Be True To Your CS School: LinkedIn Ranks US Schools For Job-Seeking Programmers

theodp writes "The Motley Fool reports that the Data Scientists at LinkedIn have been playing with their Big Data, ranking schools based on how successful recent grads have been at landing desirable software development jobs. Here's their Top 25: CMU, Caltech, Cornell, MIT, Princeton, Berkeley, Univ. of Washington, Duke, Michigan, Stanford, UCLA, Illinois, UT Austin, Brown, UCSD, Harvard, Rice, Penn, Univ. of Arizona, Harvey Mudd, UT Dallas, San Jose State, USC, Washington University, RIT. There's also a shorter list for the best schools for software developers at startups, which draws a dozen schools from the previously mentioned schools, and adds Columbia, Univ. of Virginia, and Univ. of Maryland College Park. If you're in a position to actually hire new graduates, how much do you care about applicants' alma maters?

Comments

In theory

[smittyoneeach]

In theory, schools can act as a crap filter for workers.
"The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory."--some C++ Users Journal article

Re:In theory

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, schools can act as a crap filter for workers.

In theory. In practice, I test employees myself (and ask them to show me something they've done) and hire self-educated individuals because I know that schools pump out lots of trash.

Re:In theory

[Anonymous Coward]

a) CS is not programming
b) CS attracts many people who are terrible employees
c) Getting hired in college screens out the good ones; the grads looking for jobs failed to get employed during college
d) CS without understanding computers or programming is all to common from the +- 1 std dev colleges.

Having hired programmers now for two decades, The lowerer end colleges seem to crate a disproportionately high fraction of adequate programmers, and the best schools do create insightful computer scientists, but the 65% or so haven't given me many good employees.

Re:In theory

[shoor]

Hmmm, I really like that saying, but I learned it as
"In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they're different." It might even be a Unix fortune. I've seen it attributed to Yogi Berra. (A lot of things are attributed to Yogi Berra by the way, "Deja Vu all over again" is another one.)

In my day (and I'm old enough to have actually seen Yogi Berra play, though he was in the outfield by then), computers were not that common, so going to school was a place to have access to a computer. I did notice that by the 1990s, employers would give you some kind of test to make sure you weren't a fraud during the job interview, no matter what your resume said.

Re: In theory

[reanjr9417]

Perhaps, but CS graduates have even larger holes.

Re: In theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people who were born to code almost always find a paid outlet for their talents before graduation?

In my case I didn't have time to chase a big box degree. I went to the nearest public uni without regard to no-name status, and I got my cred. It openened the right doors...decent pay at startups in the suburbs, because screw expensive cities, and screw chosing between low standard of living and soul-sucking long commutes.

That is why big tech is clamoring for more import labor and why they feel a shortage of decent talent...nobody who has half a brain would choose that lifestyle unless they were desperate for a job, and you don't have to even with a no name degree. Do I want to live in sausagefest bay area where I'm only rich on paper and struggling to make obsene rents? Do I want to live in a cold wet depressionfest and date the local diabetes patients just to say I work for Microsoft? Do I want to live in a big northeastern city past its prime where you pay all of your salary in taxes to line the pockets of the local mob and date all those extra single ladies the dating studies talk about (all of whom are post-menopausal)?

My no name small company has no problem at all finding great talent. Pay is good and the area is cheap and nice; a place where you'd want to live.

Problem is for them name brand idiots...nobody stays naÃve for long. You need an indentured servant you can force to stay to keep somebody around. Because smart people optimize, and when they see they're getting the shaft they leave!

Re:In theory

[The Ickle Jones]

Self taught programmers have huge holes in their knowledge that they don't even know they have.

A hasty generalization which could be applied to graduates as well.

Re: In theory

[Anonymous Coward]

A reason to get a Master's!

Only a fool would characterize a generalization as hazy!

Re:In theory

[ShanghaiBill]

Bullshit. Self taught programmers have huge holes in their knowledge that they don't even know they have.

That depends on how good they were at self-teaching. If you just dive in and start coding, there will be plenty of holes because you don't learn the theory behind the code. But if, in addition to the coding, you also read a few CS textbooks from cover to cover, you will be fine.

My experience is that many self-taught programmers lack understanding of theoretical things like finite automata, data normalization, complexity theory, program correctness, data structure design, etc. But it is much easier to teach that stuff to a bright kid, than it is to get productive programming out of someone that went to college for four years without learning it.

Re:In theory

[Bengie]

Most trash I know has a grasp on practice, but doesn't understand theory. They have hard time understanding edge cases or scaling. The opposite is knowing theory but no practice, but anyone can get practice. It's hard to get theory self taught, the internet is sparsely populated with good theory and lots of bad ideas. Plenty of code examples.

Re:In theory

[mjwalshe]

A greeded I remember one Graduate at BT commenting "oh 3db isn't much"

Re: In theory

[internerdj]

Lucky. You've only had to deal with the eureka moments when they discover something old. The trouble comes when they've wasted a week on a problem that a 2nd year CS student would know from sight or worse they've put it in the code and now someone has to find their race condition.

Re: In theory

[AnontheDestroyer]

Do you even realize how much your inferiority complex is showing here? I don't know whether to down vote, or reply and point it out. You need a whole new perspective on life, as essentially nothing you've said in your post is commensurate with reality. Your place is cheap because few people want to live there. Your company is a no-name because they're probably not doing anything important. That's the most likely circumstance anyway - you probably have not found a diamond in the rough, and your portrayal of what others find to be the more desirable alternative just moves you further into a deficit.

