Slashdot Mirror
The Danger of Picking a Major Based On Where the Jobs Are
theodp writes: In his new book Will College Pay Off?, Wharton professor Peter Cappelli argues that banking on a specialized degree's usefulness is risky, especially since one reason some jobs are in high demand is that no one predicted that they would be. "A few generations ago," notes Cappelli, "the employers used to look for smart or adaptable kids on college campuses with general skills. They would convert them to what they wanted inside the company and they would retrain them and they'd get different skills. They're not doing that now. They're just expecting that the kids will show up with the skills that the employer needs when the employer needs them. That's a pretty difficult thing to expect, because of these kinds of problems. So the employers now are always complaining that they can't get the people they need, but it's pretty obvious why that's not happening." On CS-as-a-major, Cappelli says, "If you look at most of the people who are in computer programming, for example, they have no IT degree-they just learned how to program. Maybe they had a couple of courses in it, maybe they were self-taught. In Silicon Valley, the industry was built with only 10 percent of the workforce having IT degrees. You can do most of these jobs with a variety of different skills. I think what's happening now is that people have come to think that you need these degrees in order to do the jobs, which is not really true. Maybe what these degrees do for you is they shorten the job training by a bit, but that's about it. And you lose a bunch of other things along the way." One wonders what Cappelli might think of San Francisco's recent decision to pick a preschool curriculum based on where today's tech jobs are, echoing President Obama's tech industry-nurtured belief that "what you want to do is introduce this [coding] with the ABCs and the colors."
Most corporations are so badly run that well educated employees only make everyone else look bad.
Seems like the biggest reason not to pick your career based on the economy is this: you'll probably won't like the job. So, instead of doing something you enjoy, you get to spend 50 years doing a job you hate. Now, if you guessed right, maybe you'll hate your job, but at least make some money. But if you guessed wrong - you'll have huge student loans to pay, and a lifetime of misery, all because you' placed money above your happiness.
Most of the STEM students that I've met chose their major based on their interests and/or already possessed skills. It seems to me that there are viable career opportunities in all STEM fields. Why worry about your choice of education when you'll develop skills regardless?
Finding any job is a full time job regardless of your major. And you neither entitled nor guaranteed to get a job you'll like.
any degree any college. it's just an admission ticket, anyway. sorta like a High School degree back in the day.
I used to wonder why I was always being singled out at work and that's it. Simply being smarter is an issue even if you're not being condescending.
Also it's impossible to get your resume seen for decent jobs unless it's exactly what they want. Which doesn't happen unless you lie or have extremely low standards.
...the push was to get us high achool blank slates into engineering, at least in Washington state. The driver for this was Boeing, but it was also a national thing too. Most of the noise was about the wages. Of course, what i noticed then, by '91 or so, was that area was getting filled back in, and those jobs were getting harder to find out of college.
Microsoft, Aldus, Visio, Wizards of the Coast, etc, were starting to get on a roll, and my peers in CompSci were the ones on the front of the wave... as well as Silicon Valley too. Good times then.
So, the moral of the story is... if you follow things, the winners will be the ones already well into that pipeline. People just getting into it will most likely lose. The catch is those who already got going weren't prescient when they did.
You want a relatively good gig (in the US)? Go welding, diesel mechanic, electrician. Oh crap, all those gigs require actual work, though...hard work in crappy conditions, though. I'm posting this in the wrong forum.
While you shouldn't necessary pick a major based on the hottest job, you definitely need to pick something in consideration with how you will use it. And you sure as heck should go to college to learn and make yourself better--not just to receive a piece of paper. Racking up 5 or 6 figures of debt without learning anything of value is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, we haven't given students the tools or perspectives to understand the consequences of the decisions they are making. Everyone is always warning athletes coming into college "the chances of you making it as a pro are extremely rare". And yet, the chances of someone making it as a tenured history professor at a major university are probably just as rare. At least the athletes aren't going into massive debt.
Add onto the fact that we have massively watered down many majors to the point of uselessness. The reason liberal arts majors get a bad rap isn't that it is a useless subject. If people came out as hard working critical thinkers they would be valuable contributors. Unfortunately, it is filled with people who just want a piece of papers and do the minimum to get by. This is a generalization, of course, but I believe is backed up by stats on plagiarism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...). And the courses are watered down to be worthless. For example you can graduate from Yale with an English without having a Shakespeare course (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/04/23/skipping-shakespeare-yes-english-majors-can-often-bypass-the-bard/). So in 4 years of education in English, you don't have to actually take a course in the most influential English writer in history. But, you know, he is challenging to read and understand. As an alternative you can take a course in Literature for Young People http://english.yale.edu/course... which includes J. K. Rowling and Dr. Seuss.
