Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Poll: What is your highest educational qualification?
58 points by naish on May 6, 2009 | hide | past | favorite | 128 comments
Following this comment:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=595594

What is the highest educational qualification that you have completed (i.e., met all requirements and passed)? As different countries and schools use different names for similar qualifications, I've attempted to be generic. Please use the closest match for your response.

Bachelor's
502 points
Master's
277 points
High school
201 points
Doctorate
101 points
College diploma
51 points
Elementary school
38 points
Other (comment below)
20 points
Trade certificate
10 points



Tough one. I'm a high school dropout, so I had to check Elementary School. Now, I've taught at colleges (electronics and linear mathematics), but I've never actually attended one as a student. Some lives are weirder than others, I guess.


how did you get the certification needed to teach linear algebra?


You assume that certification needs to fall within a particular discipline. And you have probably also assumed that "college" is at least approximately equal to "university", which is not the case in Ontario, Canada. What was required was a Teacher of Adults certificate and demonstrated competence. Short of posting my entire resume, I'll just say that there are areas of military avionics that require a little more than the mere ability to use an oscilloscope, and that I had had teaching experience in the interim period.


I attended a networking event recently where I was pitching to a guy who had a high rank in our local university's IT program and is respected as an entrepreneur also. Anyway, he was challenging me on everything I was saying (which I thanked him for at the end), and one question was: "If what you are doing is so great, why aren't the big boys already doing it."

My first response was that the key is to do it better, which he acknowledged. The second was that if I was the founder of Google standing in front of him 10 years ago, telling him that I was going to create "another search engine", he would have asked me exactly the same question. His response was: "Well, wasn't that guy working on his doctorate?"

My response was "and...?" He looked at me like I was an idiot. What I should have said was "Sure, doctorates are great and I could get one, but I don't want one. I'd rather spend my time creating wealth than creating a piece of paper that will make me more qualified to create wealth for someone else." Apparently "that Google guy" felt the same way, only it took him longer to make that decision. As an aside, my Bachelor's degree was one of the best investments of my life, so I'm not arguing against formal education here.

He also derided my ___location as if some guy from a small town in Ohio couldn't build anything worthwhile. Yes, I know pg's thoughts on ___location and there is some merit to that, but the assertion he made is a bit too over the top for me.


I don't quite understand what he meant, as "working on a doctorate" isn't an answer to "why aren't the big boys already doing it?"

However, Larry Page got enormous benefits from his PhD: he met Sergey; he had connection with Andy Bechtolsheim; great people around him; and Stanford supported his patent (they own it). Actually, these are mainly contacts acquired through Stanford (similar to "___location"), not of a PhD program itself. I don't recall Larry learning anything from doing a PhD itself, as opposed to doing the work independently.

BTW: I had a very critical advisor like that, and it was really unpleasant. Not everything he said was helpful or relevant - but some were. And at the end, I was rightfully grateful - and also rightfully annoyed. I think seeing criticism as impersonal, specific and temporary is helpful; as well as responding only to the factual denotations, not connotations (including attitude and tone); and responding without connotations myself.


"I don't recall Larry learning anything from doing a PhD itself, as opposed to doing the work independently."

Seeing as one major focus of a PhD is to learn to do independent research, this statement is essentially vacuous. It also disregards the influence on his thinking process from his advisor (Winograd) and fellow graduate students.


You missed "great people around him".

The distinction is not essentially vacuous: it's possible for the learning of "how to do independent research" to be itself largely independent, e.g. Edison and Einstein.

I said I don't recall Larry talking about this anywhere - can you show where he does? Specifically, about how doing the PhD helped this specific person to learn to do independent research. I'm interested in this.


I did not miss "great people around him". Your claim was that he didn't learn anything from his PhD. My claim is that he undoubtedly learned a lot from his advisor and other graduate students. If you are talking about learning stuff in classes, that is simply not the point of a PhD. Anywhere you see him credit Winograd's influence, you are seeing him mention learning from his PhD. See his commencement speech from like 3-4 days ago as one recent reference...