Re:In theory

[__aaclcg7560]

d) CS without understanding computers or programming is all to common from the +- 1 std dev colleges.

When I worked for the Google help desk in 2008, I had to explain to an software engineer that he needed to physically turn on the computer by pressing the button. He was shocked to discover that PCs don't turn themselves on in his pressence. Many software engineers are overly clueless about the basic functionality of PCs.

Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

A huge number of software development jobs don't require a CS degree, including many highly paid positions. In fact, having a CS degree may reduce the odds of being hired for some positions. It seems the trend of misunderstanding the term "computer science" hasn't lost any momentum.

Re:Missing the point

[jones_supa]

I would say that it's the opposite: B.Sc. is the new high school diploma. Highly recommended.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

I have a GED, and I assure you I earn substantially more than most CS graduates. Additionally, I continue to note a marked absence of (1) actual programming ability, (2) knowledge of even the most rudimentary information security practices, and (3) adequate understanding of core systems principles among recent CS graduates. Perhaps your perspective is the result of having grown acclimated to working with people with substantially reduced capabilities.

Re:Missing the point

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's mighty nice, but I'd expect people with higher CS degrees to work chiefly as researchers, not as security hole pluggers. Unless of course their CS specialization was principled security bases on formal methods, in which case they could actually replace a large number of the security hole pluggers.

Re:Missing the point

[Registered Coward v2]

A huge number of software development jobs don't require a CS degree, including many highly paid positions. In fact, having a CS degree may reduce the odds of being hired for some positions. It seems the trend of misunderstanding the term "computer science" hasn't lost any momentum.

While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.

Re:Missing the point

[buddyglass]

Do you think you're representative of most GED-havers? I don't.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

This is the sort of reply I expected, so please allow me to bring my core point into sharper perspective. In the course of my fifteen years of employment in a variety of roles in assorted industries (network infrastructure, hosting, finance, biological sciences, etc), my firsthand experience has been that software developers "lacking" a CS degree have displayed a marked tendency to produce more functional, reasonably secure, and efficient/scalable code than their CS counterparts. They have also, on average, commanded substantially higher salaries in software development roles than their CS counterparts.

Degree mills and some otherwise respected educational institutions may not be happy about these facts, but it's important to note that they're not exclusively to blame for the situation. A computer science degree simply doesn't translate to skill in software development, largely because formal computer science has relatively little to do with programming. Thus, my original post is entitled "missing the point."

I've worked with a few CS graduates who purportedly had a specialized focus on information security. As it turned out, their ability to actually perform in their professional roles was woefully lacking.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

That's a fundamentally flawed statement. The question isn't whether I'm representative of most individuals with GEDs, but whether I'm representative of individuals holding GEDs who happen to have pursued careers involving substantial software development duties. You may wish to reference my last reply for clarification.

On a side note, in my experience these discussions tend to invite emotionally-driven responses from people who spent an awful lot of time and money obtaining a CS degree because somebody told them they needed it to pursue any kind of career associated with information technology. I certainly hope you aren't one of those people.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."

I am perpetually amazed by the volume of collective myth parroting that persists on this topic. To be perfectly clear: lack of a college degree may indeed greatly reduce your chances of employment in many fields, but it matters a hell of a lot less than you've been led to believe for software development and systems/infrastructure positions.

Re:Missing the point

[Soluzar]

That principle hardly holds true for "all things in life". If I claim that the world is flat, and only 4000 years old, while you claim that it is round and actually millions of years old, the truth does not like in the middle. I would be wrong.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

And it sounds like you're defensive because you don't have a CS degree (i.e. you have something to prove).

Not at all. I have zero regrets in this area, mostly due to the fact that I recognized very early on that a CS degree was largely useless for most roles that entail full-time software development responsibilities. Please don't misunderstand me here: I grew up with a bunch of smart people (including CS majors) who wound up attended schools like Georgia Tech, Emory, MIT, and CalTech. Their ability to contribute in properly aligned positions isn't under dispute here.

Here's what I'm really trying to say: of all the programmers I've worked with, the ones producing the best code in terms of functionality, efficiency, and security have almost universally lacked CS degrees. Interestingly enough, I've worked with some very gifted developers who held bachelor's (and in some cases master's) degrees in fields such as psychology, electrical engineering, physics, pure mathematics, and even English literature. The "odd factor" here has been the pronounced absence of CS degrees among that pool of truly able developers.

I have some very simple advice for young people interesting in pursuing software development as a career. Get any job that pays the bills for now, spend every free waking moment actually writing software in a variety of languages and learning about software written by others, become intimately acquainted with a variety of operating systems and toolchains, and start putting information security first in everything you touch. In less time and at considerably lower expense than you would suffered chasing down a CS degree, and armed instead with a portfolio of practical demonstration of skills, you'll have little difficulty obtaining a decent software development position.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

While in practice nothing is perfect, I'd like to add that your mention of "security hole plugging" conveniently ignores the principle that you don't have to plug holes that don't exist in the first place. Abject failure to recognize this point is probably at least half the reason for information security being in its presently deplorable state. Hint: bolt-on approaches to security are typically no security at all.

Re:Missing the point

[Casualposter]

I have two observations: (1) From your command of language, you are not an average GED holder. (2) Your advice to young programmers is virtually the same to that given by Stephen King (and a long list of other authors) to young authors.