At least with Engineering/Math/Hard Science you have to demonstrate via projects and tests that you have actually learned something.
HR guy: "We need people who are 22 years old with an M.Sc. and 20 years of specific experience, and we can't find any."
C-level exec: "See, I told you we can't find qualified domestic hires and we need to ramp up the H-1B visas."
As someone who has managed a dozen dev teams with nearly a hundred different programmers, yes a person with a CS degree is typically a superior nuts and bolts developer -- that is stronger in development related skills, but not necessarily overall.
Some of the best devs I've worked with or managed were english or biology majors. While typically less well versed (all else being equal) in the hard skills, thier 'soft' skills were much better and often compensated. For example, they weren't the best algorithm designers, but they were better able to communicate with each other and with clients. Combine those learned 'soft' skills with decent self taught 'hard' skills and you generally have a better overall dev.
And that's the crux of the matter. University is not a vocational training program. University is where a person goes to learn about a broad range of subjects. And, most importantly, where a person goes to learn how to think and learn.
If you want a code monkey (and only a code monkey), look for someone with a vocational/technical education background. If you want more than a cog in the machine, look for a university grad.
The corollary is that, yes, those general ed and elective requirements DO serve a purpose. Chosen well, they help expand your horizons and teach you a little something about the world. So, when whatever major you did pick becomes unmarketable (and many do), you aren't left with nothing but useless knowledge.
A lot of the issue boils down to a gap between college and "career" for the first 2-3 years after college. Employers know that hiring a guy with a physics degree to do an engineering or programming job job will be a money loser for at least a couple years, even if they are pretty darn sure he'll come up to speed and be a major contributor. It is safer to either hire someone who is already trained (and grill them about their possible lack of loyalty), or to get someone with just the right set of skills to minimize the training. After a new guy/gal has some experience there is no assurance that they will stick around. Often you can't get a decent raise, no matter how well you are performing, without jumping ship to another company (a dose of bureaucratic stupidity worth ranting about all by itself).
At-will employment has made this entry level dance crappy for both sides. Everyone knows that they can be let go at any time with nothing guaranteed beyond a cashout of their meager vacation accrual. Employers know that if they sink a large amount into an employee to bring them up on a new or in-demand skill it increases the likelihood that the person can get headhunted away. Stock options and other incentives try to patch this broken relationship by putting some carrots out there, but the young guys usually get very few of those until after they have proven themselves (and a lot of companies has dispensed with them for peons entirely). Other companies know they most incentive plans are crappy and they matching the loss with a hiring bonus and/or sign-on options and still be cheaper and easier than training one of their own (and outsiders are smarter, obviously, than the whiners already sucking at the payroll teat).
It is all pretty perverse. I work in the states for a foreign company, and having a counterpart doing the same job with a very different employment setup regularly makes me question the US system. My counterpart is part of a union, has many more holidays, more vacation, has his hours strictly limited, is not allowed to work at all from home, and cannot be easily laid off (and his college was tuition free).
In other words, the employers are idiots, and there's very little that a student can do about it.
Well, yes, exactly. Because apparently the employer never went to college so they don't realize that college is not for vocational training but for making a person well-rounded, teachable and educated, but with a particular focus on an area of study. Instead, the employer wants a seat filler that comes to the job already knowing a trade, meaning that they either came from a vocational school or from another job, but since they are wanting to pay only entry level wages, nobody is going to come from another job. And the vocational school applicant will be able to hit the ground running which means good profits for this quarter, but without the general education their long term use to the company could be severely limited. I say could be, because there is always SOME possibility of finding someone teachable in a vo-tech, or out of high school, or dropped out of high school.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
HR guy: "We need people who are 22 years old with an M.Sc. and 20 years of specific experience, and we can't find any."
C-level exec: "See, I told you we can't find qualified domestic hires and we need to ramp up the H-1B visas."
