I actually think essays have the opposite effect. The presence of an essay on an application gives an edge to the student who can bring the most resources to bear in "crafting" that essay. Perhaps, at the extreme, having it ghost-written by a professional college admissions consultant. I'd almost rather it boil down to class rank and test scores. Possibly with the addition of a space for students to list relevant accomplishments in a non-essay format. "First-chair trumpet at state", "state science fair winner", etc. Teacher recommendations are a little suspect as well, since schools (and therefore teachers) have a vested interest in seeing their students admitted to prestigious universities. There may also be students who are qualified from an academic perspective but have failed to sufficiently ingratiate themselves with their teachers. Or maybe their teachers, as a group, don't know how to write "compelling" recommendations (possibly because one of their students applying to an elite university is a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence).
Also, when it comes to test scores, I'd prefer to see colleges use something more content-related instead of the SAT, which is pretty easily gamed. Maybe something similar to the A-levels in the U.K. or the AP exams in the U.S. If the AP exams were used there would need to be a new math exam created that stops short of Calculus; it's not reasonable to expect every college student to have taken calculus. AP tests are, arguably, harder to "game" than the SAT. In theory you have to actually understand the material.
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I think the explanation for "bright C students" is that they're creative geniuses who are so bored by the "standard" curriculum they just decided to "opt out". Hence the low marks.
Please overhaul! But not out of fear the next Lucas, Spielberg or Jobs isn't going to be admitted. Do it because it's an annoying waste of time and effort to fill out a completely different application and write a completely different set of essays for each and every school. Even better, establish a single application fee that buys the student the ability to apply to some (reasonable) fixed number of schools. Believe it or not, the cost of application (esp. when applying to several schools) is actually a meaningful disincentive for students at the low end of the income spectrum.
You sound like a guy I had in my discussion section when I was TA'ing an intro Computer Science course. (Taught in Pascal). There were a handful of questions on one of our exams that asked the test-taker to write some code. He wrote his in C, because he never actually bothered to learn Pascal syntax. We gave him zero points. Guy was a third or fourth year E.E. student who was just taking the intro C.S.course to pad his GPA.
Point being: your acquaintance's teacher would probably (can't say for sure) welcome him or her exploring new aspects of the language on his/her own. However, when working on exercises designed to highlight a particular language concept (possibly a fairly simple one) it's not acceptable to pull in more advanced concepts that completely obviate the concept being taught.
For instance, if a question asks you to use a for loop to do something N times and you instead call some library method that does the same thing without using a for loop (i.e. probably the better solution in a real-world scenario) you haven't answered the question correctly. It is designed to test whether you know how to write a for loop, not whether you know how to solve that trivial problem in a novel way.
Yeah. Total disagree. The tests aren't perfect, but they test skills that are useful in the "current technology-economy". I think of test scores as being necessary but not sufficient. That is to say, barring specific disabilities that complicate test-taking (e.g. dyslexia), someone who scores poorly on the standardized tests probably isn't going to be wildly successful in today's "technology-economy". Someone who scores highly may or may not be successful, but it's not guaranteed.
I'm not sure there's a good way to test basic knowledge while accurately simulating the real world. For instance, vocabulary (analogies, etc.) would be out, unless you ratcheted the time allowance down low enough so as to preclude looking up the definition of each word. Questions that test students' knowledge of simple algebra would be out; they could just plug them into an online equation solver.
The last Windows OS I ran was XP, prior to migrating to Mac. I didn't run anti-virus, never had any malware problems, and never had it slow down. I ran CCleaner maybe once a month and/or after installing / uninstalling an app or installing OS updates.
Doubtful. That you think the feasibility and necessity of establishing a million-strong Mars colony are so patently obvious that anyone who disagrees is clearly "fucking stupid" speaks volumes with respect to your own arrogance.
Yes, in the alternate reality that is Slashdot no claim is too outlandish. If one believes anything having to do with space exploration or extraterrestrial settlement is unrealistic or outlandish one simply lacks the requisite vision to appreciate it.
I'll not be drawn into a dick-waving contest with you, but I'll add that I've rarely been accused of simple-mindedness or being "fucking stupid".
Are non-theists ready for the possibility that life is actually exceedingy rare (ignoring the possibility that advanced civilizations simply don't want to be found)? If life generated spontaneously on this planet and yet this is the only planet with life then that's a little...odd.