Re:Missing the point

[TheLongshot]

While I'd agree with you that having a CS degree isn't required for many jobs in IT, there are plenty of companies who are stuck on requiring a BS or BA degree of some sort to even consider you. So, not having that will limit you somewhat.

I also know having a CS degree alone won't get you jack. You will need some skills beyond the degree to get a job. Then again, the point of a CS degree isn't to train you for a job in the IT field, but to give you the foundation and understanding about how things work with computers, OSs and algorithms, which can help give you a greater understanding on how things work and make learning some concepts easier.

I'd never demean someone for not having a CS degree, since I've known many talented and skilled people without one. That being said, I also know the value of what you learn with a CS degree, and I know that it is more than just a sheet of paper.

Re:Missing the point

[ranton]

That's a fundamentally flawed statement. The question isn't whether I'm representative of most individuals with GEDs, but whether I'm representative of individuals holding GEDs who happen to have pursued careers involving substantial software development duties.

Yes, that is the question, but even in that context I am quite confident saying that most GED holders who attempt a software development career have much less success than your average CS degree holder. Like you I am another exception (in my case I have an online paper mill degree), but at least I am honest enough to understand I am an exception. The University of Phoenix classmates who I have links to in LinkedIn are all working either in some crummy retail job or at best are doing tech support jobs. The only exceptions are those who already worked in the field but just needed a degree to advance further (like me). I only know a couple GED holders who wanted careers in tech, and one works at Best Buy while the other installs satellite dishes.

On a side note, in my experience these discussions tend to invite emotionally-driven responses from people who spent an awful lot of time and money obtaining a CS degree because somebody told them they needed it to pursue any kind of career associated with information technology.

That swings both ways, as most people with poor academic credentials also provide emotionally-driven responses in an attempt to prove to themselves that their lack of a degree is not a disadvantage. Any person who uses ridiculous arguments such as using their own unique success story as some kind of proof is either really bad at logical reasoning or has a big chip on their shoulder.

Re:Missing the point

[lgw]

To put it a different way: a CS degree is a sort of crap filter. Succeeding in the field without any degree at all is a better sort of crap filter, because no one cuts you any slack.

But you won't make it far as a dev without some serious self-education, just like the guy with the CS degree won't make it far without some serious forgetting of BS learned about performance of code that runs on a whiteboard (fortunately for the latter, many forget the day after finals).

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

I think I understand the core premise you're trying to convey here, but I must stress the point that in practice people holding a CS degree tend to demonstrate lower actual programming and systems engineering ability than their non-CS peers. This is the real world fallout from the common misconception that computer science graduates are well suited to software development roles. As a rule, they tend to be a poor fit for such jobs.

As for companies "requiring" a BS or BA degree, I've never encountered substantial resistance in this area. Perhaps it's more accurate to say I've made a point of circumventing such barriers without a second thought. Regardless of what any given HR department might stipulate for job requirements, I've found that communicating demonstrable proof of ability to solve relevant problems to a handful of people in any given business tends to result in an interview, and I've rarely gone through more than one interview before being offered a position.

Establishing direct contact with people who will actually evaluate candidates on their technical merits is easier than ever these days owing to the prevalence of social media networks. On a related note, I once knew a human resources recruiter who was aggressively opposed to employees directly reaching out to candidates. That HR recruiter isn't employed anymore.

Re:Missing the point

[lgw]

While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.

In the field of software development, which is the topic at hand, it only matters for your first job (unless you work for the government). Getting that first job is a bitch, however.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

I don't disagree with your observations, but in reply I have two of my own: (1) the average GED holder doesn't pursue a career involving substantial software development duties, but a substantial number of gifted developers have GEDs, and (2) I wish more people would make the connection you just nailed. In many cases, software development is much more a creative art than it is an abstract and dry discipline, with the caveat that it by necessity involves a measure of structured thought as well (just as [most] novels follow certain structural principles).

Re:Missing the point

[ranton]

Here's what I'm really trying to say: of all the programmers I've worked with, the ones producing the best code in terms of functionality, efficiency, and security have almost universally lacked CS degrees. Interestingly enough, I've worked with some very gifted developers who held bachelor's (and in some cases master's) degrees in fields such as psychology, electrical engineering, physics, pure mathematics, and even English literature. The "odd factor" here has been the pronounced absence of CS degrees among that pool of truly able developers.

I have noticed a similar effect in a few software development teams I have done consulting work with. One byproduct of not paying high enough salaries is that you get people who had trouble finding work elsewhere. The two most common types who take these jobs are bad CS majors and talented non-CS majors whose lack of a relevant degree hurts their hire-ability elsewhere.

Even at places that do pay well, it is quite likely that some of the best developers will have non-CS degrees. Since it is less likely that they would succeed in the industry, only the best of the best find jobs and keep employed. They can't just fall back on having that CS degree during the job search. But if you see an English major working as a software developer, that person probably is quite accomplished or how would they have been hired in the first place.

But at all places I have worked where the vast majority of co-workers are top-notch, the vast majority of the developers had CS or engineering degrees (which aren't much different in this field unless you want to work in research).

Re: Missing the point

[reanjr9417]

It's absolutely true - depending on your location. In Cali, yes, you can have a successful career without an education. In the industrial Midwest, not so much. It's still possible, but lacking a degree really holds you back from big companies. And outside of startup friendly places like Austin and CA, big companies is where the jobs are.