Well, you are partially right. If you look for a 22 year old H1B with an MS, you probably will find one. They all seem to have MS from some Indian university or another. I wouldn't vouch for how that university compares to education in the U.S.
Also, you can usually find H1Bs who will happily put down vast quantities of experience in technologies that they don't really have. The same thing happens in the U.S. as well, but it always seems more grossly exaggerated in the H1B resumes. Probably because they are desperate. And because the companies are desperate to pay less, they will accept the lies and hire the person who lied and said they had 5 year when they have zero or the person who told the truth that they only have 4 years. Paying 70% of a salary for zero productivity is better than paying 100% salary for 80% productivity, right?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I can think of one thing in CS that I see gives people with little to no CS education a lot of trouble. Algorithmic analysis, to be specific big O notation. I've seen people not get algorithmic growth at all and end up implementing something that is O(n^2) when they could easily come up with something that's O(NLogN) or even O(N). Surprise surprise when they have to process even a middle amount of data they have problems. I have learned something else though. If someone tells you that their app runs in N^2, log(n), or nLog(n) time they probably know what they're talking about. If they say N! or even C^N they really know what they're talking about. If they tell you it's linear that could either mean it really is linear or that they don't know of any other running time.(Literally I saw code that was obviously N^2 but the developer said it was linear because he didn't know of any other type.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Can only speak for myself - but I did biochem, then a masters in bioinformatics (mainly as my degree had taught me I didn't enjoy it, and seemed sensible to not throw away what I'd learnt and add some IT to it, which I'd always enjoyed).
I then got an entry level IT job on the basis of (I believe) 20 hours of formal java and maybe 10 of formal Oracle (plus maybe double that in labs) - and threw away all my biochemistry.
Company that employed me had just left their startup phase - but mainly seemed to employ anybody they liked and had an interesting chat with in the interview. I never quite worked out if this was deliberate, or just a consequence of HR being pretty non-existent
Initially I thought I'd "chanced it" - but then eventually the scales were lifted from my eyes as I found out what everybody else had done prior. Plenty of arts doctorates. Maybe it was a mass experiment, but I wasn't an exception.
Bit I look back fondly on was that we all mucked in and I learnt so much from those around me and the liberal pile of O'Reilly books scattered around. I thought I was catching up on my formal IT education - but again, looking back, I wasn't - was just a continuation of what I'd done before. Stumbling my way through with plenty of swearing, beer, with the odd moment of breakthrough and inspiration.
Without the rose-tinted glasses, there was an awful lot of knowing what I wanted to do, needed to do, and blindly running around screaming for help from my colleagues (which was given - and I loved giving to anybody who needed it in turn).
Then we got bought by big-scarey-international-market-behemoth, and I had a few years of misery. Again, looking back, I can see why I hated it. Everybody was told to sit in their little silo and stay there. I loathed that. But again, looking back, it's really really useful to learn what you hate.
I'm still with them, as I got dropped into a pilot project with a bunch of smart and lovely people (including the customer).
Notionally I'm a "solution architect" now - which I'd always used to think meant I should be leading from the front with my unequalled vision and expertise (maybe it does, and I'm just a shit SA). My view is that it's simply to sketch out what we collectively need to do, and let those with real ability drift in to have a go, whilst covering them from above. I'll probably look back in another few year though, and realize I'm massively deluded, again.
Back to the points of the story and what I've learnt in 15 years of chancing it in an environment I don't officially belong
1) You're not the best at anything. You might, if you're lucky, be the best at most of what you need to do - but mainly you're going to be relying on others. Both to do the work, and to learn from. Accept this, be open - *never* tell anybody their thought is unimportant. Worst you can do is teach why it won't work - Best is that you realize you're wrong and you get better.
2) Follow-on: Don't micro-manage. You don't like it happening to you, you don't do it to others. More importantly, people try different approaches - if they feel they're on the right path, they'll stick to it. But, if they decide they want to try another tack, for god's sake let them - rather than making them justify themselves (they've already have to convince themselves).
3) "Science" is a method. It gives you a great big pile of tools/understanding to build on - but no reason it can't be improved. No. That's not right. Everything you have is an improvement on what went before - and it's your job to improve it more. You're not going to win a Nobel, but you should make things better - and nothing, nothing feels better than solving a problem with that feeling of 'elegance'.
