I think this is a stupid "American" idea that living with parents == losers? I have Asian friends making >$100K/year and still live with their parents. Living with parents don't necessarily mean that you can't afford living by yourself. It's possible that some people actually like their parents too.
The problem is, if you don't go to a top school, your chance of getting into an interesting/influenctial company (e.g. M$, Apple, Google, etc) is pretty small. Of course you can join some no-name places first and work from there. But you're at a disadvantage if you can't join a top company right out of college. So, i'd say those good schools are worth their tuition.
Please. This guy is so obviously dumb -_- I'll give him some credits if he's complaining about the senior thesis/project, instead of just stupid freshman classes. If he's as smart as he claimed to be, he doesn't even need to attend classes and don't really need to care who are the profs, in order to get A's in those freshman classes. Well, I can undertsand if he actually took a 'genius' math class. But 'genius' freshman chemistry class is just an oxymoron.
Are you trying to redefine "free" here? Of course they're paid by the advertisers. So it's not a free service to advertisers. But you are NOT paying, so it's a free service to you.
Programming is not just about 'algorithm implementation'. Usually there are many choices of algorithms and yet more choices of different implementations. Good programmer finds a good one. Average programmer finds a random one. Also, really good programmers design algorithms all the time.
I disagree. I think people who loves their jobs are usually happier. If you think that a job is just for money, then why bother with technical jobs anyway. There are so many other possibilities that pay better.
Btw, you seem to think that 'working at actual software company' implies 'no life outside of work' ? This is just not true. Your single data point of 'a friend' is not statistically significant.
First, we're talking about MIT PhDs here. And sepcifically Computer Science PhDs.
Of course there are "average" students in the undergraduate. But the gap between undergrad and grad there is pretty huge. Also, I was not saying that MIT is the only place that produces great engineers. Of course there are great people from other schools, and great people who didn't go to college.
But all those professors and classes and high school grades have nothing to do with that "risk".
So, have you yet met an MIT CS PhD who become an average engineer?
You're right that math is harder than software engineering. But bioengineering??? True, it's quite popular these days. But every engineering or science major knows that chemistry and biology are among the easiest subjects.
These people are just as likely to come up with the Next Big Thing (tm) as the MIT PhD's are, but they're far less likely to be taken seriously by the likes of Google.
This is not the point. Google is not venture capital. They don't hire people for the probability of coming up with the "Next Big Thing". But they need people to perform at the 'great' level to maintain their edge (maybe 10x more productive and creative than an average engineer?) Getting MIT PhD's will also eliminate the biggest risk of hiring.... an 'average engineer'.
Well, there is a big gap between the top performers and the average. From the impression I had of Google, there not looking for an Ivy League degree, just raw smarts.
The best engineering schools are MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech. None of them is Ivy League. So obviously Google aren't that interested in Ivy League degrees, as they're class "B".
If you want someone to design a piece of genius software, Ph.D.s are great. But for run-of-the-mill projects, you just can't beat an army of wage slaves.
I wouldn't say Google's projects are 'run-of-the-mill' ?
Agreed. But not just CS PhD. The society undervalues mathematicians and physicsts too... and overvalues doctors. Most of these people can be become doctors if they want to. But I think Google has bet the farm on the idea that putting some of the nation's smartest people
Not just the nation's. Apparently they're trying to get the world's smartest people...
[i]BTW: With googles market cap, can't they buy Warner and get the basics that way better?[/i]
What the point? Please note that Google >> AOL. Just because you have a large market cap, it doesn't mean that you should buy [i]inferior[/i] businesses. M$ has the cash to buy many companies too, but they don't.
PhD is not about taking classes! It's just about research only.
But anyway, in most colleges, you need to pay for the classes if you're not a regular student already.
I agree that almost all stuffs can be learned without taking classes... except those new research that is not even written yet. Well, theoretically, these days you can just download the conference/journal papers too.
But the grandparent post said "doing real, novel science". So it's not about 'learning', it's about creating new stuffs for others to learn. A PhD is awarded when you accomplish that. You won't get the degree even if you take _every_ single class, and learn _everything_ in the field.
Well, your small company can attract MBAs or PhDs from good school? There are extremely good graduates. They just tend to join established places like Microsoft, Oracle, and Google.
I'd think that ambition is something that's not so easy to achieve. But, I'd think that in US (and most developed countries), it's not really that hard to live a 'normal, quiet life'? Basically you only need to be not too lazy or do really stupid things... So I won't call that an ambition as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Just use gmail for domain.
Definitely more scalable than anything that you can come up with.
I think this is a stupid "American" idea that living with parents == losers?
I have Asian friends making >$100K/year and still live with their parents.
Living with parents don't necessarily mean that you can't afford living by yourself.
It's possible that some people actually like their parents too.
The problem is, if you don't go to a top school, your chance of getting into an interesting/influenctial company (e.g. M$, Apple, Google, etc) is pretty small. Of course you can join some no-name places first and work from there. But you're at a disadvantage if you can't join a top company right out of college.
So, i'd say those good schools are worth their tuition.
What? How can the parent be modded as 'troll'.