Re:Missing the point

[Greyfox]

That's what I've found, too. I have more luck just seeing if someone will work with a team well, rather than look at their degree status. I'd take a kid with a high school diploma and a few open source projects out on github if I think he'll work on my team well. Unfortunately those are just the sort of people HR usually filters out.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

Any person who uses ridiculous arguments such as using their own unique success story as some kind of proof is either really bad at logical reasoning or has a big chip on their shoulder.

I've quoted that specific bit of your reply because it succinctly summarizes the flawed nature of your thought process on this matter. The fact that most GED holders don't attempt careers in software development is irrelevant. However, it is highly relevant that GED holders and/or high school or college graduates with degrees completely unrelated to computer science tend to be better programmers.

That swings both ways, as most people with poor academic credentials also provide emotionally-driven responses in an attempt to prove to themselves that their lack of a degree is not a disadvantage.

This doesn't make any sense in context. I have nothing to prove for myself; I already earn a very good salary and have excellent mobility in several fields. I'm attempting to get people to take a moment to consider whether their established beliefs on the topic at hand have any grounding in reality, because it is my direct experience (and not just for myself, including many others as well) that those beliefs are fundamentally flawed. Degree mills are certainly making a tidy profit convincing people otherwise, though.

Re:Missing the point

[ranton]

While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.

This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."

While a degree does not prevent workers from getting most jobs once they have 5+ years of experience and a proven track record, it is very useful in getting into the industry. People who started their careers in the 90s or between '03-'06 didn't have this worry because of how well the economy was doing, but right now a degree is more important than ever. It is hard for people even with degrees to find work now, let alone those trying to prove themselves with nothing going for them.

Re:Missing the point

[Niris]

Even with the skills to work there, your company sounds like a place I'd want to avoid based on your attitudes. What's the turn over rate?

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

But you won't make it far as a dev without some serious self-education

Absolutely agreed. The key point here is that someone with a serious interest in software development can obtain an entry-level position with entry-level responsibilities, and dedicate the next couple of years to serious self-education while getting paid, instead of paying someone else for a piece of paper that doesn't mean anything in practice.

This results in an employee who has already demonstrated the ability to amass continued education on his own, which is actually the most critical quality of all for a successful career.

Re: Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

Please name five companies you believe represent a significant challenge in this area. I'll obtain offers from all of them within 30 days.

Re:Missing the point

[ranton]

The fact that most GED holders don't attempt careers in software development is irrelevant.

I already agree with you in my earlier post that this is irrelevant. It was the first thing I addressed.

However, it is highly relevant that GED holders and/or high school or college graduates with degrees completely unrelated to computer science tend to be better programmers.

Also irrelevant. Someone without a CS degree who works as a software developer is very likely to be an autodidact, which is very useful in this field. So any non-CS degree holder working in this field would have to be compared to a CS degree holder who is also an autodidact if your comparison is going to be valid. And CS majors who who motivated enough to be good developers even before entering college are most likely to be the best software engineers in the industry. They are the ones who become published as undergrads and get the truly great jobs after college.

I have nothing to prove for myself; I already earn a very good salary and have excellent mobility in several fields.

If you were just here telling people that there are other routes to success in the software development industry than a CS degree, I wouldn't think you have a chip on your shoulder. But your comments instead come off as trolling. I have yet to meet a GED holder in person who was self motivated enough to build a great career, and based on my small town upbringing I know a lot of GED holders. Obviously there will be exceptions, and perhaps you are one, but like I said before you mostly just sound like a troll who is trying to rile people up.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

When it comes to experience, I think the real problem is that people simply aren't okay with the concept of "starting off in the mail room" anymore. Folks in their twenties have this idea that they're going to obtain a piece of paper than will entitle them to a sizable salary straight out the gate from college. Meanwhile, the folks who actually have real talent and passion for the work will have obtained whatever job they could at any number of companies, and within five years will have tripled their salaries by moving to more desired positions after demonstrated their growth and ideas internally.

I can understand a person who has just spent a horrendous amount of money on a piece of paper being keenly interested in immediate relief from that debt, but that isn't reality, although it does appear to be a self-perpetuating problem.

Re:Missing the point

[0xdeadbeef]

I have a GED, and I assure you I earn substantially more than most CS graduates

You'd think that'd help you deal with your insecurity.

Re: Missing the point

[jordanjay29]

Motorola Epic 3M Seagate Medtronic

Re:Missing the point

[Bengie]

I don't have a CS degree, but I have a similar one. When I was a Freshman back around 2004, one of the fist things I learned in 100s level class was how to use parameterized inputs, and how not to designs your SQL queries to be injectable. That information alone could save the industry billions a year. Bad schools or bad programmers, not sure which.

Re:Missing the point

[roman_mir]

Here is my take on it, I have a number of people from well known schools, same number of people from schools that nobody heard from and in some cases people from unknown schools who dropped out and started working for me when I offered them a job. I have a number of people that had no formal higher education at all and a couple of guys that didn't know much about computers before they started here.

AFAIC I care about the attitude, I care that the person can work within a team, that I can work with the person, whether they are eager to learn. This is a starting job for all of the people I hire, very few of them worked in the field before, I do not pay much but that is also part of the equation. The people that do not have student debts do not have the same problem as those with debt, they don't need to try and get a highly paid position right away and so they can afford to work with me, where they are gaining more than enough experience so that eventually they are propelled to better paying jobs.