I went into a Ph.D. program right after getting my undergraduate degree but exited early with a M.S. and have been working in software development since. I disagree with much of what was said in the other comments. Specifically, I don't think your Ph.D. counts against you. It may not help you much, depending on the job, but it won't hinder you unless you start demanding an exorbitant level of compensation based on the degree. Some other thoughts on how to get a job:
1. If there are gaps in your skill set by virtue of having been in academia then try to plug them. Ideally in a way that's demonstrable on a C.V.
2. Exploit your network. Are any of the other students in your program currently working in industry? Are their teams hiring? Etc.
3. Be willing to relocate anywhere. This is just general advice; has nothing to do with the fact you have a Ph.D.
4. Consider using a tech. recruiter (or more than one).
Usually they don't make it to the front door, even with the current level of technology used by the secret service. This guy did. That's why they're getting raked over the coals. That, and the fact that the front door was unlocked.
Next year will be the start of my 10th year as a software developer. For the last nine years I've worked for a variety of companies, large and small, on projects of varying sizes. During my career, I have noticed that many of the older software developers prioritize activities other than software development. They would rather do their 9-5, get paid, and go home. They have little, if any, desire to code for the sake of coding left, and I constantly wonder how they became this way. This contradicts my way of thinking; I have rationalized my obsession by calling it passion for what I do, and I enjoy going home self-importantly believing I made some kind of difference.
Needless to say, I think I am starting to see the effects of having a crappy manager. In my current job, I have a development manager who is difficult to deal with on a technical level. He possesses little technical knowledge of basic JavaEE concepts, nor has kept up on any programming in the last 10 years. There is a push from the upper echelon of the business to develop a new, more scalable system, but they don't realize that my manager is the bottleneck. Our team is constantly trying to get him to agree on software industry standards/best practices, but he doesn't get it and often times won't budge. I'm starting to feel the effects of having a crappy manager. What is your advice?
My advice?
1. Try to have some perspective. It's not "complacency" when someone wants to spend time with his family instead of working overtime without pay.
2. Recognize that your manager's problem isn't so much complacency as it is an exaggerated opinion of his own technical competency. He thinks he knows and understands more than he actually does, hence his steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that his team's ideas are actually better than his own.
3. Consider the possibility, however remote, that you may be the one with an exaggerated opinion of your own technical competency and that, just maybe, your manager's vision for the project actually has some advantages. You may end up concluding that this possibility is extremely unlikely; if so, that's fine.
4. Since your manager sounds like kind of a jerk starting looking for another job. If your skills and/or credentials are such that finding another job is difficult then start the process of acquiring new skills and/or credentials so you won't have that problem in the future.
My company uses a similar "agile in name only" model and I find it rather terrible. We have the scrum meetings w/ the same three questions. Only, when you're blocked, nobody actually does anything to make sure the person who can un-block you actually does what they need to do to un-block you. Nothing happens if you're working on a feature and it runs longer than it was supposed to, including changing deadline for future commitments. Rather than adjust the schedule to reflect the fact that you were a week late getting Feature #1 done, it's expected that everything else you're scheduled to work on will get done in the time originally scheduled minus one week. So there's always a mad scramble at the end of every release since we're almost always one or two weeks "behind" when we get close to the release date. To combat this, management adds a sprint to the end of every release with no work scheduled. But work does get scheduled in these sprints because new features are almost always added to the schedule mid-release (without changing any of the dates, of course).
Also, exactly opposite the agile model, we have almost no QA taking place during the development phase. So usually during the first half of development for release N we're spending time significant time fixing bugs found during the QA testing of release N-1. And, frequently, modifying how features work because the customer waiting on that feature didn't like the way it worked once they actually saw it. Since our release cycle is longish, though, we can't just tell the customer "it'll be fixed in release N"; no, we have to fix it in release N-1 and merge the changes forward.
Puh-lease. Your situation isn't as cushy as some places, but it's a damn sight less scary than what folks deal with in developing countries. If you're realistically worried about "destitution" if you lose your job, then you need to start re-training / re-credentialing yourself now so that isn't the case. I might also recommend taking on a supplemental unemployment insurance policy if your state's unemployment benefits aren't very good.