Actually, I'll finish on 'elegance' - I've been subjected to all manner of methodologies and management techniques - but 'elegance' is what makes me happy and usually gets completely ignored (with exception of bland terms like 're-use')
I'd always taken science to be true, over the arts. The answer lay with
And they won't get it because nobody wants to train newcomers and they don't want to pay for somebody that has the experience.
If people think millenials are spoiled, just look at the people running companies.
..is to look at your passion and talent. Of course, you can't ignore the job market, but it should be a secondary consideration
For example..when programming is the HOT market..
The talented, passionate people do very well because of their talent and passion..and are rewarded handsomely (like me)
The not-so-talented or passionate may get a job during the boom, it may even pay well, but when the bust comes, they are the first ones "staff reduced"
NEVER pick a career based on the job market unless you have (at least a little) talent and passion for it
I find this most refreshing. I've always been confused by corporations insisting on hires based on knowing the job already. What? You, Mr. Corporation aren't innovating and training your crack staff to forge the new world you keep telling us the 'free market' slides on like ice? Guess not. Considering the news that in fact, even Silicon Valley has used collage grads, who are dragging massive depts just to get the 'specialized skills' corporations have been screaming about for frickin' years, were actually paid crap and worked like dogs while, Oh, these companies colluded to do just fucking that. Free market seems to mean "we get labour free". Well, cheap, at least.
Even the much maligned Liberal Arts Degree should be enough for any employer to see that this young person can, you know, LEARN THINGS.
I made the same mistake. I decided that I needed a "general" degree; so I got an MBA, there really isn't much more general than that. The result is that I do have a job, but a terrible one. I teach Computer applications at a middle school.
The only real advice I can give is to be tall and good looking.
Switching to the "career of your dreams" is usually a bad idea I know several reasonably competent engineers and scientists who bankrupted themselves, and crippled their family finances, "pursuing a dream" of being a stay at home parent, pursing an artistic career and lost their engineering edge while they did it. They now regret the decision, but have no chance of recovering their engineering edge sufficiently to return to their original, much better paid fields. They'd have to start over as a 40 or 50 year old intern with obsolete skills, and there's no market for them.
If your dream is so important to you, fund it yourself as a hobby or a pasttime. I know too many reasonably competent engineers who blamed their lack of focus on their "lack of inspiration" on their lack of interest. They switched careers, and turned out to be as unfocused in their new "inspired" career. But because they were "unfocused" in a poorly funded career, they've either gone hideously broke or drained their family's finances finances supporting their career. I've known several who are literally a million dollars poorer between the loss of engineering income and with the educational costs of the career switch, for jobs they can't get because they're competing with much, much cheaper kids who are also dependent on family support to keep them fed. They spent their retirement funds and their kids' college funds on their "dream" careers, and they're pretty unhappy about it now.
Frankly, I see the same thing played out regularly for people who have doubts about their lovers or their spouses. They abandon decent, workable relationships in favor of their "soul mate" or someone else tempting who is "the one". If the alternative pastime, or alternative partner, is so ideally suited to you, let them work for it. Don't abandon your current working life or your current working relationship in favor of an unlikely dream. There are far too many broken careers, and broken hearts, from such switches.
Most simply put, I'll offer the advice that so many agents and editors give to their dreaming clients. "Don't quit your day job". If you turn out to be that good at your hobby, you'll find the opportunity to turn to it later as a full-time career. It's much less heart and wallet braking to work at your primary job and your primary relatonships. Just don't _lie_ about it, and over commit.
My kids are all grown up now, and some are married with little ones of their own now... but this is the advice that I gave them. There's no promise of great wealth in it, certainly I am not overwhelmingly successful by most wordly standards, and unless you are very very very lucky, you will have to settle sometimes or maybe even a lot of times on doing jobs that you dislike just to survive, but you get only one chance at living... and by gosh, if you don't do everything in your own ability to try and make that life as happy as you possibly can, then there will always be some part of you that resents the compromises that you made to get to wherever it is that you are.
Do what you love.
Period.
*EVERYTHING* else is secondary to that. I won't sugar-coat it... society doesn't owe you any fortune or any success, but you *do* owe yourself the chance to be as happy as you can... and you will have nobody to blame but yourself if you don't do everything you can to achieve that end.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I was hired by an Indian outsourced (I am local) and they brought in a consultant who would like for references and made a fake resume for me. I quit in disgust!
