Enter the following info:
Citizenship: USA
Place of residence: TX
Number of children in college: 1
Number of members in family: 3
Gross wages & salary: $130k (no other income)
Student assets: $0
Parent assets: $0 (excludes primary residence and assets held in retirement accounts)
Result: $17,600 (estimated net price), broken down as follows:
So if the student took on 100% of the cost to parents (i.e. $13k/year) he'd graduate with $52k in debt. That's a far cry from $200k. The net price estimate is for tuition, fees, books, room, board and health insurance where applicable.
Re:Did Zuckerberg ever have to get past HR?
on
Just Say No To College
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
FWIW I've been in "discuss the candidate" meetings where the powers that be decided not to hire a guy not because he didn't have a degree, but because he didn't have the right degree. And he was already working in the field and interviewed fairly well. I suspect that if he lacked a degree altogether he wouldn't even have made it to the interview phase. Could someone without a degree do the job he was interviewing for? Most definitely. But signalling matters. The trend may be that its importance is decreasing, but plenty of employers still "care" about degrees that (IMO) it's worth getting one, if only to increase the "surface area" of employers who'll consider you.
Basing a decision not to get a degree on outliers like Zuckerberg and Gates is pretty dumb. Some thoughts:
1. People who are highly successful sans-degree would likely also be highly successful with a degree. The lack of a degree did not juice their success; they succeeded despite a lack of credentials.
2. Choosing not to get a degree creates a much crappier "worst case" compared to getting a degree (a. from a reputable institution, b. in a marketable field and c. with decent grades). Many more non-college-graduates experience this worst case than wind up like Zuckerberg.
3. College needn't cost $200,000. Especially if you're the sort of high-achieving person who is likely to be successful even without a degree. If you're paying $200,000 for a degree you're most likely attending a private university and have wealthy parents. My household earns more than 85% of households; my kid would pay $15k/year to attend Harvard. Paying full price at a top 25 public in-state university would run $10k/year. Toss on a national merit scholarship and we're looking at ~$5k/year. Depending on the field of study that could be earned back via paid co-ops during the final two years.
The 20-year-old guys provide me more value than the 35-year-olds do.
Only if the 35-year old is asking for more significantly more compensation than the 20-year old, right? There must be some level of compensation that's "higher than what the 20-year old asks" that still presents a good value proposition to an employer, considering the 35-year old has the benefit of 15 years work experience (and "general maturity").
Most of the positions I've held had the official title of "Software Engineer" or "Senior Software Engineer". It implies a certain "rigor" relative to "Software Developer". That said, the implication is frequently extremely illusory. I've never done anything approaching "engineering" in these positions and often I'm not even that "senior" with respect to the technologies I'm working with. If you can write your own title, though, I'd go with "Software Engineer" if only because it sounds better and might get you more looks when applying for jobs in the future.
Figure most of the Paul supporters voted for Johnson. Johnson got about 1% of the vote, or one million votes. Obama ended up with about 2.5 million more votes than Romney, according to google's counter at the time of this post. So if Romney got every single Johnson supporter (which is unlikely considering the second choice of many Johnson supporters would be Obama) he would still be 1.5 million votes short. Or would you suggest that the majority of Paul's support just stayed home instead of voting for Johnson?
Talk to lawyers who have appeared before your local judges. Or, if they haven't, they likely talk to other lawyers who have. "Bad" judges tend to have a reputation as being "bad" that crosses party lines.
Dunno about you, but I find google to be hugely beneficial. Mostly the search engine and Gmail, but also Android to a lesser degree in that it's a foil to iOS. I also find Facebook to be very handy. It's basically a BBS for the 21st century, only this time all my friends and acquaintances can participate instead of just the ones nerdy enough to have modems. And I pay virtually nothing for these services. Yes, I volunteer some personal information, but that's something I wasn't going to monetize on my own anyway.
Most recently I had the opportunity to serve as the sole Android developer in charge of some pretty terrible existing code. Since I was the only Android developer and, indeed, the only person at the (small) company with any knowledge of Android whatsoever (i.e. there was very little oversight of my activities and, since the existing app was so terrible, very low expectations), I just rewrote all the really abysmal parts from scratch. Taking a slow, buggy, visually inconsistent app and making it fast, robust and visually consistent was fairly gratifying.
Born in 1975. Attended public magnet schools for grades 6-12 in the United States. First programming / computer science class was in either 6th or 7th grade; I forget which. BASIC programming on TRS-80s. In 9th grade it was Pascal programming on PCs using Turbo Pascal. 10th grade was more Pascal IIRC. At some point I took an AP course where we spent some time learning Fortran on dumb-terminals hooked up to an old VAX. Also learned a (very) little bit of x86 assembly.
Sure. And that's a legitimate problem. But it's sort of a separate problem. I'm just saying that, all else being equal, I might take the guy who's willing to work extra hours on occasion to the guy who has higher average productivity but is unwilling to modify his hours when the situation demands.
