, then it's going to take longer.

And that's assuming you even know what to study. If you study the wrong thing, you'll get set back farther. An example is chess. It seems reasonable to believe that if you play 2000 games of chess, you will improve. But it's not true. I know because I've done it, and I've seen others do it. If you want to improve at chess, you need to put some effort in, like analyze what you did wrong in your games, or read books, or something besides just playing games.

Same with things like cooking. If you go out and take a cooking class, you will learn to cook a lot faster than if you just open the Fannie Farmer cookbook and start cooking recipes.

In other words, getting the motivation and knowing what to study are both extremely important for the 10,000 hour rule (which isn't really a rule, it doesn't always take 10,000 hours).

College Daze links (problems with schooling)

[Paul Fernhout]

http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/005584.html
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html

In other news...

[No. 24601]

You will not be a master, so remain our slave.

Post-Scarcity Princeton

[Paul Fernhout]

Stuff on college and school: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/005584.html
And also:
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html

Great story. I agree: "better to be not so successful and live happily than to be a fully equipped pack mule for an ungrateful master".

Says the (mostly) stay-at-home Dad who does some free stuff on the side. :-) After a Princeton degree. :-)

See also my online book:
    "Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease"
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html
"We are witnessing a historic end to scarcity of many things (maybe not all, but enough to be a new global Renaissance). But is Princeton University helping prepare either students or the rest of society for these changes? Or is it instead an institution under stress, crashing into these trends instead of moving with them? Or is it perhaps conflicted in how it sees itself and its future, and so trying to do both these conflicting approaches at once? :-) "

And a list of four big ways forward I put together (a basic income, a gift economy, improved local subsistence in stronger communities, and democratic resource-based planning):
    http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#Four_long(2D)term_heterodox_alternatives

Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective

[Paul Fernhout]

http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#Four_long(2D)term_heterodox_alternatives
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

40% GDP growth last decade; 0% job growth

[Paul Fernhout]

Consider also: http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/the-average-worker-and-the-average-machine

If we can grow the economy 40% without adding new workers last decade, why can we not do it again this decade? Or better, as robots are getting better?
    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

College isn't for everyone but...

[SnowDog74]

Not everyone is a Mark Zuckerberg or a Bill Gates. In fact, there are about 6.7 billion people who aren't Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. There are about 6.7 billion people who aren't Madonna, Michael Jackson or Warren Buffett, also.

We live the Age of Entitlement, where post-boomer parents sought to break from their parents' generation by not telling their kids "no" or treating them as average human beings. Every parent has a tendency to tell their child they're special, that they can do anything... but they can't. Just like I have cerebral palsy and I can't run a four minute mile, there are very few people who can come up with the right idea at the right time in the right set of social, financial and geographical circumstances to be the next Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway*.

But most people aren't going to have that kind of royal flush of timing, circumstances and resources. Consider what it takes academically to get into a Harvard or Stanford, MIT or Princeton... The people who drop out of schools like this already have an intellectual and/or financial advantage over the other 99% of us. So regardless, you're probably going to have to work hard to be in the kind of environments where these people found others to collaborate with and to raise capital to make these startups not end up in the bottomless pit of the ones that failed miserably.

Additionally, consider if Zuckerberg had finished college... he might be less of a robot. I've seen the guy in interviews. If Facebook didn't work out for him, I'm not sure I know anyone who'd want to work with the guy. But college tends to, on average, produce well-rounded human beings with a considerably broader world view than high school graduates. As an employer, if I have a choice between picking some basement dweller who codes exceptionally well, and an affable guy with a college degree who codes equally well, guess who I'll hire 9 times out of 10. But even aside from the numbers, there's value to having more knowledge than simply that which is necessary to be a walking money laundering machine.

The financial analysis presented in the OP as counterpoint to the "stay in school" argument is a bit flawed. For one thing, they compare investing $76,000 (roughly) from high school onward. Can I ask you how many high school graduates have $76,000 saved up? Most people who enter college aren't going to spend $76,000 of their own saved up money, nor given their average income without a college degree are they going to have an easy time saving up that amount of money over even the next ten years afterward. Sure, if you're Warren Buffett then by the time you were 20 you had $90,000 saved up (in 2009 dollars) because you started your first business at age 10... but, again, how many of you did that?