The problem is when people do this shit HR will simply demand more on a resume and look for keywords in Taleo and rank them by score and filter out all the good people. Resume inflation was also an issue but it really did start in outsourcing companies.
You put an unrealistic demand and a million headhunters from Bangalore say my guys have 10 years of experience in HTML 5 and what are you going to do?
Not saying your guys did this per say? But it hurts natives too as management gets the impression $45,000 a year is the average for a senior developer who has 8 years experience in 5 dozen languages and will now consider no less.
THe worst is Taleo that HR uses. It was never designed to do HR's job but the salespeople mentioned hey do your HR stuff while my website does the recruiting for you etc. So it scans for keywords and only the top 5 ranks get emailed to the secretary for the interview ... all the ones from Bangalore with 10 years experience in HTML 5.
http://saveie6.com/
The full text should have read:
They're not doing that now. They're just expecting that the kids will show up with the skills that the employer needs when the employer needs them. And they'll dump them back on the street whenever their skills don't match what the employer "needs" this quarter.
Seriously. What went wrong? Employers used to not think they were entitled to perfectly-shaped disposable cogs. They not only brought new hires' skills in line with their needs, they imbued them with the corporate culture and philosophy, ensured that they were kept trained or retrained, and in exchange avoided the continual expenses that come from bringing a new, untried person who doesn't even know where the paper clips are kept. And, as an added bonus, the employee might feel loyal enough to put a little more of themself into the company's ongoing fortunes.
What's so special about a college classroom that you can't learn bioinformatics or machine learning anywhere else?
I suppose, if you were a high IQ person with a good memory and access to a university library normally restricted to registered students of the university, you could learn it on your own in about 3X the amount of time that you'd learn it in a classroom + lab setting, with other students and a number of PhD's to bounce your ideas off of, and to correct any misconceptions you arrived at on your own, before you ended up going down an already studied dead end.
So, in order:
(1) A college classroom will be faster
(2) Having access to people who've already learned it is helpful
(3) Having access to an environment where other people are trying to learn the same thing is helpful
(4) Having access to lab facilities is helpful
(5) Having access to data sets on which to operate is helpful
(6) Having access to a university library is helpful
(7) Having student access to electronic versions of journals is a hell of a lot less expensive than paying for it yourself
(8) Having access to compute power you could never afford on your own is helpful
So, the tl/dr answer is: quite a heck of a lot, actually.
I don't know why people think the "getting stuffed in a locker" treatment stops in high school. Nobody likes a smart ass because you make everyone feel/look inferior by comparison.
Solution: only "shine bright" when alone with your direct supervisor. They move up->they take you with them. You don't want to upstage your coworkers publicly, and you definitely don't want to upstage your supervisor. Further, to avoid your coworkers becoming jealous of your upwards mobility you must tithe/pay tribute by helping them do their jobs better/hooking them up with concert tickets/introducing them to women/etc.
If you want to be successful, you need to be popular with upper management. If you want to STAY popular with upper management, you have to make the plebes love you. There are plenty of meaningless ways to achieve that without pissing off upper management in the process. Find people's "pain" and make yourself essential to making it go away.
Office Work is 2/3rds politics, 1/3 actual work(and I'm not so sure about the "actual work").
In terms of resumes: if you're getting your resume to HR via the official channels then you're doing it wrong. Those channels are for the appearance of fairness. They're almost universally written around a candidate they already want to hire, but still have to list the position for the sake of compliance.
I'm not telling you where I go fishing when I want to eat, but it sure as hell isn't the "help wanted" section.
College is, or should be, learning how to learn. I don't mean taking more classes, I mean just learning what you need to know to get what you need done DONE.
I graduated with an engineering degree in 1970 and am now 68 years old and "retired." I retired as a network/security engineer back in 2007. Any idea as to how much of that was taught in college in the late 1960's? Well, actually NOTHING I worked on for the last 10 and very little of what I worked on for the 10 years before that even existed when I was in college.
An example of what I mean by learning how to learn is when our upper management decided in the late 1990's that their entire infrastructure based on Token Ring was not going anywhere and I was given the job of converting everything to eithernet. I was told we had a vendor conference in about two weeks to begin picking a vendor and the equipment that would best fit our needs. I knew very little about ethernet at that time, but was able to learn enough in just two weeks to be able to filter the BS and FUD out in the meetings and ask the right questions that needed answering. I did this on my own in my "spare" time by reading everything I could find about eithernet and all the vendors products we would be looking at. I had enough "education" to know how to learn this on my own very quickly. A background in electronics, knowledge of Boolean Algebra (yea, that is REALLY how a net mask works) helped, but were background to understanding how the new "stuff" worked.