Soon after, I told my advisor, Terry Winograd, it would take a couple of weeks to download the web -- he nodded knowingly, fully aware it would take much longer but wise enough to not tell me.

Maybe a nod is encouragement, but it sounds like Larry had decided to do it anyway - so the statement reads as an absence of discouragement.

On reflection, I think we mean the same thing, your "learned a lot from his advisor and other graduate students", and my "great people around him". There's a question of what a PhD is. It could be the independent work; the academic justification and presentation in terms of literature; the discussions with smart, interested people. (btw I've been doing one for a few years now).

I think our disagreement is about our definitions.


>>I don't quite understand what he meant, as "working on a doctorate" isn't an answer to "why aren't the big boys already doing it?"

It was a response to my assertion that his argument would have been wrong if I were Larry and it were 10 years ago. Essentially he was saying: "You can't compare you and Larry because he's smarter than you." That may be true, but people dumber than me have created successful companies...I think.

>>However, Larry Page got enormous benefits from his PhD

True, but that wasn't the point he was making.

>>BTW: I had a very critical advisor like that, and it was really unpleasant. Not everything he said was helpful or relevant - but some were. And at the end, I was rightfully grateful - and also rightfully annoyed.

I responded to his (slightly drunken) derision very positively and always had a fantastic comeback, except for the "and...?" response. I was actually very appreciative of his criticism and challenging posture because most people just shine you on when they hear your pitch and tell you everything sounds fantastic. In the end, I won him over and he said he would help me as long as I got a few other influential people on board.

Even though I think he's a bit narrow minded, I liked his no-bullshit attitude and honesty. As I said, I genuinely thanked him for challenging me and giving me the opportunity to change his mind rather than just blow me off.


"Why aren't the big boys already doing it?", "Because I'm smart enough to be doing a PhD" isn't strictly an answer, but I get the gist now (conversation is rarely strict, anyway.)

BTW: my advisor was slightly drunk too. in vino veritas (in wine truth is)... to a point.


Guy sounds like a credentialed idiot.

> He also derided my ___location as if some guy from a small town in Ohio couldn't build anything worthwhile. Yes, I know pg's thoughts on ___location and there is some merit to that, but the assertion he made is a bit too over the top for me.

Amen.


Just curious: I met a lot of good programmers from small towns in Ohio when I went to Case Western, is that the "local university" you're referring to? (if so, I also have some guesses on who the "guy" was :)


"Case Western, is that the "local university" "

No. Wrong side. ;)


Given the age distribution of HN readers, it's clear many of them are still in school. So their responses to this poll may not be very meaningful, at least not in the same way as the responses of those no longer in school.


It would be useful to have something like:

* Still in HS

* Still in College

* Still in PhD program

to help weed those out.


The question is pretty clear, and the 'high school' result should show those that are currently IN college/university.


The point is that it doesn't differentiate between people who simply never finished/went to college, like me, from people who are still in college, which is an interesting data point.


Or between people who dropped out of PhD programs and those who never started, which is also an interesting data point given the few high-profile PhD dropout startup founders there are out there.

(Dropping out of PhD = walking away with a Masters in some places, but not all; I had my Master's degrees before I started the PhD.)


[deleted]


> completed (i.e., met all requirements and passed)

That sounds 'formal' to me, in the sense of either you have a degree or you don't. I took Italian in college, and having lived here a number of years, probably speak it well enough to teach it, know the grammar well, etc... but I don't have a degree in it.

Whatever though... these things are kind of pointless. I think it's best to do what you want in life and get on with it and not worry too much about what other people do.


Claiming that someone who's been in college for several years' highest level of education is "high school" presents a very odd definition of the word "education". Perhaps you meant degree?


1 million lines of code written and deployed into production.

I'll match that against anyone's degrees (including my own).


Assigned too many times to maintainance projects, I think I've deleted as many lines as I've written.


My favourite interview question for developers is "How many lines of code have you deleted?" Lots of junior developers boast about KLOC they have written. But the more code, the more bugs. I'm interested in knowing if the developer has lived with code, not just shipped it and moved on to the next project.


