Slashdot Mirror
LinkedIn Testing 1970's-Style No-CS-Degree-Required Software Apprenticeships (mercurynews.com)
theodp writes: The Mercury News reports on REACH, a new software apprenticeship program that LinkedIn's engineering team started piloting this month, which offers people without Computer Science degrees an opportunity to get a foot in the door, as Microsoft-owned LinkedIn searches for ways to help diversify its workforce. For now, the 29 REACH participants are paid, but are only short-term LinkedIn employees (for the duration of the 6-month program). LinkedIn indicated it hopes to learn if tech internships could eventually be made part of the regular hiring process, perhaps unaware that no-CS-degree-required hiring for entry-level permanent positions in software development was standard practice in the 70's and 80's, back when women made up almost 40% of those working as programmers and in software-related fields, nearly double the percentage of women in LinkedIn's global 2016 tech workforce. Hey, even in tech hiring, everything old is new again!
Most companies already don't require a CS degree, or any degree, for programming jobs. Your GitHub activity carries more weight. Show me what you can do, not where (or if) you got a piece of paper.
Oh the irony of a website that presents its members as basically a resumee decides to ignore resumees....
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I find this interesting. I did an EE degree, but only did two papers on software, and to be honest, they were pretty basic. I had taught myself programming before hand but was much more interested in hardware and circuits rather than software. However, as my career progressed, I basically just became a full time software developer. For some reason, having an EE degree is considered the same (or for some people better, if you have software experience) than a CS degree, because supposedly I know how computers work at a gate level.
In the end I use almost nothing that I learnt in my EE degree to do software development, and certainly none of the really hard math/sig pro stuff, and I can't see why someone who has gone through all the self taught/on the job training I did to learn programming wouldn't be able to do what I do now. Of course there is causality - if you can finish an EE degree you can probably do anything technical if you put your mind to it, but it does seem a bit pointless spending all that money and effort to get a piece of paper.
I drop out of university in the 80's. Went on a 4 month government run programming/job placement course at a different university learning to program COBOL on VAX/VMS. I was found a job doing C programming on Unix, where I was giving on the job training and sent on courses. I've gone on to have a successful career, with the last 20 years running my own consulting business. Without this opportunity and taking a chance on me, I would have never had my career.
Since then, I have gone on to get 2 degrees, Bsc in Math and Post-grad in Computer Sci, but this was after I was already established, had changed jobs a few times to better positions and didn't need the degrees to be looked at.
After learning math, and studying Knuth, learning Java, database theory, Lisp, Prolog, sure I have a better understanding now than when I started, but lack of the knowledge didn't stop me from getting started.
One of the best programmers I work with had a degree in English.
A lot of people, who could either be talented or good enough would miss out if only Comp Sci degreed people were considered.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
I have a CompSci degree from a few years back, and it was heavy coding/dev/math. There is no way you could have gotten through the degree and been unable to program. I have run into recent CompSci graduates who have a hard time or can't write code, and don't even like coding. What has changed in the curriculum? Has CompSci become the catchall for 'I want a computer degree'? With that sort of expectation, I can see why I'd rather hire someone excited about dev work, than someone who has it on paper but no urge or drive or skill.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
Employer/employee loyalty is the thing that has to improve first -- then OJT will move beyond an experiment. Back in the good old days, employers would take recent college grads and even recent high school grads, knowing they were only getting raw material, and train them to their standards. Now employers see employees who will jump to the competition in 6 months or less just because they're upset about something or will get a small raise. Because of that, training is a liability and they'd rather hire consultants who may or may not have lied about their level of experience.
Employers need to come to the table too. We need to stop the constant cycle of layoffs and offshoring and maintain a reasonable level of steady employment. If employees feel safe in a job, they'll worry less about finding another one and worry more about doing a good job in the current one. This is one thing from the old days I'd like to see come back -- employers would have to think very hard about hiring someone because they'd at least have some sort of commitment to them.
Training on the job and starting in the bottom of an organization aren't totally dead. I know a lot of people who work for the state university system. Here in NY, university professional staff are effectively tenured the same way faculty are, after a long probationary period and having to convince your department to nominate you. Training is an accepted part of life in this environment because they're keeping the employees whether or not they're skilled up. In this case, it makes perfect sense to invest in employees because you'd rather have a good loyal employee than one who knows you can't get rid of them and doesn't advance their career.
Also, CS degrees are probably overkill for most web programming jobs that LinkedIn typically hires for. You may need a CS degree to write their deep learning algorithm that maps your connections and mines them for data, but you don't need one to be a JavaScript monkey cranking out the front end stuff. I'm in IT, with a chemistry degree, and the only thing I use from my degree is the ability to methodically break down a problem and troubleshoot. It's helpful but I know plenty of older iT people who have no degree or a completely unrelated to CS degree, and they do well.
In addition to your irony, TFA ignores some pretty important facts. In the 1970s we had Math, Engineering, and Physics. There was no such thing as a CS degree. One learned to code because it helped your education, not because it was seen as a cash cow specialty. The successful coders may not have all completed a degree, but were all the brightest of the bunch in College. If they left without a degree it was by choice, not because they lacked aptitude to finish.
Let me use a Basketball analogy. Linked in believes that anyone can be Shawn Kemp, or another player that never played college ball and was not highly educated. In reality, the Shawn Kemp like people are extremely rare. About 1 in a billion.
Can linked in find people "good enough" to get a job done without? Probably, but I would rather have people better than "good enough" as a hiring manager.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yeah, my next doctor is going to be someone who didn't go to medical school.
In many other countries, when you go to see "the doctor" you are actually seeing a nurse or PA. You are only referred to an actual MD if your problem is non-routine. This leads to faster and more affordable healthcare and MEASURABLY BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES.
So would you be better off if your next "doctor" is someone who didn't go to medical school? Apparently, yes.