I will say this: I have about equal number of good coders, whether they had any formal computer science training or not, but I go through many people to find good ones but it does not take much time at all to know who is who. Just in the last 2 months I interviewed about 15 people, 3 of them ended up with me, 2 are going to be excellent developers. Out of the 15, 4 decided it was too hard in the first 3 days. 2 decided that they made a mistake and shouldn't be in this field right during our meeting.

In the interview all I do is I show them what we do, how we work, ask them what they like to do and explain the structure here: you are studying here before I put you on an actual paying project. I teach you what you need to know and while I am teaching you, I am not paying you anything. Normally takes 2-3 weeks for a developer to go through training and start being productive. This is my way of doing stuff, I do not care where you studied, what you think you know, I only care to figure out if you are OK for the team and if you can learn and have the right attitude for this company.

Re:Missing the point

[Registered Coward v2]

This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."

I am perpetually amazed by the volume of collective myth parroting that persists on this topic. To be perfectly clear: lack of a college degree may indeed greatly reduce your chances of employment in many fields, but it matters a hell of a lot less than you've been led to believe for software development and systems/infrastructure positions.

Once someone has a ton of experience a degree certainly doesn't limit you, especially if you do contract work where specific skill set is need for a limited amount of time, most HS graduates lack that experience and neve will get a foot in the door. Also, anecdote is not the singular of data.

Re:Missing the point

[Registered Coward v2]

While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.

In the field of software development, which is the topic at hand, it only matters for your first job (unless you work for the government). Getting that first job is a bitch, however.

True, and TFA was about recent grads and jobs; to which your comment about a first job is relevant and demonstrates the importance of a degree.

Re:Missing the point

[buddyglass]

The question isn't whether I'm representative of most individuals with GEDs, but whether I'm representative of individuals holding GEDs who happen to have pursued careers involving substantial software development duties.

I assumed that was implied. My mistake. To clarify, I don't think you're representative of individuals with GEDs who have pursued careers in software development. I will suggest that a random high school student who has just finished his junior year and who wants a career in software would be better served by finishing high school and getting a 4-year C.S. degree (from the highest-ROI university available to him) than he would by getting a GED and spending the next five years doing something else.

Re:Missing the point

[parkinglot777]

my firsthand experience has been that software developers "lacking" a CS degree have displayed a marked tendency to produce more functional, reasonably secure, and efficient/scalable code than their CS counterparts.

And that is what I don't understand. Why do people keep relating CS with programming directly? Programming skill is NOT a required skill in the field for CS as long as CS students can get/develop the alogithm to work with any assigned language they work with. In other words, CS students learn to use a language to demonstrate how they understand the concept and are able to implement. They do NOT learn different languages to be an expert in those languages. I know many of my CS friends who understand algorithms but can't really code! That doesn't mean they can't finish the degree, but it means they may not be a good programmer/developer if they are going to work in software development.

PS: It also depends on school they have been to because some schools are more lenient than others in order to get the degree...

Re:Missing the point

[guacamole]

If I bury myself in the parents basement, fill it with PCs and books, learn things on my own, get a junior job and then move up the ranks of the industry, in this sense you can argue that CS degree is not required. In terms of math logic, you statement means that CS degree is not necessary. However, you can't argue with the logic proposition that CS degree is sufficient to break into most junior level developer positions.

Re:Missing the point

[buddyglass]

I can positively say that no company I've worked for in the past 15 years would have hired an 18/19 year old with a GED and no work experience. Even for an entry level position. Though, we're talking about a sample size of five companies, so maybe they're not representative.

Re:Missing the point

[philip.paradis]

Given the length of time we've been going back and forth on this site (and it's been a long time), I propose we meet in person. Please reach out to me here if you're interested. If you don't know why you should be interested, please disregard this reply and have a nice day.

what you've done is more important than where

[Anonymous Coward]

Some industries tend to hire only from "top" schools because it's a marker for social class, background, or other characteristic desired in the industry.

If your business is looking for a "connection" back to some specific person at that school, then the new grad might serve as a conduit.

However, for straight up technical work, I'm more interested in what experience the new grad has. Are they a specialist in a narrow field?(great if I need that field, not so great otherwise) Does their work show that they are adaptable? (the project you get hired for is often not the project you'll be working on next year) Do they have communication skills, both written and spoken? (these days, fewer jobs are "head down in a cubicle grinding out code", and you ALWAYS need to be able describe what it is you're doing) Does the person have a big picture understanding of how what they do fits into the overall scheme of things? (or, are they a "I process data I receive according to the algorithm I receive and produce data, and I do not care where it comes from or where it goes") I'm always interested to know whether they have independent ideas. Did they just do the homework and assigned projects, or did they come up with something interesting on their own. What other projects have they done, and in what fields. Are they a "everything I do and breathe is in one language because, truly it is the one true language", or do they dabble in other areas.

Are they doing what they do because the like doing it, or because some sort of analysis said "this is the most profitable investment of your time" or "my parents said I should do this" or "I have analyzed it, and Stanford provided the best ROI even though I hate California"

Re:what you've done is more important than where

[guacamole]

In my opinion, other things being equal, the businesses hiring from the top schools are right. My background is in a bit of math and cs from one of the schools on the list above, and let me tell you I have been surprised by the mediocrity of the training people from "lesser" schools had. A guy with a math degree from a prestigious Southern university didn't know what a "proof by induction" is. I was shocked. I don't think we need to discuss the importance of understanding the concept of induction for either math or coding.