The set of employees that has come in to work extra hours is almost surely more "willing to work extra hours when necessary" than the set of employees who have never worked extra hours (including, potentially, because they've never needed to.) On the other hand, the "extra hours" probably also contains a higher percentage of "people who can't budget their time well enough to finish things within the time planned." As a manager I'd certainly count overall productivity as one of my main concerns, but I might value an employee with lower "average" productivity but who is better able to accommodate spikes than the employee whose average productivity is higher but who is unwilling to make any personal sacrifice during extenuating circumstances. And that seems perfectly reasonable.
You overreach. If Creationism isn't science (as the intelligent design opponents often argue) then it's unlikely to be "disprovable" in the scientific sense. Especially if we're talking about the broad category of "Creationism" and not specific creation narratives.
...is how embryology can be a lie. There's obviously ethical disagreement on things like abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but neither of those is embryology.
politicians choose new projects specifically in order to benefit themselves, rather than the people who they supposedly represent
This doesn't contradict what I wrote. When a voter hears "building a new road" they assume it will benefit someone, somewhere. If it's being built in their general geographic area then they assume they'll derive some benefit from it, even if only marginally. The fact remains: people seem to care more about roads being efficient (i.e. getting them where they need to go as quickly as possible) than they do roads being as safe as possible.
Most people, when asked to choose between "has the probability of saving a few lives" and "will definitely shave five minutes off my commute" will opt for the latter in a landslide. That's why we get new roads.
Sure. And yet they're paying me (in free services I use to interact with my friends and acquaintances) in order to monetize me. If that payment ceases to motivate me to put myself in a position to be monetized then they lose.
I don't know the guy from Adam, but Kagan comes across as a bit of a douche. His lessons learned:
1- Selfish. I wanted attention, I put myself before Facebook. I hosted events at the office, published things on this blog to get attention and used the brand more than I added to it.
Lesson learned: The BEST way to get famous is make amazing stuff. That’s it. Not blogging, networking, etc.
How about this lesson: be a little less superficial and worry about something besides getting famous.
2- Marketing. The marketing team’s plan was not to do anything and the night before we opened Facebook to the professional market (anyone with a @microsoft.com, @dell.com, etc) I emailed TechCrunch to let Michael Arrington know to publish it in the morning. He ended up publishing it that night (I was at Coachella and will never again attend) before the actual product was released in the morning. I immediately notified the e-team and assumed full responsibility.
Lesson learned: I don’t think what I did was that wrong since the marketing team did not do anything to promote our new features. My lesson learned was more I should have involved them instead of just going around them.
Two lessons not learned: discretion and the ability to abide by someone else's decision when you disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/
Enter the following info:
Citizenship: USA
Place of residence: TX
Number of children in college: 1
Number of members in family: 3
Gross wages & salary: $130k (no other income)
Student assets: $0
Parent assets: $0 (excludes primary residence and assets held in retirement accounts)
Result: $17,600 (estimated net price), broken down as follows:
Cost to parents: $13,000
Student summer work: $1,600
Student asset contribution: $0
Student term-time work: $3,000
So if the student took on 100% of the cost to parents (i.e. $13k/year) he'd graduate with $52k in debt. That's a far cry from $200k. The net price estimate is for tuition, fees, books, room, board and health insurance where applicable.
FWIW I've been in "discuss the candidate" meetings where the powers that be decided not to hire a guy not because he didn't have a degree, but because he didn't have the right degree. And he was already working in the field and interviewed fairly well. I suspect that if he lacked a degree altogether he wouldn't even have made it to the interview phase. Could someone without a degree do the job he was interviewing for? Most definitely. But signalling matters. The trend may be that its importance is decreasing, but plenty of employers still "care" about degrees that (IMO) it's worth getting one, if only to increase the "surface area" of employers who'll consider you.
Basing a decision not to get a degree on outliers like Zuckerberg and Gates is pretty dumb. Some thoughts:
1. People who are highly successful sans-degree would likely also be highly successful with a degree. The lack of a degree did not juice their success; they succeeded despite a lack of credentials.
2. Choosing not to get a degree creates a much crappier "worst case" compared to getting a degree (a. from a reputable institution, b. in a marketable field and c. with decent grades). Many more non-college-graduates experience this worst case than wind up like Zuckerberg.
3. College needn't cost $200,000. Especially if you're the sort of high-achieving person who is likely to be successful even without a degree. If you're paying $200,000 for a degree you're most likely attending a private university and have wealthy parents. My household earns more than 85% of households; my kid would pay $15k/year to attend Harvard. Paying full price at a top 25 public in-state university would run $10k/year. Toss on a national merit scholarship and we're looking at ~$5k/year. Depending on the field of study that could be earned back via paid co-ops during the final two years.
My current employer and the previous two employers all used PostgreSQL in some capacity. None used MySQL.
