This mirrors my experience of nearly 40 years in tech as well. In the past when I was in roles where I was hiring SWEs, I would have definitely given an advantage to a self-taught dev over a CS grad provided that they were generally equivalent in all other aspects for the role.
I also have a masters in CS but I still consider myself to be “self taught” to a degree. I didn’t really learn anything in lectures or from my professors. Most of my learning came from doing homework, reading textbooks, studying for tests, exploring the material, being curious, experimenting with side projects.
I’m sure my education was more structured than a developer who didn’t go to school, but I don’t feel like there’s a huge fundamental difference.
Like if you’re only “learning” from what people teach you then how are you going to be successful in software?
I mean, I was so curious, I started coding as a kid and got a tech job right out of high school. But I quit it at 19 because it didn't answer any of my questions about life. I moved to another city, waited tables, bartended, joined a band, drove a taxi, wrote a few novels, and started making indie games on the side. Eventually, the thing I found that I was most curious about was actually the intersection of code and art, and the way those things could be made to play off each other. That was the language in which I could best express myself and do truly original things.
To be intellectually curious is a rare thing these days. It's the main deciding factor if I'm hiring someone. Or going on a date.
Idk. I think some societies prize it more highly than others. What must it have been like to live in Athens when Plato was running the Academy? What got you permitted to be there wouldn't be SAT scores or grades, it would be curiosity and flexible thinking. When things like that have enough cachet, an entire society can orient itself in that direction rather than toward conformity or repetition. [edit: See also, modern Israel].
(Funnily enough, I asked GPT-4o just now what the requirements were for joining Plato's Academy, and it said this, exactly):
The requirements for joining Plato's Academy were not formally codified, but there were some general expectations and practices:
Intellectual Curiosity: Prospective students were expected to have a strong desire to learn and engage in philosophical discussions.
Age and Background: While there were no strict age limits, most students were young men, often from affluent families, who could afford the time and resources for education.
Philosophical Training: It was beneficial for students to have some prior knowledge of philosophy or related subjects, as the discussions at the Academy were advanced and complex.
Commitment to Dialogue: Students were expected to participate actively in dialogues and debates, reflecting the Socratic method that Plato valued.
Moral Character: A commitment to ethical living and the pursuit of virtue was important, as the Academy emphasized the development of the whole person, not just intellectual capabilities.******
Are you self-taught? The only people I've seen who think self-taught is better are the ones that are themselves self-taught. A degree is like extra experience plus mentorship under your belt... Self-taught individuals don't understand what they're missing, in most cases.
I gotta say I’ve heard this take a lot, and I find it regrettable because I think everyone doesn’t understand what they’re missing, this is a pretty human trait. It’s pretty impossible to just know it all and to not know it so much that you’re just miles from even realizing you aren’t even close.
I’ve definitely first hand seen a lot of FAANG engineers (yes even them, some with PHDs) not realize something I had learned from experience during my first year working with computers and I’m certain I was missing things they learned early in university. In the end, together we solved some hard problems in spite of the unknown unknowns that each of us carried.
>I’ve definitely first hand seen a lot of FAANG engineers (yes even them, some with PHDs) not realize something I had learned from experience during my first year working with computers
I have a close friend that's the smartest person that anyone who meets him knows, no question about it. He's got a PhD in Physics and has also contributed a huge technical achievement to a FAANG company, that everyone uses every day. He's great at a lot of stuff, but not everything. We work on side-projects sometimes, and I'm the self-taught guy in this scenario. I know that I bring just as much to the table as he does, just in different ways. If either one of us tried to do the things we do together, alone, the result would be less than 1/2 as good. Recognizing this and letting each other shine has served us well.
I can only think that teams made up of a mixture of people with different backgrounds would do better than a team of all CS graduates, or a team of all self-taught developers.
This!
When you are doing something simple (as in there are known best practices) you do want people to have the same formal education. They’ll talk the same language and everything will be smooth. Nobody wants a self taught surgeon or pilot on the team. There is a best practice for washing your hands and you want your surgeon to know it.
But when you are in the complex domain (as in there are no known good practices), what you want is many different viewpoints on the team. So getting people with different backgrounds (different academic background, tinkerers, different cultures, different work experience etc) together is the way to go.
Same with the discussion about remote work. People do not seem to get that they’re no best way but it depends on the type of work. If it’s simple or complicated, let people stay at home to concentrate. If it is complex, give them the opportunity, and the knowledge it’s good, meet up by a whiteboard. And what’s best may of course differ from day to day.