The opposite of "fear driven development" is a total lack of accountability, excused under the banner of being "agile". Miss a deadline? Who cares! Dragging your feat on a work item that's blocking someone else? Who cares! Break the build because you didn't even run your code a single time before checking it in? Who cares!
I trust you can see how that sort of environment sucks as well.
So, sorry -- if you actually get into and graduate from MIT, chances are your debt levels are going to be at the levels of many state university graduates, perhaps lower.
This is doubtful. If only because the caliber of student who is admitted to MIT is likely to receive extremely generous merit-based scholarships at most state schools, and especially at lower-tier state schools. There's at least one AAU member school (Arizona) that offer a free ride (tuition + fees + room + board) to any national merit scholar. When I was applying to colleges (which, admittedly, was 20 years ago), I was offered free rides to the University of Oklahoma and LSU based solely on my SAT Math score. It really depends on which state schools we're talking about (top-tier vs. lower-tier) and the student's household income. In the specific case of a middle-income student (household income = $70k/year) and a top-tier state school then what you've said is likely correct. Despite having a strong resume (evidenced by his being admitted to MIT) that student may not get a full ride at a top-tier state school. So he's relying on financial aid, and MIT's financial aid package for a student whose family earns $70k/year is likely better than the top-tier state school's. As income goes up and/or the quality of state school goes down, though, the equation starts to favor the state school if all we care about is out-of-pocket cost.
My household is around the 15th percentile (counting from the top) in terms of income. I'm a software dev. and my wife, who works half-time, earns about a quarter what I do. So that should provide some context. I recently ran the numbers and compared how much I'd have to pay for my son to attend Harvard vs. how much I'd have to pay for him to attend my alma mater, which is generally thought to be in the upper tier of state schools. Using in-state tuition for the state school, the cost was approximately the same, though Harvard would have required work-study to make up part of the tuition. If he (my son) were admitted to both, I'd probably pony up the difference to send him to Harvard. If the difference were large (say, $10k/year) then I would probably advise him to attend my alma mater.
It's also worth noting that the sorts of people paying tens of thousands of dollars for Ma's services are themselves quite wealthy, so when discussing whether it's "worth it" you have to take into account the marginal "value" of those dollars to the person paying them. If I'm fabulously wealthy then sure, paying $20k is "worth it" to get my kid into Harvard. Because $20k is a meaningless sum to me. (Which, incidentally, is why it would not be so tragic if that $20k were to go to, say, the IRS instead.)
Slashdot Mirror
I actually think essays have the opposite effect. The presence of an essay on an application gives an edge to the student who can bring the most resources to bear in "crafting" that essay. Perhaps, at the extreme, having it ghost-written by a professional college admissions consultant. I'd almost rather it boil down to class rank and test scores. Possibly with the addition of a space for students to list relevant accomplishments in a non-essay format. "First-chair trumpet at state", "state science fair winner", etc. Teacher recommendations are a little suspect as well, since schools (and therefore teachers) have a vested interest in seeing their students admitted to prestigious universities. There may also be students who are qualified from an academic perspective but have failed to sufficiently ingratiate themselves with their teachers. Or maybe their teachers, as a group, don't know how to write "compelling" recommendations (possibly because one of their students applying to an elite university is a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence).
Also, when it comes to test scores, I'd prefer to see colleges use something more content-related instead of the SAT, which is pretty easily gamed. Maybe something similar to the A-levels in the U.K. or the AP exams in the U.S. If the AP exams were used there would need to be a new math exam created that stops short of Calculus; it's not reasonable to expect every college student to have taken calculus. AP tests are, arguably, harder to "game" than the SAT. In theory you have to actually understand the material.
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I think the explanation for "bright C students" is that they're creative geniuses who are so bored by the "standard" curriculum they just decided to "opt out". Hence the low marks.
Please overhaul! But not out of fear the next Lucas, Spielberg or Jobs isn't going to be admitted. Do it because it's an annoying waste of time and effort to fill out a completely different application and write a completely different set of essays for each and every school. Even better, establish a single application fee that buys the student the ability to apply to some (reasonable) fixed number of schools. Believe it or not, the cost of application (esp. when applying to several schools) is actually a meaningful disincentive for students at the low end of the income spectrum.