There is a difference between education and training. With education you can learn on your own, sometimes with training your your "learning" becomes obsolete with the next change in technology. It is easy to remember the difference. Which would you prefer for your teen age daughter to attend -- a sex education class or a sex training class.
A university degree or any high degree for what it matters , should show to potential employer two things : 1) that you are at least have the smart to get to that level 2) that once you "bite" into something you do not let go and continue for long period of time.
2) is especially important if you train somebody for a job.
In my experience firms which expect their new employee to be immediately productive are either new start up not having learned the rope, and they will or they will die, or old firm in manager hell. Good firm with manager which are not totally idiot will know and take into account a period of time (varrying depending on the job) in which they consider you to be "in training" and thus only worth a certain percentage of a normal worker workload. I doubt it changed. What probably changed is that in some domain like development, some manager make the mistake of thinking "fuck it, if I have to rain somebody I'll train somebody cheap from india rather than the local guy". but here is your mistake : the architect of your software today, were the apprentice of yesterday. Kill a whole generation of apprentice today, and you will have no architect tomorrow. I expect that roughly 15 to 20 years after the peak of outsourcing, we will see a derth of good software designer , or good software manager. Because those who should have learned the rope on the job and climbed hierarchy, were replaced by cheap worker.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I did this. I spent 10 years in IT (network admin), and when the bubble burst, I took my savings and went back to college.
In 2005, according to government data, the top paying jobs, in order, were lawyer, 11 kinds of doctor, and then physicist, so I majored in physics.
Anyone see where this is going?
When I graduated in late 2010, NASA was already shedding employees, and just a few months later, laid off 3,500 physicists (a good chunk of the total number of working physicists in the country). The two jobs I had lined up disappeared, and I found myself competing with Masters and Ph.D.s with years of experience for $12/hour lab tech jobs.
And, of course, my IT knowledge was completely out of date, at that point. I spent 3 years delivering pizza and repairing bicycles before finally getting a job as a chemist, for a lower salary than my last IT position.
Maybe you found something that works for you in whatever hideous corporate workplaces you've decided you want to work in, but if you're so smart you would have left employment per se a long time ago, just for the tax relief, or found a nice startup to work in where you got to work instead of play office politics. But you didn't because you love office politics, that's why you spend 2/3 of your time focusing on it and you don't even bother working the other 1/3 by your own admission. You are the problem with office politics that people are going to run into. Please do tell us where you go fishing, so we can avoid that particular lake.
There's more to being your own boss than "just being smart". A lot of people are simply more specialized than that. That's a benefit from living in society. You don't have to do everything yourself.
This isn't the stone age.
Although you can minimize the politics somewhat by working for a smaller company where they don't have the luxury of putting up with any dead weight. Silicon Valley is probably great in that regard.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
At least some of those with the laundry list of required skills as long as your arm are not really job postings, but a company going through the motions of trying to hire domestic workers before they whine about not enough H1-Bs to fill positions that they can't find Americans to do. That job description is custom tailored to the H1-B they want to hire. Nobody has the exact same skillset as someone else, so of course they won't find anyone that EXACTLY matches that list of skills. So they get their H1-B at 60% of the salary an American worker would command, as well as an abuse sponge that can't complain or face deportation.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Silicon valley was built 60 years ago. What was true then is not necessarily true today, despite what the article claims.
Tell you what, try to get a job as a developer in Google and Microsoft without a CS degree or 10 years experience and then get back to me.
"I don't know why people think the "getting stuffed in a locker" treatment stops in high school."
It never happened to me. Probably because I was over 6 ft tall in HS and worked out (though I loathed team sports, the coaches were jerks) and knew how to be smart without making people angry. It was even remarked once , "He's smart but he doesn't rub your nose in it", which I took as a compliment.
That and when I was a Freshman I snapped after being hazed a while so I took a bully, a Sophmore, and stuffed *him* into a locker. I guess word got out.
Lessons:
1) Learn how to communicate, be nice.
2) Learn how to take care of yourself.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+