2 Many Variables for the School to be 1st priority

[rmdingler]

The factors associated choosing a university, at seventeen or eighteen years young, are often a combination of location, price, opportunity, and parental preference.

Though there tends to be an irrational tribal loyalty to one's alma mater, hiring properly should primarily consider how the individual's talents (& weaknesses) fit the opening and the firm.

Ringknockers

[geekmux]

"f you're in a position to actually hire new graduates, how much do you care about applicants' alma maters?

Let's put this another way. If that is a priority, I doubt I'm going to be interested in working for them.

Clearly they're focusing on the wrong thing, usually brought on by elitism.

Skills are what is important after college, and I'm not talking about how you earned your way into the Kegga-Chugga-Puk frat house.

Re:Ringknockers

[cshotton]

I'd second this. We've run into lots of companies that have a culture based on hiring from schools on the "list". It breeds an arrogant, insular engineering culture that generally ends up drunk on its own Kool Aid and very difficult to manage. I hire people based on their successes, their personality, their motivation, and their fit to the existing team. Blindly including/excluding candidates based on their diploma shows a distinct lack of insight into what makes a creative, well-rounded, productive software engineer.

Re:Ringknockers

[lgw]

Let's put this another way. If that is a priority, I doubt I'm going to be interested in working for them.

Clearly they're focusing on the wrong thing, usually brought on by elitism

I've never cared much about a candidate's education, nor has any hiring manager I've worked with, but HR drones do for your first job, because for your first job they have nothing else to filter on. That's a big deal when you're trying to break into the field.

Even more important: the big software companies, which are the best places to start at (long term, career-wise) only actively recruit from schools they see as "top schools". Overt elitism in full force. But your first job isn't about being picky about the day-to-day, it's about launching your career.

Re:Ringknockers

[BarbaraHudson]

But your first job isn't about being picky about the day-to-day, it's about launching your career.

Let me fix that for you. "it's about launching your first career."

The days when people get out of school and stay in one career, or even one field, their entire lives are disappearing faster than a polar bear's natural habitat.

We knew this was going to happen 40 years ago, and yet a generation later we still haven't adapted our thinking. Why not?

Re:Ringknockers

[lgw]

The one field that will never vanish (barring the coming of the Singularity) is software development. When your job is "automating stuff that hasn't yet been automated", you're not going to be automated out of a job. Specific technologies, frameworks, and languages fall by the wayside, but if you're not big on continuing self-study, this field is not for you.

The method used in TFA

[Registered Coward v2]

is basically "if a lot of people leave companies for Company A then A is a desirable place to work; what are the most prevalent schools that A's employees attended." So basically if your goal is to work at A you have a statistically better chance of landing a job if you work at one of the top schools in its list. That says nothing about the quality of the school nor that their grads do any better in terms of percent employees or starting salaries than other schools; nor does it seem to address the experience level of those hired. I also think the results are biased to companies that hire a lot of people each year so you might expect more people to go to them, thus increasing their desirability in Linkedin's model; yet a small company that hires very selectively and is a place many graduates want to work would not impact the school rankings.

As for the question of the impact of an alma mater on hiring, having a highly regarded school on a resume would at least get it a second look; as would having my alma mater on the resume. However, I'd hire the top person at a "lesser" school over someone at the bottom of a more prestigious one. The former shows they have a work ethic and keep their eyes on the prize while they are in college; the latter comes across as someone who just gets by.

As for the "person at the bottom may just be so smart they are bored to tears by their classes and thus basically ignored them while doing something really brilliant" argument; fine, but most work at many companies is routine and boring at some point but you still need it done well. If i really need someone very good at some specific then I can find them; what I don't need is someone who checks out overtime they get asked to d something they find uninteresting.

only US schools?

[hooiberg]

Is it on purpose that there are only American schools? I see nothing from Europe and Japan, for example. It seems terribly unbalanced.

Re:only US schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that is simply because the university quality does vary a lot in US. For example in Finland you can trust that a person with a degree from Backwoods Neverheard University has more or less the same quality educational background than one coming from University of Helsinki. The same probably applies to large parts of Europe.

Re:only US schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it on purpose that there are only American schools? I see nothing from Europe and Japan, for example. It seems terribly unbalanced.

Did you even read the title? "linked in ranks US schools..."

Re:only US schools?

[BarbaraHudson]

I was up for a role in NYC last year and a good 40% of the interview was about 'my school' which is totally bonkers because I graduated in 1978. WTF does that matter today but apparently it does to some recruiters. Far less it seems than my ability to do the job.

It matters to recruiters because they don't have the ability to actually scientifically measure how good one candidate is compared to another. Since they can't measure something essential, they measure something else and hope nobody will notice that they haven't got a clue. Hence the whole "keyword-matching" stupidity.

It's the whole "if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem all over again.

If they could actually measure your ability to do they job, they would. They can't, so the fake it until they make it.

Another major problem.

[queazocotal]

This is not statistics done on those doing CS degrees, and their employment outcomes.
It's statistics done on linkedin members who have done CS degrees, and their employment outcomes.

Perhaps there is a substantial slice of CS grads who don't do linkedin, and that population is not representative of the sampled one.

Re: Another major problem.

[reanjr9417]

Or perhaps there are a lot of washed up CS grads on linked in who don't mention it because they've moved to a different career where they can be more useful.