I'm both a programmer for and an administrator for network infrastructure at my university. So the code that I deploy I have to live with. A lot of it was written before I got there and I probably really have deleted just about as many lines as I have written. Decade-old Perl code usually needs to be updated. And now with us switching to IPv6, a lot of things need changing.


LifetimeLOC = LOCWritten + LOCDeleted

Think about it. In order to write 300 good lines of code, you probably wrote 1,000 lines of code before refactoring. Same thing, just that someone else put in all the refactorable lines before you got there.


It's a pretty useless metric. How many lines of code did the people who invented quicksort (pick great algo of your choice) write in their first implementation? It's certainly important to have some minimum # so you can say you know what writing software is like, but imho judging by counting lines of code is roughly equivalent to judging mathematicians by # of lines in their proofs... that is to say, totally ridiculous.


Somewhat useless, but not totally ridiculous.

I brought this up to show that the I have received 10x the education from the code I have written professionally than from all my formal schooling.

I realize as well as anyone here that the best code usually have less lines. At least mine does. But "years of experience" has less meaning, believe me. So do title, company, number of jobs, number of customers, etc., etc., etc.

Just like in basketball, there is no substitute for height, in programming, there is no substitute for actually having written code.

I realize "Lines of Code" isn't a great metric, but it's probably the best to quickly communicate my point.


I think it's just too difficult a problem to distill down into a single metric. I did CS and Math for my undergrad and I was in the PhD program for CS but left with my MSc. My focus was on design and analysis of algorithms and based on that training, in my 3 years of professional activity (2 at a NASA contractor) I've run into very few problems that compared to the kind of work I did in my thesis. I think lines of code is one metric - but a really high number could actually be a sign of a really bad programmer! So, it's an inherently noisy signal. I think you have to look at successful projects completed and individual roles in those projects and judge that way.


It's not about lines of code it's about the number and type of problems solved. I have spent days looking for a solution when all I needed to do was change a single constant. I have also written hundred of lines of code whole hog, been surprized that it compiled without errors, and shocked that it was bug free. Yet, I have no idea what was more usefull.

Spending a few months working on hard problems without a functional debugger can compleatly change how you aproach programming. But, so does finaly understanding how to use a debugger. Spending a few weeks reading other peoples code to document a working system was also an incredably valuable experence.

PS: The closest thing to a single nuber I can think of is "how many diffrent months of experence do you have?"


I'm usually deleting 2 lines for every line I write in the Java world.


I'll substitute that with a (better) metric:

100+ million users have utilized code that I've written.


Er, hi champ. What have you written?


  1 million lines of code written and deployed into production.
Just curious. Any favorite ones that we can see? (Applications/Source Code)


Not without my customers' permission.

But now that you mentioned it, I'll work on putting up some of my favorites that I own. Stay tuned...


Lines of code != Code Quality


A J.D. degree from the United States is not exactly a master's degree, and not a doctorate in the way a Ph.D. degree is, so I chose "Other."


A J.D. is considered a terminal degree (there is no further degree beyond a J.D.; the S.J.D. is considered a different track), so technically you do have a doctorate.

But ethical rules are questionable as to whether you can call yourself a "doctor," because it's potentially misleading. So US lawyers are in the strange position of having doctorates, but being unable to say so.

Here's some more info: http://abajournal.com/magazine/lawyers_are_doctors_too/


Don't lawyers (i.e. our friends with the J.D.) get to refer to themselves as esquire? i.e. Bob Jones, esq or something like that.


I think that is the conventional use of the term "esquire" in the United States, but I can't recall the last time when I saw a lawyer use that title. Most lawyers like best the title "attorney at law," which is the title for the regulated occupation they enjoy once they have passed a state bar examination.