Another point... an undergraduate degree today really is the equivalent of what high school diplomas used to be... It's a minimum requirement in many cases. It doesn't end there. If you really want an edge, a graduate degree is where you're going to need to be. Most of the hardcore software engineering or network engineering jobs I see really require at minimum a BSEE or Comp Sci undergrad degree... unless you want to hit a ceiling and stay there.

The conventional reality is that college grads will either a) borrow, or b) get through on scholarships and grants. The latter come out ahead any way you slice it... because it takes hard work, academic competence, intelligence, and resourcefulness to get scholarships. They don't just fall into your hands. Those people will be successful no matter what, but college gives them an edge by introducing them to even more people, resources and methods to getting something off the ground.

Those who borrow aren't necessarily sunk. When I started college the loans I took were about 8%, and fixed, which in perspective is a pretty good rate for the time... right now, rates are considerably lower. Suffice it to say I consolidated my loans at a fixed 3.37% for the life of the

Re:Put in the time

[Your.Master]

Different people have different learning styles. Personally, I really do learn best sitting with a book on my own.

The primary value of University was:

1. Telling me which books to read in which order in order to get from point A (high school graduate) to point B (what I really wanted to understand).

This really isn't easy to come by even if you technically have all the information before you. Things like OpenCourseWare help, but it doesn't provide the full guide yet.

2. Providing external deadlines.

To be honest, there are boring things I don't care to understand in and of themselves that I do have to understand to comprehend some details of quantum mechanics. In self-study, that's where I would slow down, and it would take me longer in the end. But nobody was putting the brakes on me learning faster on the parts I was more interested in.

3. A set of fellow students who came from a similar point A and heading to a similar point B who I could work with.

Some things are inefficient when done alone. Even for a massive introvert like me.

This is quite aside from the whole "networking" thing, which is also a benefit but I get that you can network on your own.

4. Occasionally assignments were well-crafted to not be busy-work and not just to "test" me, but to make me "independently" guide me to new ideas that turned out to be the breakthrough ideas of the past.

The courses that were closer to pure math were generally best at this, but physics and similar (chemistry, fluid dynamics, etc.) courses could also help with that.

I contend that many to most assignments were bullshit busywork that mostly proved that I wouldn't buckle under pressure rather than being useful in their own right, and I hate those. I think most assignments were worthless. But not all. And part of the key there is for this to work, you have to know that the student has all the pieces of the puzzle before you nudge them to think about something that requires putting them together.

5. A few pieces of paper I could refer to as an affidavit to prove to other people and organisations that I understood what I studied and could take the pressure of a high-stress program, which represent the opinions of dozens of professors (many to most of whom are world-class experts in their respective fields).

Now, as it turns out, I'm not actually a pure programmer or pure IT person like many on slashdot, so while "write open source code" can be helpful in accomplishing the same goal for some people (just as having a personal portfolio can help for an artist), it's difficult for me to demonstrate some of my engineering skills that require a lot of very expensive, very immobile equipment to demonstrate my skill. Plus you have to get people on the OSS project to accept you.

I'm sure not all of these points apply to others. I'm sure some people find a lot of value from lectures, or office hours, or access to certain rare resources their University has (eg. a student-run nuclear reactor, a rare books library which unfortunately has not been digitized, etc.). And after your "10000 hours" or however long it is, work experience and references will tend to trump point 5.

Re:Rich parents helped Bill Gates more than colleg

[shentino]

Seems there's no escaping class warfare after all.

Easy...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Ever since Gates and Zuckerberg are and you're not, sucka.

The larger conversation here

[cavebison]

is probably whether the significant costs of getting an education in the US is having a detrimental effect on your society at a whole. If everyone was able to get a post-high-school education of some kind, would you have so many kooks, right-wingers, Palins and tea-party-ers storming around tearing up public discussion and making your country (sorry but) look more and more like a dangerous circus.