It's safe to say that everyone you meet knows something you don't, regardless of background. But in the context of this discussion, it is pretty obvious that self-taught people on average have nowhere near the hundreds of hours of experience solving theoretical problems. Not having that background will actually set people back when it comes to solving hard problems that occasionally (or often) arise. Watching self-taught programmers talk smack about degreed professionals is like watching a couch potato make sweeping generalizations about how sedentary people who don't go to the gym are more physically capable than people who do, because the people who don't are not limited to performing certain exercises.
I gotta say still pretty regrettable take, if you will humor I am happy to explain why I say that.
First let me say I definitely value the hundreds of hours you would have spent on hard theoretical problems and while I wasn’t exposed to your curriculum, I regret I don’t have that.
However, I myself have definitely spent a substantial number of hours on distributed algorithms that were only available as published research (didn’t have a choice and that understanding I gained has been proven out), and my extended family is filled with PhDs, so I’ve been casually reading research papers since I was in my teens, this didn’t seem weird. A lot of my peers with and without degrees didn’t engage in this practice.
To explain further, I’ve also spent I can’t even tell you how much time on benchmarking and establishing performance bottlenecks and near as I can tell, no one has in university, or at least they’re not teaching it well enough, because it is shocking how badly this part of performance is understood. Let’s call it applied practical performance enhancement of software deployments.
In the end, I just can’t fully be in board with what you’re saying. Yes I wish I had that degree nowadays and I wish I could take 4 years out and go back and do it again. But I seriously did gain a lot of valuable experience that was hard won with that extra time and near as I can tell is super duper rare, especially because people keep hiring me for it.
It does sound like you spent your time well and learned a lot, one of the rare cases. I wonder how much of the research papers you actually understand deeply given that you lack common background knowledge. It may surprise you how many research papers are actually ill-conceived, and it is hard to see how bad they are if you don't know enough about the state of the art. You are on the right track if you want to catch up on what you would have learned in school. Just about anything in CS can be self-taught given enough time and effort, though you may need to seek feedback from others if you can't figure some things out on your own.
>> it is pretty obvious that self-taught people on average have nowhere near the hundreds of hours of experience solving theoretical problems
What makes you think that? Simple example: I'm self-taught. Failed pre-Calculus in high school, twice. Ten years in as a freelance programmer, I decided to build the first Bitcoin poker room, and therefore had to write my own poker hand evaluator. I had no example to work from. No logic flow-chart. I had to come up with the logic to parse, rank and show winning odds on anything from 5- to 7-card stud, hold'em and omaha hands. I had to dive deep into Monte Carlo methods, statistics, etc. Meanwhile, I'm writing a HUD for Star Citizen. I'm reading and learning about avionics, working out my own procedural generators in mixed 2D/3D. And this was just one year of my life as a developer. Working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. Couch potato? Forget about the fact that I was getting paid, not paying tuition to sit in a classroom. These were problems I had to solve, and the work output was immediately in production, and the results were immediately visible.
The more apt comparison seems to be somewhere closer to an athlete that played sports with his friends all day instead of weight training for that same sport and getting instruction.
Most people excell with guidance and instruction but there are plenty of people who excel on their own and occasionally, because they don't know any better, end up doing something nobody ever thought to do or were taught was impossible.
I’m not a developer. My roots were in hardware engineering (communication/networking) in the 80s-mid 90s, moving into departmental IT leadership roles at senior levels in the mid 90s till around 7 years ago. I sit in the product arena now as I move towards the sunset.
In a general sense, I find the self taught to be simply more inventive problem solvers. What you are using as a critique— “Self-taught individuals don’t understand what they’re missing” —I would say that can be a strength. However, you should perhaps think of it instead as “Because they are not prejudiced by what they were taught by others as ‘what is possible/impossible or ‘the best way’ they are often willing to try ans do the things that a degreed person won’t even attempt.”
Given that you work in IT and not development, I should point out that IT is less intellectually demanding than software engineering. I am less skeptical of self-taught IT people because the nature of the work is almost entirely around familiarity with hardware that fits together like Legos, and proficiency with software tools that are designed for maintaining systems without much theoretical knowledge or mental reckoning required.
>In a general sense, I find the self taught to be simply more inventive problem solvers. What you are using as a critique— “Self-taught individuals don’t understand what they’re missing” —I would say that can be a strength.