You sound like a guy I had in my discussion section when I was TA'ing an intro Computer Science course. (Taught in Pascal). There were a handful of questions on one of our exams that asked the test-taker to write some code. He wrote his in C, because he never actually bothered to learn Pascal syntax. We gave him zero points. Guy was a third or fourth year E.E. student who was just taking the intro C.S .course to pad his GPA.
Point being: your acquaintance's teacher would probably (can't say for sure) welcome him or her exploring new aspects of the language on his/her own. However, when working on exercises designed to highlight a particular language concept (possibly a fairly simple one) it's not acceptable to pull in more advanced concepts that completely obviate the concept being taught.
For instance, if a question asks you to use a for loop to do something N times and you instead call some library method that does the same thing without using a for loop (i.e. probably the better solution in a real-world scenario) you haven't answered the question correctly. It is designed to test whether you know how to write a for loop, not whether you know how to solve that trivial problem in a novel way.
Yeah. Total disagree. The tests aren't perfect, but they test skills that are useful in the "current technology-economy". I think of test scores as being necessary but not sufficient. That is to say, barring specific disabilities that complicate test-taking (e.g. dyslexia), someone who scores poorly on the standardized tests probably isn't going to be wildly successful in today's "technology-economy". Someone who scores highly may or may not be successful, but it's not guaranteed.
I'm not sure there's a good way to test basic knowledge while accurately simulating the real world. For instance, vocabulary (analogies, etc.) would be out, unless you ratcheted the time allowance down low enough so as to preclude looking up the definition of each word. Questions that test students' knowledge of simple algebra would be out; they could just plug them into an online equation solver.
The last Windows OS I ran was XP, prior to migrating to Mac. I didn't run anti-virus, never had any malware problems, and never had it slow down. I ran CCleaner maybe once a month and/or after installing / uninstalling an app or installing OS updates.
Doubtful. That you think the feasibility and necessity of establishing a million-strong Mars colony are so patently obvious that anyone who disagrees is clearly "fucking stupid" speaks volumes with respect to your own arrogance.
Yes, in the alternate reality that is Slashdot no claim is too outlandish. If one believes anything having to do with space exploration or extraterrestrial settlement is unrealistic or outlandish one simply lacks the requisite vision to appreciate it.
I'll not be drawn into a dick-waving contest with you, but I'll add that I've rarely been accused of simple-mindedness or being "fucking stupid".
The kind that doesn't give legitimate world-changers a free pass when they start with the crazy talk.
I think Musk just jumped the shark.
Are non-theists ready for the possibility that life is actually exceedingy rare (ignoring the possibility that advanced civilizations simply don't want to be found)? If life generated spontaneously on this planet and yet this is the only planet with life then that's a little...odd.
I see what you did there...
I went into a Ph.D. program right after getting my undergraduate degree but exited early with a M.S. and have been working in software development since. I disagree with much of what was said in the other comments. Specifically, I don't think your Ph.D. counts against you. It may not help you much, depending on the job, but it won't hinder you unless you start demanding an exorbitant level of compensation based on the degree. Some other thoughts on how to get a job:
1. If there are gaps in your skill set by virtue of having been in academia then try to plug them. Ideally in a way that's demonstrable on a C.V.
2. Exploit your network. Are any of the other students in your program currently working in industry? Are their teams hiring? Etc.
3. Be willing to relocate anywhere. This is just general advice; has nothing to do with the fact you have a Ph.D.
4. Consider using a tech. recruiter (or more than one).
Usually they don't make it to the front door, even with the current level of technology used by the secret service. This guy did. That's why they're getting raked over the coals. That, and the fact that the front door was unlocked.
My advice?
1. Try to have some perspective. It's not "complacency" when someone wants to spend time with his family instead of working overtime without pay.
2. Recognize that your manager's problem isn't so much complacency as it is an exaggerated opinion of his own technical competency. He thinks he knows and understands more than he actually does, hence his steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that his team's ideas are actually better than his own.
3. Consider the possibility, however remote, that you may be the one with an exaggerated opinion of your own technical competency and that, just maybe, your manager's vision for the project actually has some advantages. You may end up concluding that this possibility is extremely unlikely; if so, that's fine.