But it's a D. There are other D's besides a Ph.D.: there's the Psy.D and others: (from Wikipedia)

The Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) degree is an applied doctorate on the same level as (in alphabetical order) the D.B.A. (Doctor of Business Administration), D.D.S. (Doctor of Dental Surgery), D.Div. (Doctor of Divinity), D.M. (Doctor of Ministry), D.M.F.T. (Doctor of Marriage and Family Therapy), N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathy), D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy), D.P.M. (Doctor of Podiatric Medicine), D.R.E. (Doctor of Religious Education), D.S.M. (Doctor of Sacred Music), D.S.W. (Doctor of Social Work), D.V.M. (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), Ed.D. (Doctor of Education), M.D. (Doctor of Medicine), O.D. (Dr of Optometry) and other applied or specialty doctoral degrees. Most of these degrees do not require either a master's level thesis or a doctoral dissertation.


It's even tricker because there are a couple other doctoral law degrees that can be awarded in the United States (S.J.D. and LL.D.) that are much closer in spirit to the Ph.D., as they are research degrees. Although in fairness, in many cases they are given as honorary degrees.

Additionally, consider the LL.M. degree. It further complicates things because it is awarded after the J.D.


Yes, if I had an LL.D. degree, I would have blushed and chosen "Doctorate" on the poll.


So which one is best to have around if you happen to get hit by a bus?


It depends. If you're mostly unhurt but your teeth are knocked out, a D.D.S. would be rather convenient. If you're badly hurt but can still survive, then the M.D. would be best. If you're mostly unhurt and the bus rolls over your foot, it looks like the D.P.M. would be a safe bet. However, if you're hurt too badly to recover, then the D.Div. or D.M. may be appropriate, depending upon your religious beliefs.

Thanks to the popularity of physical injury or wrongful death lawsuits, the J.D. will be with you soon regardless of who else is around when the bus hits you.


Seriously.....Doctor of Sacred Music?


Is that the same thing as Doctor of Ministry?

Guess it depends on your definition of 'sacred'...


What J.D. stands for?


Juris Doctor


Well, I won't actually be finished until a few hours from now after my exam, but close enough.


OK, done. :-)

Now, on to grad school.


I went for bachelors anyway although I get to finish this Friday. I guess the guy ain't a lawyer to take into consideration all the possible answers. I do not see what is the point of this poll though besides perhaps simply curiosity?


Got a B.Eng (Hons) and MSc (Distinction), the first one was a joint degree between CS and Electronic and Electrical Engineering and the last was straight up CS.

Its interesting to see the number of PhD's here. Always considered doing one but was put off when told that I had to defend my PhD 4-5 times a year and the PhD I was offered sounded very interesting but not quite my cup of tea (it was Planning in AI)

For the PhD's out there, was the experience worth while? Did you enjoy it?


I got one. I certainly enjoyed the experience. Original research is fun, and beyond that I had no responsibilities. Hard to beat that as far as jobs go.

It may not have been worthwhile in terms of career benefit (jury is still out). I don't want to be an academic, though I may follow that trajectory a few more years if the market stays bad. I may be able to spin off a research related startup, but that isn't guaranteed yet.

Regarding opportunity costs, I definitely missed out on getting into finance during the bubble.

(Incidentally, if anyone is looking for a python/c++ dev with solid quantitative skills, feel free to contact me.)


Worthwhile, yes; enjoy, somewhat; not my thing in the end, also true. I left the program after 2 years of research because you can get very forced into a niche to satisfy supervisors' and the academic world's requirements. I wanted to do something vaguely real-worldy, and had to leave the bubble of academia to do so. I don't regret starting the PhD or leaving it though.


I don't have a high school diploma but I'm in college. Voted for "elementary school" :)


I'm in HS, so I had to vote for elementary.


Congrats on starting early, I only wish I was rockin' the startup world in the mid nineties when I was in HS.


I bailed out of high school after three years and went to college.

I tried to avoid getting my high school diploma (skipped my graduation), but they mailed it to me.

I tried to avoid getting my college diploma (skipped my graduation) but they mailed it to me.

I've got to come up with better tactics to avoid credentials...


It turns out if you actually attend graduation, you don't really get your diploma then, either. It's too soon for them to know whether you passed your finals or not. So they end up mailing the diploma even if you went.

You do, however, manage to get out of spending an afternoon wearing robes and a squareish hat.