It is true that an outside perspective can be useful sometimes. However, more knowledge tends to be a net benefit. If you don't have a certain amount of training, this ingorance-driven "inventiveness" overwhelmingly turns into reinventing wheels and spending major effort on naive approaches to problems that are known to be intractible.
I think it is easier for a trained individual to learn to be creative, than it is for a self-taught individual to learn to not mess things up.
> I should point out that IT is less intellectually demanding than software engineering
In those roles I lead development teams that were producing software products used both for internal and external customers. In my current role which sits product-side, I work directly with SWEs to produce a successful complex software product.
I am pretty sure I understand the complexities of software engineering and can speak to my experience with different developers from different educational paths considering it’s been a big part of my vocational journey for the last 27 years.
You may not have chosen a self-taught path and that’s ok for you. You may not be bound by a pattern bias because of educational rigidity like some others, but watch out that you don’t fall into elitism.
>In those roles I lead development teams that were producing software products used both for internal and external customers. In my current role which sits product-side, I work directly with SWEs to produce a successful complex software product.
So, there is a difference between "leading" teams and having actual deep competency in the thing. I could hire a civil engineer or architect and "lead" them by giving them requirements and feedback, and I might even know the rudiments of what they do. That does not make me a civil engineer or architect.
>I am pretty sure I understand the complexities of software engineering and can speak to my experience with different developers from different educational paths considering it’s been a big part of my vocational journey for the last 27 years.
With all due respect I've met people with decades of experience on their resumes who could not write a lick of code. These people were overconfident in their abilities to figure things out by searching Google. I'm not saying you are in that category. But appealing to experience is hardly better than appealing to educational background. At least there is an actual accreditation process for CS degrees.
>You may not have chosen a self-taught path and that’s ok for you. You may not be bound by a pattern bias because of educational rigidity like some others, but watch out that you don’t fall into elitism.
I am reasonably open-minded. But certifications such as college degrees are labor saving devices. If two people are similar in almost every way but one has a relevant degree, the degree wins obviously. It takes some of the guesswork out of hiring. Of course, even people with degrees also have to contend with elitism against them, whether it is the type of crap in this article ("no degree is better actually!") or someone nit picking about the rank of your university or even your GPA, or how many degrees you got, or the title of your program... My point remains, this article is wrong. Most training undertaken at reasonable expense is worth it, especially the standard bachelor's in CS degree.
> If two people are similar in almost every way but one has a relevant degree, the degree wins obviously.
In my original comment I said this: “I would have definitely given an advantage to a self-taught dev over a CS grad provided that they were generally equivalent in all other aspects for the role.”
…and I stand by that wholeheartedly. I get that you are trying to justify (likely your own) education here, but what you characterize as obvious simply does not jive with my experience. My education provided knowledge value that lasted about 4 years into my career before tech evolved enough to make it effectively obsolete. Your CS degree will have about as much functional longevity considering how fast things are moving nowadays too. You get beyond 10 years out of school, the stuff you did in the last 3 years will have more bearing on your current than anything you did in university.
Perhaps you are in a position now or will be in the future and you can use your own logic in your hiring criteria. I hope it works for you. My logic was certainly successful for me.
>In my original comment I said this: “I would have definitely given an advantage to a self-taught dev over a CS grad provided that they were generally equivalent in all other aspects for the role.”
Yes, my point is that the CS grad has done 4+ years more work in the field than a self-taught individual. Unless you are assuming identical skill or knowledge as if the self-taught guy had more experience or something to make up for not having a degree (thus not identical in the straightforward way).
> My education provided knowledge value that lasted about 4 years into my career before tech evolved enough to make it effectively obsolete.
I very much doubt that. Software engineering and even hardware resemble the stuff that existed 50 years ago. Some of the same languages are still in use. When there are new innovations, they are rarely reinventing the way we do things in such a drastic way. Your background knowledge will help you learn new things easier.
>You get beyond 10 years out of school, the stuff you did in the last 3 years will have more bearing on your current than anything you did in university.
Ironically I am doing advanced work in the same languages I learned first in university, 20 years ago. There are some innovations I've had to keep up with of course, but I think my education served me very well. Could I have done it without going to college? Maybe, but it's doubtful because college is literally taking years off of full-time employment to dedicate yourself to study. Would anyone have given me a chance and suffered my blunders as I tried to learn on the job? I doubt it, even though I know people who have made it without a degree. In this market, I have to say that the bar for anyone not having an appropriate degree is high. I'm certainly not giving preference to people with no degree. At best I would consider expect them to have to compensate for not doing what everyone else does.