4. Since your manager sounds like kind of a jerk starting looking for another job. If your skills and/or credentials are such that finding another job is difficult then start the process of acquiring new skills and/or credentials so you won't have that problem in the future.
Arguably not when a large (poor) African family consumes fewer resources than a small (rich) family elsewhere.
My company uses a similar "agile in name only" model and I find it rather terrible. We have the scrum meetings w/ the same three questions. Only, when you're blocked, nobody actually does anything to make sure the person who can un-block you actually does what they need to do to un-block you. Nothing happens if you're working on a feature and it runs longer than it was supposed to, including changing deadline for future commitments. Rather than adjust the schedule to reflect the fact that you were a week late getting Feature #1 done, it's expected that everything else you're scheduled to work on will get done in the time originally scheduled minus one week. So there's always a mad scramble at the end of every release since we're almost always one or two weeks "behind" when we get close to the release date. To combat this, management adds a sprint to the end of every release with no work scheduled. But work does get scheduled in these sprints because new features are almost always added to the schedule mid-release (without changing any of the dates, of course).
:)
Also, exactly opposite the agile model, we have almost no QA taking place during the development phase. So usually during the first half of development for release N we're spending time significant time fixing bugs found during the QA testing of release N-1. And, frequently, modifying how features work because the customer waiting on that feature didn't like the way it worked once they actually saw it. Since our release cycle is longish, though, we can't just tell the customer "it'll be fixed in release N"; no, we have to fix it in release N-1 and merge the changes forward.
It's a bad scene.
Puh-lease. Your situation isn't as cushy as some places, but it's a damn sight less scary than what folks deal with in developing countries. If you're realistically worried about "destitution" if you lose your job, then you need to start re-training / re-credentialing yourself now so that isn't the case. I might also recommend taking on a supplemental unemployment insurance policy if your state's unemployment benefits aren't very good.
The opposite of "fear driven development" is a total lack of accountability, excused under the banner of being "agile". Miss a deadline? Who cares! Dragging your feat on a work item that's blocking someone else? Who cares! Break the build because you didn't even run your code a single time before checking it in? Who cares!
I trust you can see how that sort of environment sucks as well.
Seriously. Does anybody in his right mind think there's no place whatsoever for non-technical folks at tech companies?
This is bad news for humanity.
This is doubtful. If only because the caliber of student who is admitted to MIT is likely to receive extremely generous merit-based scholarships at most state schools, and especially at lower-tier state schools. There's at least one AAU member school (Arizona) that offer a free ride (tuition + fees + room + board) to any national merit scholar. When I was applying to colleges (which, admittedly, was 20 years ago), I was offered free rides to the University of Oklahoma and LSU based solely on my SAT Math score. It really depends on which state schools we're talking about (top-tier vs. lower-tier) and the student's household income. In the specific case of a middle-income student (household income = $70k/year) and a top-tier state school then what you've said is likely correct. Despite having a strong resume (evidenced by his being admitted to MIT) that student may not get a full ride at a top-tier state school. So he's relying on financial aid, and MIT's financial aid package for a student whose family earns $70k/year is likely better than the top-tier state school's. As income goes up and/or the quality of state school goes down, though, the equation starts to favor the state school if all we care about is out-of-pocket cost.
My household is around the 15th percentile (counting from the top) in terms of income. I'm a software dev. and my wife, who works half-time, earns about a quarter what I do. So that should provide some context. I recently ran the numbers and compared how much I'd have to pay for my son to attend Harvard vs. how much I'd have to pay for him to attend my alma mater, which is generally thought to be in the upper tier of state schools. Using in-state tuition for the state school, the cost was approximately the same, though Harvard would have required work-study to make up part of the tuition. If he (my son) were admitted to both, I'd probably pony up the difference to send him to Harvard. If the difference were large (say, $10k/year) then I would probably advise him to attend my alma mater.
It's also worth noting that the sorts of people paying tens of thousands of dollars for Ma's services are themselves quite wealthy, so when discussing whether it's "worth it" you have to take into account the marginal "value" of those dollars to the person paying them. If I'm fabulously wealthy then sure, paying $20k is "worth it" to get my kid into Harvard. Because $20k is a meaningless sum to me. (Which, incidentally, is why it would not be so tragic if that $20k were to go to, say, the IRS instead.)