Alma mater maters but not because of their quality

[iceco2]

A candidates school(s) definitely come into my hiring considerations. Especially as a tie breaker or when their is little other information to go on.
This is not because I think the top schools teach you so much more than other schools, The big difference is in who gets accepted in the first place.
Top schools screening process are reasonably correlated with qualities I look for in a candidate and therefor are valuable input to my hiring decision.

Re:Unimportant

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a degree just proves that you can work to reach a set goal.

Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of incredibly lazy people come from schools; I guess they were too used to being spoon fed. The self-educated ones seem to have the most drive.

Having a degree also typically (but not always) means you've bought into the false notion that colleges and universities are nothing but job training facilities. Some recognize the value of being well-rounded and understanding the universe around you and do not prioritize jobs over those, but everyone else is just making colleges and universities into half-assed trade schools where you get the worst of both worlds.

Eh

[Niris]

I'm sure those schools do have really good programs, and I know my school had a mediocre computer science department (graduated about a year ago), but what I've noticed really separates good and bad developers is their drive to continue learning and making things because they enjoy it. If people like programming, they'll be really damn good at it, no matter where they went to school. Hell, I would say some of the best developers I've met either didn't go to school or majored in unrelated fields and just learned at work (mind you this was back in the 90s/early 2000s when they did it) and their free time.

Informatics run by a bunch of lightweights

[deodiaus2]

A serious study would fold in far more information, which ironically is accessible.
It would be interesting if I could enter my transcripts for college as well as grades which could be used for "future predictions". Even things like certificates and "specific job skills" could be added to really drill down to estimation. Moreover, there are "test companies" which could evaluate one's knowledge of Java or C#, which could be tied into a knowledge management and evaluation system. The problem is to get enough statistics entered as well as insuring that the data is correct. The other issue is to make sure that one is not comparing apples to oranges. An intro CS course at MIT is not the same as one at Harvard Extension School taught by U. Lowell's finest who could not get a real day job and have time "to teach".

CS is (extreamly) soft morph between EE and Math

[epwpixieqneg1]

A simple opinion based on personal observations having passed via EE, Math and CS degrees and heaving thought core CS (math) subjects. CS degree is not something I would recommend for someone to get/invest into. It is some kind of morph between (extreamly soft) EE and (soft) Math degrees. If people are interested in ether EE,Physics or Math they should go for it, for the sake of loving the subject and experienencing the hard problems they model from the real world. If for the sake of carier safety they need to learn the CRAFT of coding, so be it, for It is highly likely that at the end 50% - 60% of these people will work in software development field anyway, But their experience and aquired knowledge of solving problems will be more valuable in the software development field when NOT coming form, what is considered, CS background.

This is a bad criterion

[superwiz]

Poorly designed projects provide more job security and require more labor to maintain. They are managed by people who don't understand that their projects are sinking or do understand it, but don't understand why that's happening. And, of course, they require more employees. The people who manage them select people who are willing to suffer the pain of being inefficient because those doing the selection don't understand the benefits of increased efficiency. The result is that more jobs is not an indication of a better education. More jobs going to graduates of these schools can very well be an indication of their alumni having been educated in how things were done before better methods were invented.

the conflict in modern programming culture

[superwiz]

The conflict in modern programming is between code monkeys and math brains. Both are dismissive of the other. The code monkeys think the math brains overcomplicate things. The math brains think the code monkeys don't understand the problems they are solving.

Re:the conflict in modern programming culture

[superwiz]

Because they reinvent the wheel. They themselves are only necessary because they have fooled the world into thinking that they are. Code (any code written in text) is best written by machines. It can be just as easily generated once the problems are well-posed. It's just that most people don't realize it, yet. The math brains have the know-how to state the complex problems. They just don't all know that it's what they should be doing. Once they do, the code monkeys will go the way of all the people doing arithmetic really, really well. It's not an insult. It's just that certain skills can be automated. And all, without exception, skills of the code monkeys can automated my grammar notwithstanding.

interview questions

[deodiaus2]

I have had interviews where the questions asked were not in my forte. I studied math, but worked as programmer for most of my life. At my university, I remember seeing certain classes taught for different audiences. Numerical analysis taught for CS majors was completely different than that taught for math majors. CS people devoted a lot of time to computational complexity formulations for various sort algorithms and approximations to those. Math numerical analysis chose different problems to study. Even year to year, the math problems studied varied based on the professor.
Take differential equations. DE for engineers emphasized recognizing and memorizing certain route formulations for solving "standard classical problems." DE for mathematicians involved heavy theorem proving and esoteric questions like "existence solutions". Engineers would laugh, saying why the hell would we need to know that? Well, the answer is simple. Most of the easy differential equations that "you can solve" can be solved by looking it up in a book or these days, via Google. However, in the real world, you will most likely encounter fresh ill-posed "one of a kind" DEs. Another example happened when an engineer asked me help with solving sets of DE when the Space Shuttle's robotic arm hit an object. The way that we formulated the solution then was completely wrong. To deal with the impulse event, we switched from a high order RK method so a lower order approximation after impact.
When I took my GREs in math, I bombed my DEs part. Well, the reason is that all of the questions asked focused on the Advanced Nonsense taught to EEs and not on stuff which I was taught.
Years later, I had the exact same problem during an interview with Microsoft. I didn't do well because the sort of questions asked came from the CS school rather than the math school. I don't mind that, but I resented him because he just thought that the interviewer dismissed me as an idiot or fraud because I did not know the answers to his questions. Had he said, "Well, you just MIGHT know your shit, but it is not the shit that we do here, and I do not have a way of evaluating your skill set," I would have accepted that compromise.

depends upon variables!