> Yes, my point is that the CS grad has done 4+ years more work in the field than a self-taught
I’d say it’s the opposite. Self-taught folks I know and have hired started their careers earlier than 22 and have had more practical, “actual” experience than their university graduate counterparts at the same age. Also, a university grad with a CS bachelor degree is not going to have anywhere near 4+ years of more field work unless they have been in school for 6 years and have moved slower through the program. As I said, “generally equivalent in all other aspects of the role” sort of assumes equal knowledge or experience anyway. My distinction is more around the tendency of self-taught towards creativity and inventiveness in problem solving outside of learned patterns from their education. They don’t rely on those crutches
We will obviously never agree on this-your theory and arguments simply don’t jive with my lived experience. Good luck.
Yes we obviously just won't agree on this but I will just state some final points. You are assuming an awful lot of things about self-taught people that simply are not safe to assume, while assuming that fresh CS grads don't have any field experience. I am only assuming the default for CS grads -- that they actually studied relevant material for 4 years. Many people who go to university also do part-time jobs, internships, and extracurricular projects in their field. I certainly did a lot on my own time on top of the years of classroom work.
This whole discussion is fraught with problems. I posit that for those people who feel that they need to sell the fact they have no education, they also lack sufficient experience to be marketable. Certainly, for people with little experience, the person with a degree is objectively more credible than the person without. There may be some self-taught individuals who are amazing in some way, but I think the only reason you ever meet these people to begin with is because the less interesting ones get filtered out. In other words, if you are looking for guidance, not going to university is a bad idea. If the bias against education picks up steam, then you might do even better to go to university then pretend to be self-taught after you have a bit of experience lol. As absurd as that sounds, it jives with what you and the article are claiming.
There are assumptions on both sides. I would say that a big one on your part is just assuming that everyone with a CS degree is by default a competent and capable developer because of their education. Every CS program, professor, and student are not the same and that variance eliminates any self evidence of credibility of a CS degree.
However, I’ll admit I have a bias based on my experience, and that certainly results in my assuming more inventiveness of the self-taught. Perhaps I have been lucky on that front. Reality has been that not every self-taught dev has been great and not every CS grad has been bad. However, if I lay it on a balance, the balance for me leans a specific direction when it comes to the best people that I have worked with over the years. Perhaps you are right and I have just been lucky.
I thought I was done but I suppose we have reached the heart of the matter.
>There are assumptions on both sides. I would say that a big one on your part is just assuming that everyone with a CS degree is by default a competent and capable developer because of their education.
I would never assume such a thing. But for sure, the odds are good.
>Every CS program, professor, and student are not the same and that variance eliminates any self evidence of credibility of a CS degree.
Well, every accredited program passes certain criteria evaluated on a regular basis. Any student who graduates from one meets the minimum requirements. What are the minimum requirements to claim to be self-taught? There literally aren't any. You just have to bullshit your way into the job. We could potentially accept a lot of self-taught people in other fields. Do you want to drive on a bridge made by a self-taught civil engineer, have your blood drawn by a self-taught nurse, or deal with self-taught drivers on your way to work in the morning? We have credentials for good reasons, even if it may not be strictly necessary to do the job on a logical level.
I am beginning to think that your good luck with self-taught colleagues is potentially evidence that only adequately talented self-taught people can make it in the field, in the long run. And software is far more welcoming of self-taught people than just about any other field, certainly among the hard technical fields. People in the arts are very often self-taught, of course.
> evidence that only adequately talented self-taught people can make it in the field, in the long run.
I’d accept that, certainly the ones competing for positions against CS grads are going to be the more capable and confident (more than just in bullshit to get the job) where the less capable self-sorted out of the vocation.
> And software is far more welcoming of self-taught people than just about any other field, certainly among the hard technical fields. People in the arts are very often self-taught, of course.
In a way this kind of speaks to my point. Software development has both a technical and a creative component, perhaps not in equal parts, but different problems in our space might be a different mix of each. Most of the projects I have been involved with probably leaned towards requiring a a more creative mind and perhaps this has colored my opinion.
I assume this is meant to be an insult but it fails. Not everyone paid exorbitant prices for their tuition. By the way, student loan debt is the largest thing on the asset side of the Federal balance sheet. They won't let it go unless they figure out a new way to screw everyone over.