I've never experienced this. Then again, I'm only 37 and I don't live in the Bay Area. Add this to the list of reasons not to live in the Bay Area.
Only if the 35-year old is asking for more significantly more compensation than the 20-year old, right? There must be some level of compensation that's "higher than what the 20-year old asks" that still presents a good value proposition to an employer, considering the 35-year old has the benefit of 15 years work experience (and "general maturity").
Sounds like a non-issue to me. If you're going to cheat then take it off first.
Most of the positions I've held had the official title of "Software Engineer" or "Senior Software Engineer". It implies a certain "rigor" relative to "Software Developer". That said, the implication is frequently extremely illusory. I've never done anything approaching "engineering" in these positions and often I'm not even that "senior" with respect to the technologies I'm working with. If you can write your own title, though, I'd go with "Software Engineer" if only because it sounds better and might get you more looks when applying for jobs in the future.
Figure most of the Paul supporters voted for Johnson. Johnson got about 1% of the vote, or one million votes. Obama ended up with about 2.5 million more votes than Romney, according to google's counter at the time of this post. So if Romney got every single Johnson supporter (which is unlikely considering the second choice of many Johnson supporters would be Obama) he would still be 1.5 million votes short. Or would you suggest that the majority of Paul's support just stayed home instead of voting for Johnson?
Talk to lawyers who have appeared before your local judges. Or, if they haven't, they likely talk to other lawyers who have. "Bad" judges tend to have a reputation as being "bad" that crosses party lines.
Definitely. Also easier said than done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities
Jet fuel =~ 44 MJ/kg
Lithium Air Batter =~ 9 MJ/kg
Sadly, google did not teach me how to close html tags.
Dunno about you, but I find google to be hugely beneficial. Mostly the search engine and Gmail, but also Android to a lesser degree in that it's a foil to iOS. I also find Facebook to be very handy. It's basically a BBS for the 21st century, only this time all my friends and acquaintances can participate instead of just the ones nerdy enough to have modems. And I pay virtually nothing for these services. Yes, I volunteer some personal information, but that's something I wasn't going to monetize on my own anyway.
Best. Slashdot. Troll. Ever.
Most recently I had the opportunity to serve as the sole Android developer in charge of some pretty terrible existing code. Since I was the only Android developer and, indeed, the only person at the (small) company with any knowledge of Android whatsoever (i.e. there was very little oversight of my activities and, since the existing app was so terrible, very low expectations), I just rewrote all the really abysmal parts from scratch. Taking a slow, buggy, visually inconsistent app and making it fast, robust and visually consistent was fairly gratifying.
Born in 1975. Attended public magnet schools for grades 6-12 in the United States. First programming / computer science class was in either 6th or 7th grade; I forget which. BASIC programming on TRS-80s. In 9th grade it was Pascal programming on PCs using Turbo Pascal. 10th grade was more Pascal IIRC. At some point I took an AP course where we spent some time learning Fortran on dumb-terminals hooked up to an old VAX. Also learned a (very) little bit of x86 assembly.
Sure. And that's a legitimate problem. But it's sort of a separate problem. I'm just saying that, all else being equal, I might take the guy who's willing to work extra hours on occasion to the guy who has higher average productivity but is unwilling to modify his hours when the situation demands.
The set of employees that has come in to work extra hours is almost surely more "willing to work extra hours when necessary" than the set of employees who have never worked extra hours (including, potentially, because they've never needed to.) On the other hand, the "extra hours" probably also contains a higher percentage of "people who can't budget their time well enough to finish things within the time planned." As a manager I'd certainly count overall productivity as one of my main concerns, but I might value an employee with lower "average" productivity but who is better able to accommodate spikes than the employee whose average productivity is higher but who is unwilling to make any personal sacrifice during extenuating circumstances. And that seems perfectly reasonable.
You overreach. If Creationism isn't science (as the intelligent design opponents often argue) then it's unlikely to be "disprovable" in the scientific sense. Especially if we're talking about the broad category of "Creationism" and not specific creation narratives.
...is how embryology can be a lie. There's obviously ethical disagreement on things like abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but neither of those is embryology.
This doesn't contradict what I wrote. When a voter hears "building a new road" they assume it will benefit someone, somewhere. If it's being built in their general geographic area then they assume they'll derive some benefit from it, even if only marginally. The fact remains: people seem to care more about roads being efficient (i.e. getting them where they need to go as quickly as possible) than they do roads being as safe as possible.
Most people, when asked to choose between "has the probability of saving a few lives" and "will definitely shave five minutes off my commute" will opt for the latter in a landslide. That's why we get new roads.
Sure. And yet they're paying me (in free services I use to interact with my friends and acquaintances) in order to monetize me. If that payment ceases to motivate me to put myself in a position to be monetized then they lose.
How about this lesson: be a little less superficial and worry about something besides getting famous.
Two lessons not learned: discretion and the ability to abide by someone else's decision when you disagree.