I got a diploma at my graduation. It was two full weeks after finals.


I wonder how common that is. At my school, most people finish their last final on Friday, go to graduation on Saturday, and leave town on Sunday.

It is a college town, though.


AEC in web development. AEC stands for "Attestation d'Etudes Collegiales". It's like a College diploma, but only in one field (web development; no philosophy courses or things like that).

More info (french) : http://www.cmaisonneuve.qc.ca/iti/aec_web-commerce/aec_web-c...


I finished high school, spent 1 year full time at university, then 5 years very part time whilst I started a business. It's 18 years since I started that business and I still don't have a Bachelors degree, but it would be wrong to conclude that just because I never completed it I didn't get anything from it. Similarly I recently met someone who nearly finished their PHD, but has abandoned that to start a business. I am sure she got a lot out of the work she did towards that PHD even if she didn't finish it.


Roughly (at 4 hours in):

  bachelor's: in the top 75%
  master's:   in the top 33%
  doctorate:  in the top 10%
(I'm assuming that a higher degree is "better", though some would differ. I've heard evidence that startup success inversely correlates with education. Some high-profile anecdotes: Bill Gates doesn't have a bachelors, Woz didn't have one at the time he designed the Apple, and I think the only degrees that Larry and Sergey got were their bachelors).


They do have one thing going for them. Unlike the narrow defined parameters of American higher education they do have a variety of outlets. You can stop your education at any time and basically have a degree (I think it's called a license) for each year complete: Bac+1, Bac+2, Bac+3. I have so many friends that have nothing to show after 2 or 3 years of school because they stopped for health, financial, or personal reasons.


I dropped out of high school, got a GED, and am now going to college. Marking "elementary school" does not seem quite accurate. ^.^


Habilitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation


In what topic? I've met A-list CS theory folks who wind up getting that only around mid career!


Other: Homeschooled kindergarten through the end of highschool when I started doing freelance web development. Two years after I began freelancing I got my current job as a software developer for a small startup.


M.S. Software Engineering. It was fun and definitely worth it. Having an undergrad in EE, I learned a lot and it prepared me for my current Technical Lead position very well.


Did bachelors at sydney uni and masters at the university of NSW. If i have a chance in future i would love to go to school in america. Have plans to do so if all goes well.


Other: Google


Other: School of hard knocks.


Finished high school, attended 4 years of college, dropped out as a senior.

Might finish one day, just because I don't like having things unfinished.


Highschool.

I've actually done all bar a few units of a Bachelor's Degree (Engineering), but quit and went travelling for a few years instead


I have A levels (UK), so I voted high school (the closest out of that list, I guess).


1 year college.

15 years kicking ass (built my first website when Mosaic ruled the roost).


College Dropout, and fairly satisfied with my results. YMMV


In college right now.


Glad there's an option for us high school drop outs :)


You should swap "Doctorate" out for "Terminal Degree."


I'm really good at surfing the internet.


Other: autodidact

Greater than any other "qualification...."

;)


Other = Law (J.D.)


Master's.


Pst. Don't exclude people without college degrees. They're often far more resourceful, in my experience, and there's little that college gives you as a developer. Hire the person, not the school.


there's little that college gives you as a developer

I hear this fallacy a lot.

A lot of people seem to give it a pass and nod along with it, maybe because it makes them feel better or maybe because it seems like the politically correct thing to say in a room full of talented hackers, only some of whom went to college.

While you in no way need to go to college to be a developer, I think people should be highly skeptical of this claim.

Look at the claim this way. Given two people with equal skill and ambition:

* the first one spent four years learning computer science and software engineering in school while hacking

* the second one spent four years hacking

The claim is that those people more or less have the same skill set.

It just seems unlikely that there's "very little" that the computer science program gave to the developer. It certainly doesn't match what I've actually seen in-field.

Of course, I'm biased: I went to school for computer science. Does anyone actually have evidence to support the other side of the argument?