It points out the error of the GP post.
I'd say it's "informative' and definitely not trolling.
Google have an engineering office in Santa Monica:e p_id=1054&loc_id=1118
http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/topic.py?d
Yes, commuting from LA to Santa Monica is still not very pleasant, but probably better than LA to Mountain View.
North pole is always the north by definition. So no matter where it goes, it can't 'head south'.
Please. This guy is so obviously dumb -_-
I'll give him some credits if he's complaining about the senior thesis/project, instead of just stupid freshman classes. If he's as smart as he claimed to be, he doesn't even need to attend classes and don't really need to care who are the profs, in order to get A's in those freshman classes. Well, I can undertsand if he actually took a 'genius' math class. But 'genius' freshman chemistry class is just an oxymoron.
by living in your cubicle.
Bonus: You can then read slashdot in office all day.
At least he got a single data point.
Creationists got zero data point.
Huge difference.
Are you trying to redefine "free" here?
Of course they're paid by the advertisers.
So it's not a free service to advertisers.
But you are NOT paying, so it's a free service to you.
I had interviewed at a place that actually do this.
They're a pretty successful private-held object database company.
Programming is not just about 'algorithm implementation'. Usually there are many choices of algorithms and yet more choices of different implementations. Good programmer finds a good one. Average programmer finds a random one.
Also, really good programmers design algorithms all the time.
I disagree.
I think people who loves their jobs are usually happier. If you think that a job is just for money, then why bother with technical jobs anyway. There are so many other possibilities that pay better.
Btw, you seem to think that 'working at actual software company' implies 'no life outside of work' ? This is just not true. Your single data point of 'a friend' is not statistically significant.
First, we're talking about MIT PhDs here.
And sepcifically Computer Science PhDs.
Of course there are "average" students in the undergraduate. But the gap between undergrad and grad there is pretty huge. Also, I was not saying that MIT is the only place that produces great engineers. Of course there are great people from other schools, and great people who didn't go to college.
But all those professors and classes and high school grades have nothing to do with that "risk".
So, have you yet met an MIT CS PhD who become an average engineer?
You're right that math is harder than software engineering. But bioengineering??? True, it's quite popular these days. But every engineering or science major knows that chemistry and biology are among the easiest subjects.
These people are just as likely to come up with the Next Big Thing (tm) as the MIT PhD's are, but they're far less likely to be taken seriously by the likes of Google.
.... an 'average engineer'.
This is not the point. Google is not venture capital. They don't hire people for the probability of coming up with the "Next Big Thing". But they need people to perform at the 'great' level to maintain their edge (maybe 10x more productive and creative than an average engineer?) Getting MIT PhD's will also eliminate the biggest risk of hiring
Well, there is a big gap between the top performers and the average. From the impression I had of Google, there not looking for an Ivy League degree, just raw smarts.
The best engineering schools are MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech. None of them is Ivy League.
So obviously Google aren't that interested in Ivy League degrees, as they're class "B".
Well, given that Kai Fu Lee is likely not a US citizen, I'd say that these are in fact legal options.
What the hell!!?? Are you discriminating by name?
So you think that US citizens should have names like Joe Smith or Susan White?
He's a US citizen. You can even google this fact.
If you want someone to design a piece of genius software, Ph.D.s are great. But for run-of-the-mill projects, you just can't beat an army of wage slaves.
I wouldn't say Google's projects are 'run-of-the-mill' ?
Agreed.
But not just CS PhD. The society undervalues mathematicians and physicsts too... and overvalues doctors. Most of these people can be become doctors if they want to. But I think Google has bet the farm on the idea that putting some of the nation's smartest people
Not just the nation's. Apparently they're trying to get the world's smartest people...
(Disclaimer: I have one now.)
same here.
[i]BTW: With googles market cap, can't they buy Warner and get the basics that way better?[/i]
What the point? Please note that Google >> AOL.
Just because you have a large market cap, it doesn't mean that you should buy [i]inferior[/i] businesses.
M$ has the cash to buy many companies too, but they don't.
Sorry to tell you that this is the reason you didn't get a job easily:
"insanely difficult curriculum".
Most of my friends think CS is an easy major, and we all got offers before we graduated.
PhD is not about taking classes!
It's just about research only.
But anyway, in most colleges, you need to pay for the classes if you're not a regular student already.
I agree that almost all stuffs can be learned without taking classes... except those new research that is not even written yet.
Well, theoretically, these days you can just download the conference/journal papers too.
But the grandparent post said "doing real, novel science". So it's not about 'learning', it's about creating new stuffs for others to learn.
A PhD is awarded when you accomplish that. You won't get the degree even if you take _every_ single class, and learn _everything_ in the field.
Well, your small company can attract MBAs or PhDs from good school?
There are extremely good graduates. They just tend to join established places like Microsoft, Oracle, and Google.
I'd think that ambition is something that's not so easy to achieve.
But, I'd think that in US (and most developed countries), it's not really that hard to live a 'normal, quiet life'? Basically you only need to be not too lazy or do really stupid things... So I won't call that an ambition as well.