[globaljustin]

If you're in a position to actually hire new graduates, how much do you care about applicants' alma maters?

depends on the school!

some schools matter, and some do not....and some that matter are a benefit, and some are a drawback!

if an applicant came from a program that distinguishes itself among others by *requiring all grads to make a capstone project* for example...that could be a point in the applicants favor over others who did not do a capstone

I dropped out - Im doing fine

[anthony_greer]

I dropped out of college, moved out of state and in the course of 15 months, tripled my salary...I make more than any of my friends...so where do i fall on this chart?

and really - why should I go back and finish? Whats the point, more debt??????

Also, nothing against SJ State, but...

[Gordo_1]

isn't it on this list largely due to its proximity to Silicon Valley? You'd think that the number of applications to work at tech companies in the valley coming from SJ State would be off the charts to begin with due to it being in the middle of the valley... I'm sure Georgia State has a reasonable CS program too, but few if any applications from there would be going to companies in Silicon Valley. Does that make SJ State a meaningful CS job target or just a beneficiary of location?

Though not a perfect measure by any means, I think it would be more interesting to see the CS job acceptance rates coming out these schools and the average starting salary for each.

Re:Also, nothing against SJ State, but...

[russotto]

For some reason, according to Wired, SJSU is a major feeder for Apple and feeds to Yahoo as well, but not so much to other tech companies. Not sure why, though my guess would be there's a "critical mass" of SJSU alums at Apple.

Re:Also, nothing against SJ State, but...

[__aaclcg7560]

I had roommate who spent $25,000 at SJSU to earn a bachelor degree in automotorive industrial design because he likes cars. Never mind that he couldn't get a job in California with that degree (this was years before Telsa set up shop in Silicon Valley). He went on to make a fine career in warehouse logistics. If that doesn't qualify as a worthless college degree, I don't know what does.

Re:Also, nothing against SJ State, but...

[__aaclcg7560]

SJSU isn't considered to be an engineering school. Although it did have a fine electrical engineering program in the 1980's and 1990's, providing many engineers to the companies that put the silicon into Silicon Valley. Apple and Yahoo probably prefer liberal arts majors over engineering majors.

Say what now?

[SuperKendall]

However, it is highly relevant that GED holders and/or high school or college graduates with degrees completely unrelated to computer science tend to be better programmers.

Where do you get that from?

I have indeed met a lot of great programmers that did not have CS degrees. But I've met even MORE programmers that were not great or even coming close to it, that did not have CS degrees...

I would say that overall a CS major has a base level of competence above non-CS holders. But I've never seen a study or in decades of practical experience seen anything to back up the claim you are making...

For what it's worth I have both a GED *and* a CS degree.

Re:CS is (extreamly) soft morph between EE and Mat

[phantomfive]

A simple opinion based on personal observations having passed via EE, Math and CS degrees and heaving thought core CS (math) subjects.

But clearly not a grammar class........

Re:Alma mater maters but not because of their qual

[mjwalshe]

ah selecting people like me you mean :-)

Ranking colleges based on their products

[managerialslime]

I've been hiring both interns and recent grads from engineering and programming positions since 1981 when I first hired a dozen interns out of Drexel.

While MIT and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute interns and grads have impressed me as hands-down the most brilliant, Drexel students are usually the most prepared for the challenges of every-day work life with Rowan University (formerly Glassboro State) coming in somewhat behind Drexel. (Based on my experiences, Drexel's 5-year program that includes 4 six-month internships should be adopted EVERYWHERE).

Mind you, I usually see applicants only from North Eastern colleges, but over the years it means I've probably hired more than 200 of these individuals.

[Unfortunately, I've never even gotten a resume from anyone from my alma mater, the University of Bridgeport, in response to a want-ad, so I can't say good or ill of UB products.]

Re:The role of the school is ...

[__aaclcg7560]

The slashdot crowd (wrong) assumption that as anyone can successfully self-teach himself to a successful career.

As a fat white boy misdiagnosed as mentally retarded by the education system, the role of the school was to collect three times the funding while treating me like an idiot. (Never mind that I routinely blew out the annual evaluation exams on the genius side, as those were all statistical flukes.) If I wanted to learn anything, I had to teach myself on my own time. I graduated the eigth grade with a college-level reading comprehension and fifth-grade English/math skills. After skipping high school and being turned away from the G.E.D. program (it would take me five years to get a diploma), I enrolled in the community college and earned my A.A. degree in general education in four years. A decade later I went back to college to get my A.S. degree in computer programming on a part-time basis while working 80 hours a week as a lead video game tester, making the president's list for maintaining a 4.0GPA in my major.

As an experienced computer technician, I make more money than the high school and college graduates in my family. If I had accepted what I learned in school, I would probably be an uneducated idiot.

Re:CS is (extreamly) soft morph between EE and Mat

[guacamole]

EE deals with hardware. Math deals with abstractions, structures, and all that. CS is a lot more than these two IMO. You don't learn CS theory, algorithms, the coding paradigms, or software engineering principles in either Math or EE fields. I used to work as a sysadmin in a leading math department and I saw no indication that the mathematicians are specially more adept at coding or even using computers. The ones who were experts in computing and coding actually chose to do so.