I have a bachelor's degree in computer science. I probably learned some topics better than I would have on my own, thanks to being forced to dig deeper for the class. But I was an avid self-studier of computer science, and I learned a whole lot on my own. For the amount of computer science knowledge I need to do my real world work so far, I'm not convinced getting the formal education made a noticeable difference.

That said, I really appreciate all of the other topics I learned in more breadth and/or depth while in college. I learned far more about psychology, linguistics, literature, history, etc., than I would have any time soon on my own. I enjoy reading, and enjoy learning a wide variety of topics, but I tend to hyperfocus on what I feel interested in at the time. I doubt I would have bothered to learn anything about Russian culture or listened to recordings of Jelly Roll Morton if I hadn't been required to for course credit... and I feel better about myself for having learned these things.


And therein lies the real advantage, I think. I may be unschooled, but I am educated. Unfortunately, it's taken me the better part of fifty years to get there. These days my own abilities are severely restricted by Lewy Body Dementia, so I spend my time and energy mentoring young folk -- and none of them will hear me say that a liberal eduction is a waste of time. (And yes -- Jelly Roll, the Cabster and even His Royal Hipness hisself are part of the program.)


Sounds like you went to a great school. Most colleges in India don't allow any flexibility in what courses you can take. You have to pass all the prescribes subjects. Liberal arts? That's unheard of back here.


Mate, "liberal arts" is not a subject, trust me, you do have liberal arts in India :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

edit:link added


How can you not have liberal Arts, How can u not Have Art? They probably teach that in freaking Zimbabwe :P?


What common is it not true? He is making India sound like some very very poor country not a developing country


Here's the thing: I got a Masters in Software engineering 10 years after getting a BSEE. I studied all the interesting topics in software development I could find in the 10 years before going back to school. During my masters coursework, however, I was exposed to a bunch of things I had absolutely no interest in or knowledge of and I was blown away by how little I knew about the field in general as opposed to my little slice of it.

The problem with most self-taught people is that the knowledge is deep, but narrow. To be an excellent, innovative, developer you need breadth in order to be able to consider alternate approaches to a problem, but with sufficient depth in certain key areas to be able to do analysis when necessary.

College provides in 4 years what could otherwise take decades of "on the job" learning.


I've seen really good AND really bad developers with and without degrees. It really does seem to be more the person than the training.

Successful people without college degrees tend to take a few more years to move up the development food chain, they're basically opting to do on-the-job training.

Successful people with college degrees tend to have a stronger foundation in theory, which is useful; whether or not people want to admit it.

I don't believe they have the same skill sets, but they both bring something to the table.

Disclosure: My highest level of education is High School. I dropped out of college in my second semester to go work as a programmer. Over the years, I've hired lots of developers for various companies, and worked with hundreds of developers as well - with and without degrees.


It's not that a CS program has no useful content, but that the content is available to anyone interested in finding it. Knuth is accessible to a mathematically-inclined person with a tenth grade (equivalent) knowledge of mathematics (and three hundred bucks in his pocket), SICP is eerily transparent, the Dragon Book is certainly not beyond the ken of mere mortals, and so it goes. Admittedly, it takes more work to move beyond naivete without a formal education, but those who care about the craft will eventually get there. Those who do not care will still bubble sort despite their degree.


And you oh-so-effectively refute it.


Is that supposed to be an argument?

Or is your argument that all people who go to college are "rich and naive kids" as you implied earlier in the thread?

You're exposing a pretty huge chip on your shoulder.


No, I posted that before parent edited his post (classy). Initially, he only claimed that my point was a fallacy and made no argument whatsoever.


No, I posted that before parent edited his post (classy).

Now if only I could become as classy as you, injecting ad hominem jabs, bitter snark, and class warfare into the argument as a replacement for actually backing up your points.

[edited for wit]


Am I tired, or was that comment nothing but ad hominem? Perhaps you should take the high road next time and assume that I am just stating my own opinions, not trying to argue with anybody.

[edit below]

However, as you're egging me on, I will rebut your flimsy argument, the crux of which is this anecdotal beaut:

"It just seems unlikely that there's 'very little' that the computer science program gave to the developer. It certainly doesn't match what I've actually seen in-field."