Seriously, if the US wasn't still such an economic power, you'd be a laughing stock. You now have the Colbert/John Stewart Rally for Reasonableness, or whatever it's called. Surely they teach reasonableness in university and a lot of people are missing out on it.

If I were to give a piece of advice to the US Gov't, it would be to make education cheaper, more accessible, and get rid of INTEREST payments on government education loans (that's simply a travesty).

Unless you want to be overtaken by every Asian country in the world and be relegated to a backwater has-been, apart from exorcising the scourge of public discourse that is ignorance, facilitate a good education in all your citizens!

And

[mahadiga]

Isn't Bill Gates endorsing http://www.khanacademy.org/

Re:Put in the time

[tehcyder]

My point, don't jump into a field because it looks like a shoe in for employment now - things change.

But if you train as an accountant, then as long as there are businesses and money you should be able to get some sort of job. You might not be guaranteed a job as a Partner in KPMG or Finance Director of ICI, but then, you never were.

Similarly, if you train as a nurse, there are always going to be sick people needing care one way or another.

For most people, there aren't highly paid jobs for life - your parents need to be in the rich club for that to happen.

My problem with ECPI/Devry/Phonex/Miller Motte/etc

[Junta]

I don't know enough to say they don't provide sufficent material. I have no doubt that talented people may elect to go there, but the signal-to-noise ratio is more horrid than average on those candidates. I have not yet started to actually dismiss resumes having one of these institutions on it, but every candidate with that credential so far has made me want to.

I attribute it to:
-Laxer standards to get through. All of my batches that 'successfully' made it through had extraordinarily dubious capability when it came to technical problem solving.

-People intoxicated by the 'get-rich-quick' style ads they push. Another common theme was that most showed no particular inclination to the tech industry. Sure, they try to say the 'right' things in terms of interest, but you can tell when someone is just doing it for money rather than particular interest in the field. This not only exacerbates the previous issue, it also means they are not at all likely to keep skills updated when there is time. Other candidates seem more likely to actively seek training inside work and even outside work. They will spend idle moments reading up on technical news. People not inherently interested in the field will ignore training and read fark in their idle time at work.

Not a single candidate has been turned away due to this so far, but all have been turned away for failing the skills assessment. Those degrees have rapidly joined a rather large number of 'certifications' as cash grabs by institutions with no promise of greater value of the candidate.

But as you say..

[Junta]

You don't have to tell them you have a particular degree and they'll probably never know.

Conversely, if you lie about having a degree when you do not, most companies will catch that lie and immediately cancel hiring you.

The Value of College

[redbaritone]

One thing that is not mentioned, that needs to be, is the difference between an education and a college degree. Right now, some employers look very hard at a college degree as an important factor in hiring. Actually, it's only important to get your foot in the door. Once that happens, the interview becomes the overriding factor. I postulate that this terrible economy will make the lack of a college degree less of an issue. However, the lack of an education or relevant experience will still prevent you from getting the job. The reason I point this out is that there are now alternatives to a traditional college education. These alternatives are capable of competing directly with college in helping one receive a quality education.

The example that comes to mind is the free website www.khanacademy.org, which Bill Gates has recently publicized. No, you don't get a college degree by finishing the coursework, but I would argue that as much or more learning takes place here as with any traditional college education. Take out the sorority parties, the textbooks, the professors, the football games and general socializing, but as far as learning goes, what's left is not so different. As more and more topics are added, the difference will be even less. One difference might be the ability to look at a professor and raise your hand to ask a direct question. You can still ask questions with some online learning solutions, and it has the added benefit of not being potentially embarrassing.

There are other things to consider. In the programming world, the best résumé is an active github account. A potential employer can go there and actually peruse some of your source code and other contributions you've made to an open source project. No college degree can do that. As more and more employees make use of this, the less important a college degree becomes.

The point is, the real difference right now is a perceptual one. Once that goes away, an expensive college degree will not be the only option. Colleges and Universities should be very afraid, IMHO.