If that's all you have to lean on, I don't understand how your comment was upvoted so much. Absent in your analysis is a thorough inventory of what college gives you: While it provides new opportunities for learning, it also does not provide things that you get in the working world, such as

* Business sense and professionalism

* Assuming you don't live at home, a sense of independence: Knowing how to take care of yourself at 22 when everyone else is just figuring out is a huge advantage, believe it or not

* Documented experience

* References from others with working-world experience

On the other hand, there are indeed negatives of going to college. To me, the greatest one is the massive time drain: I work in the day, go home, teach myself more, read history, learn chess, and basically provide my own education. This is not by design, but rather, by my nature. It's unfortunate that so many take education to be the exclusive realm of educational institutions.

Sitting through lectures and working to verify for your professors that you are learning, to me, is a waste of time, when I know damn well if I've learned it properly. If I haven't, and it's important, it will show quickly back at work.

Oh, and college costs tens of thousands of dollars.


Am I tired, or was that comment nothing but ad hominem?

That was kind of the point. I was trying to be classy, like you.

Perhaps you should take the high road next time and assume that I am just stating my own opinions, not trying to argue with anybody.

I didn't mean to start an argument, I was just responding to your post. You said that a degree in computer science adds nothing to how someone develops software. I replied that this seems false, gave my reasons why, and asked if anyone had evidence to the contrary. You took offense and started flaming.

[yadda yadda yadda ... you insulted my argument then said a bunch of other irrelevant stuff ... yadda yadda yadda]

My argument was short because what you said is prima facie false: you more or less said that years of training in software development adds nothing to one's software development skill set. It doesn't take much to rebut that.

The rest of what you said was all well and good, but you're now attacking a strawman. We're not talking about a cost-benefit analysis of going to college, so your points aren't really germane here. We're talking about your claim that college adds nothing, which you still haven't backed up ... probably because it's a completely untenable position. Four years of anything will add something to your skill set.

But flame on ... I'm done with the thread.


But flame on . . . I'm done with the thread.

To quote As Good as it Gets

"Last word freak."


If you're a person who doesn't need a university program, then you're a person who can get an incredible amount of value out of one as well. No school gives you anything, but you can take a hell of a lot out of a halfway decent program.


Absolutely, school has lots to offer, but what's often missing from the equation in discussions like these is opportunity cost.

People compare school vs "not-school" as if the alternative to school is sitting on your butt. In truth, one can accomplish a heck of a lot with that time and money.

It's a hugely personal decision of course.


I would say "In truth, SOME can accomplish a heck of a lot with that time and money." I think it really depends on the person, and their experiences up to the end of high school.

Give me that time and money now, and I can hopefully accomplish something useful.

Give me that time and money when I was just out of high school, and chances are very good that it would have gone to waste. I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life (still don't, but a bit less so than back then), I had no idea how to work hard, and only a vague idea of how the world works. Those are things I started to learn in college.

The opportunity cost goes both ways.


Unless you'd rather be in the working world than talking homework with a bunch of rich, naive kids.


You sound very bitter about this.

For what it's worth, I have a PhD and was not a "rich kid" - I was fortunate enough to grow up in the UK at a time when the government gave grants to people who would not otherwise be able to afford a university education (I'm not sure if they still do this - I know a lot has changed).


They don’t. I believe the last tuition grants were issued in 1996, and they’d been price-frozen for a while before that.


Shortly after Labour got into power they introduced tuition fees. There's still hope - they'll shortly be out of power, so who knows.


At least a few years ago, when I did my undergrad, you didn't actually have to pay the fees if you were from a low income background though. Couple that with a student loan you don't have to pay off until you're earning, and it's not quite as evil as it sounds.


It still strikes me as very odd though coming from a Labour government to do away with free university for everyone. I think that's an incredibly important thing for a society to have.

The fact you can get off paying if you're from low income families I'd bet still deters a lot of people from going to university, who would have otherwise gone which is a shame.


No, I'm not. I spurned college to enter the working world after high school (programming) and did well. Took classes as well, and transferred to a reputable school. While it wasn't hell on earth, the simplicity and naivette of most students was unbearable.


I think you should check your definition of unbearable. I graduated high school in 99 and was contemplating trying to exploit the first bubble but decided to go to school instead (I was obviously a bit too young at that time). A lot of life is a game and unless you are born rich, college is a big part of that game. We can't make life any more or less fair, we have to play the game with the cards we are dealt. College is an opportunity to meet people, get your day-to-day living paid for with loans or scholarships and polish your skills. Now, maybe it is best to go into the working world right away for some people, sure. However, a lot of software engineering is based on mathematical and theoretical principles and knowing those principles should help avoid various pitfalls. I don't know why I am writing such a detailed response to such a deep comment... I guess to suggest a more cold and calculating point of view. The other students are completely irrelevant, pleasures and what is "unbearable" are not really relevant. Taking a college degree gives huge advantages to those of us who are not trust fund babies and if you have some experience about how unbearable life can really get you make decisions based on long term benefit, not whether college kids annoy you for a few hours a week for a few years.


I have a bachelor's degree and, thank God, my school was (and is) committed to need-blind admissions and gives every student a financial aid package that covers 100% of their calculated need.

Without their generosity, it would have been very difficult to pay $40k/year to go there.


I failed out of University in my last year, but I had a wonderful experience there. OTOH this was in the days when you could get an engineering degree from a top Canadian university for $2.5k a year tuition.


Yeah, I don't have a college degree.


Me neither and there are a few instances where I regret it, but mostly during the time I "should" have been in school I was learning how to run my own company, live and provide for myself, taxes, health care and everything else. I have college educated friends who have gone back to working retail with no savings account because they don't know better. (I yell at them and teach them things from time to time, least I can do when I see friends making mistakes.)

I think in the long run it wont matter what level of education I've "completed", I'm always going to be learning and I'm always going to try to be good at what I do. Taking classes might help me one day, you never know.


Why would this get down voted?


You're not adding anything to the conversation. If you had said, "Yea I don't have a college degree and I've taught myself six different programming languages and I'm working on x, y and z right now," that would have been a (marginally) better response to the parent than what you wrote.


See, I think there is value in self-identification esp since not having a college degree makes you somewhat of a pariah in some circles.

Granted, it would have been better to provide some prove as to why it is notable that I personally do not have a college degree, but being here at HN counts for something.

But yeah, I have probably taught myself 6 programming languages (PHP, Ruby, Java, Python, Javascript, Perl, and some software specific programming tools like Lawson Process Flow, TSQL, etc). I have over 10 years of tech / business experience, own 2 retail clothing stores, took statzen.com to TechCrunch50 DemoPit last year, am about to launch http://gpsaAssassins.com, yada yada.

I was going to go back and finish my BS, but something better keeps coming along. Now I am at a point where it doesn't seem worth it. So I am thinking I may one day clep out of a much of stuff and go get my MBA. Of course, by the time I have the time to go back to school the MBA probably won't seem worth it either.

So, hopefully that adds a little more to the conversation. (Better late than never)


Probably because it doesn't really add anything to the discussion.


COMPTIA A+, Network+ certifications


Doctorate is not PhD, MD, or JD. please correct your poll


Doctorate is accurate. While PhD is technically a "research doctorate" and MD and JD are "professional doctorates", all three are types of doctorate degrees.

PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) MD (Doctor of Medicine) JD (Juris Doctor)


accurate, but not specific


LLD is a doctorate too (Doctor of Laws) - the next step up from the LLM (Master of Laws) - to be a solicitor or a barrister, one needs at least an LLB (Bachelor of Laws).

I (almost) decided to study law once which is how I know. I was so enamored with Cole Turner (Julian McMahon's character in 'Charmed') I very nearly decided to pursue an online law degree, since Cole was a lawyer. Who knows. Maybe I still will one of these days, but since all my experience is in SQA, it would not be the most logical thing in the world in the long run I don't think.

But anyway, LLD is also another kind of doctorate, along with Ph.D. MD, DDS, DVM, etc.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: