Quick Poll
-
Went for BS degree in EET, then MS in computer science. Damn, what a jerk I was... biggest waste of time in my life. At the end of the day just do it... OJT makes all things right.
MrPlankton
MrPlankton wrote:
Went for BS degree in EET, then MS in computer science. Damn, what a jerk I was... biggest waste of time in my life. At the end of the day just do it... OJT makes all things right.
Here's where I will disagree. Although a degree does not absolutely prove anything as far as skill, only your talent and ability can do that. A degree demonstrates dedication to finishing what you start, and it has a value on paper that allows for promotions. Our company has a requirement for 75% degree on the hiring block. So for every one like me who does not have a degree, they have to have three BS's, two MS's or a PhD to offset my lack of degree. There is also a limit on payscale based on degree. I never said the degree isn't worth the time, it simply doesn't prove anything about your skill as a programmer. Here you could make nearly 50% more as a maximum salary for the exact same job (higher than me, not necessarily higher than you where ever you are now). Now that is maximum, what you earn, you earn by doing the work and demonstrating that skill. Still, the lack of a degree is a problem, so don't knock the degree as a complete waste.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
As my mini-bio notes, in real life I was a research chemist. The real thing - including doing the first Uranium Isotope Enrichment using lasers in a molecular (room-temperature) process.* Using a computer (no PCs, yet) was often taught as part of the Quantum Chemistry course, used, for example, to model a particle in a box with various types of barriers. Rudimentary coding was taught to all - professors in these fields typically spent their time (actually that of grad students) creating 20 Kg decks of punch-cards to do their theoretical work. Computer usage permeated the field as soon as they became available. Computers were a great recreational outlet, and the "new" 16-bit A/D converters and a PC/AT gave me a chance to teach a computer to do my work for me. And then, simulation of idealized chemical interactions. Always more cpu-intensive: always requiring rethinking code to make it run faster. This was very serious business: a model that would run on a modern PC in 10 minutes might take 6 cpu-hours. Ultimately, life took various turns - I ended up living where no work exists for a research chemist - and ended up writing POS for Dry Cleaning OH how the might hath fallen! Things are better now. But life without A CO2-TEA laser to blast local vermin is just not the same. No di-methyl formamide to dissolve set-epoxy glue. Nor seperatory funnels to produce top quality pepper oil using fresh peppers. And the UN inspectors finding a cave where Sadaam's scientists had research papers on enriching uranium - including by use of lasers. *for those of you how must know, the compound used was Uranium Hexamethoxide.
"Every now and then, the past moves ahead of us in order that we might face it." - Balboos HaGadol
Balboos wrote:
Things are better now. But life without A CO2-TEA laser to blast local vermin is just not the same.
You just need to move to HEL. They always need another chemical laser in HEL.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
A lot of persons in the business application domain insist that formal education in computer science is not necessary. However, I am not one of them. CS is vitally important to the success of any project.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwayEnnis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
CS is vitally important to the success of any project.
Putty and Paint a Carpenter do make.
-
I have to take some offense at the negative comments about older programmers (I'm 51), former mainframe programmers (I did 8 or 9 years on IBM big irons, from Sytem 360 up), and former COBOL programmers (I did COBOL for 5 years). None of those things has any real bearing on the quality of a programmer or his/her product. Other factors, such as the ability to come up with creative solutions to problems, the willingness and desire (even eagerness) to learn new technologies, and the capability to work well with customers are much more important, and those traits are just a lacking in many young, microcomputer based, C# programmers. Now to the original question: I have little or no "formal training". I took a 9-week course in COBOL in the USMC (I was doing Fortran before that, self-taught) and a couple of 1-7 day classes in various subjects are the only "formal" technical training I've had. I also had little formal higher-level eduction. I've taken a dozen or so college classes. Only two were in computer-related subjects. In one of the classes the instructor told me I could have taught (he worked across the hall from me for 3 years when I was in the Marine Corps, and he was right). I got bored with the computer classes and switched to a broader curriculm including accounting, english and economics. I had a 4.0 average when I got tired of going to school part-time, working full-time, and trying to be a husband and father as well, and dropped out. I've worked with programmers that had degrees in other fields (one with a PhD in Physics), and I could program rings around any of them any day of the week. For most of the last 30 years I have successfully made a living at programming. I've taught myself everything from PL/I and S360 Assembler to HTML, CSS, XML, C, C++, VB, Perl, PHP, SQL, a smattering of x86 machine language, and another dozen or two acronyms. In spite of my mainframe and COBOL background I've never had trouble picking up and using new technologies. I even "get" Object-Oriented Programming. I've never had trouble dealing with users, customers, and other technical people either. I've developed course materials for a couple of 1-14 day computer classes for the US Government. I've taught several different computer classes at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And I've helped others in countless other ways. I've been a Tek-Tips Tipmaster of the Month. Customers and non-technical users consider me to be one of the best technical people they've worked with because I have the ability to explain things
tsdragon wrote:
I have to take some offense at the negative comments about older programmers (I'm 51)
I meant that only as a wide generalization, no offense intended. I do know some older programmers, and though it is true to some extent that they still have a mindset centered around old school methods, they all have invaluable experience and much more knowledge of how things came to be the way they are now. I really meant to disrespect.
tsdragon wrote:
explain things to them clearly without "talking down to them". That's a ability that seems clearly lacking in younger programmers and those with college degrees
That's a good point. And I can actually relate, though I'm only 35. Younger people that have a little computer knowledge do tend to think they are worlds beyond older people just because they've grown up with it. Even at 35 it's annoying to have some snot nosed 17 year old at Best Buy try to tell me that my heat sync was making noises, not my processor fan.
tsdragon wrote:
If you don't love it, you're going to be a mediocre programmer no matter how many classes or degrees you have
Well said.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
I live here in the Pacific Northwest about 30 miles south of 'Microsponge'. IT here encompasses programmers, developers, sys-admin, database admin, security specialists, etc. If you don't have a piece of paper with BS written on it then you ain't s**t. I'm 44 years old and I have over 20 years real life work experience in the computer industry and it don't mean squat cause I don't have my degree yet.(which I'm working on now)
That's not true. If you have 10 years experience they don't care about the degree. I've turned down multiple offers in Bellevue and I have no degree. I would say that you don't have the right experience. Or you don't sell yourself. Anyone with tcp/threading/c++/templates AND .NET will thrive there.
-
How many IT professionals here have had formal training and how many have not. Personally, I went to college for graphic design, and half way through changed to physics. Some time during all that I started working for Compaq tech support, and after playing with some web technologies got into their system admin team. From there I started doing lots of database work, ASP 3.0 & VB 6. And by then decided programming was where I wanted to be, and after 5 years in college in seemingly unrelated fields, decided not to go back to school for IT. I feel like I probably missed out on a lot not having formal training. I did take some programming courses, some out of interest and some as requirements for a physics degree. But not to a meaningful extent. Just curious about how many IT pros haven't had much formal training. And from those who did get IT related degrees, what do you feel it really gave you?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Self taught in computers, then again when I started punch cards and vaccum tubes were still being used. Portable computers was a NOVA computer in a rack with wheels.. and some small company just came out with the 2002. TTL was becoming the standard, Bill was still in school and Darthmouth developed a language called Basic. High speed terminals were teletypes with 110 baud modems. RC
-
I have a BS degree in Computer Science and written programs in over a dozen different languages. If someone tells me they are a "insert programming language here" programmer I worry. My experience is that this is where a formal education helps. You are exposed to multiple languages, the domains where they are used and the reason they are effective. A programmer can learn SQL but they will be more effective if they have also been exposed Relational Algebra and Relational Calculas which is the mathematics behind the language. Knowing why and how a language is created is a powerfull tool when it comes to learning a new language. There are competent, even excellent, programmers that are self taught but in my opinion they are the exception rather than the rule.
Wambach wrote:
There are competent, even excellent, programmers that are self taught but in my opinion they are the exception rather than the rule.
I don't know. I know only what we do, and we have both degreed and non-degreed. But I am a bit surprised people keep saying, well "formal education provides the math" or "formal education provides the structure". All of those the programmer can choose to learn. Sure, I hated math, I was the kid who believed computers were going to do my math for me. That and some issues at home, drove me out on the market early. I discovered within 6 months I had to do the math for the computers. still am. Without a formal degree, I still do the physics, the calculus, and even a smattering of various engineering works. You find what is needed, you find the answer. Doesn't matter if you have to find the research in a doctorate thesis, or a published book, or go back to school. You find the answer and use it. The difference comes down to the programmers who want to find the answer, and the ones who do not. Even formal trainging cannot save you from the latter, they will eventually forget anything they might have learned. The former, whether they come from formal education or not, will continue to strive for the answers that solve problems. If you are truly lucky, you get someone with enough skill and creativity to solve problems that have not been solved yet. That then pushes the company to the forefront of technology, the bleeding edge so to speak. Neither school, nor on the job training can successfully predict who will have that kind of creativity. You can encourage it, or discourage it, and most colleges I have seen discourage it until at least the PhD level. If you survive that long, you are allowed to get creative, if you want to. The primary advantage to a formal education without respect to skill, is that if you stay into PhD and never gain the skills to work in the work force, you can always teach at the same school you graduated from.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
That's not true. If you have 10 years experience they don't care about the degree. I've turned down multiple offers in Bellevue and I have no degree. I would say that you don't have the right experience. Or you don't sell yourself. Anyone with tcp/threading/c++/templates AND .NET will thrive there.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
That's not true. If you have 10 years experience they don't care about the degree.
I would take the middle ground. The degree matters, but the experience matters more. The degree does open doors for money, as others have explained. So although you could get a job without a degree, you might not be able to live off that job in some areas. When I got my first job, I turned down an offer of $13k in the valley of quartz, no one could have lived off that in California, not even in 1985. Now had I been able to survive, through a spouse, or other income, I could probably make a lot more. but cost of living would be higher too. There would be similar limits to my income based on education unless I got into the entertainment business which has less formal structure to its payscale. No, experience is worth a lot to an employer, but so is a degree. At 10 years the experience is usually worth more, unless the market is saturated in that area. In which case, you move to an area without saturation.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Went for BS degree in EET, then MS in computer science. Damn, what a jerk I was... biggest waste of time in my life. At the end of the day just do it... OJT makes all things right.
Here's where I will disagree. Although a degree does not absolutely prove anything as far as skill, only your talent and ability can do that. A degree demonstrates dedication to finishing what you start, and it has a value on paper that allows for promotions. Our company has a requirement for 75% degree on the hiring block. So for every one like me who does not have a degree, they have to have three BS's, two MS's or a PhD to offset my lack of degree. There is also a limit on payscale based on degree. I never said the degree isn't worth the time, it simply doesn't prove anything about your skill as a programmer. Here you could make nearly 50% more as a maximum salary for the exact same job (higher than me, not necessarily higher than you where ever you are now). Now that is maximum, what you earn, you earn by doing the work and demonstrating that skill. Still, the lack of a degree is a problem, so don't knock the degree as a complete waste.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I understand. However, you are describing your company's policy, arbitrarily made by someone in HR or management who has no way of knowing whether paying a 50% premium for a degree makes a difference in the quality talent they recruit. If someone makes the argument that "formally trained" programmers are a better value, I would like to see the statistics on that.
MrPlankton
-
How many IT professionals here have had formal training and how many have not. Personally, I went to college for graphic design, and half way through changed to physics. Some time during all that I started working for Compaq tech support, and after playing with some web technologies got into their system admin team. From there I started doing lots of database work, ASP 3.0 & VB 6. And by then decided programming was where I wanted to be, and after 5 years in college in seemingly unrelated fields, decided not to go back to school for IT. I feel like I probably missed out on a lot not having formal training. I did take some programming courses, some out of interest and some as requirements for a physics degree. But not to a meaningful extent. Just curious about how many IT pros haven't had much formal training. And from those who did get IT related degrees, what do you feel it really gave you?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
I'm completely self-taught and have been a programmer for 36 years. Began with Fortran and quickly found comfort with assembly language, modifying a batch operating system. When the other teenagers were hanging out, I was in the computer room. After 15 years I moved on to C, then to C++, Cold Fusion, and currently VB.NET. Working with assembly language and pouring over real operating system code was a valuable training ground, in addition to reading everything I could find on computers in general. There have been a few points in my career when it seemed that I could've benefited from some knowledge of theory, but I honestly don't think lack of that knowledge has held me back. Knowledge of algorithms may have helped with sorting or hashing, but since I hate anything math-related anyway I don't know if I would've absorbed much anyway. As one of the "old guys" I'd like to address the perception that we don't adapt. We do. But remember that we have seen productivity tools, application frameworks, and technologies come and go, so we may not automatically embrace the hot new thing just because it's new. Personally, I'm sometimes wistful for the old days when I built virtually everything from scratch. Yes I know that time is money, but what has kept me in the field is the opportunity to be creative as well. So I'm somewhat resistant to structured development and the push to develop code faster (not necessarily better!). Edward...
-
How many IT professionals here have had formal training and how many have not. Personally, I went to college for graphic design, and half way through changed to physics. Some time during all that I started working for Compaq tech support, and after playing with some web technologies got into their system admin team. From there I started doing lots of database work, ASP 3.0 & VB 6. And by then decided programming was where I wanted to be, and after 5 years in college in seemingly unrelated fields, decided not to go back to school for IT. I feel like I probably missed out on a lot not having formal training. I did take some programming courses, some out of interest and some as requirements for a physics degree. But not to a meaningful extent. Just curious about how many IT pros haven't had much formal training. And from those who did get IT related degrees, what do you feel it really gave you?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Been programming since 1979. I "have no fomal twaining". I am not taking online I.T. courses and am learning almost nothing new. In some cases, there might be a hole in your knowledge that gets filled in. But nothing that is immediately useful. Book and Application learning are the key to this field in my opinion. These people who weed people out of interviews based on college or certification, are myopic. Some managers are like that and you will never get the job. So it depends on whether you look at the world as: "Most managers look for college in the field and/or certifications", or "Most managers look for applications and experience". I was in a flame war with someone here that was clearly a cert guy. I received all my jobs without college or cert. I am currently a team lead with a $9B market cap global manufacturer. They don't seem to mind. However, I won't make it to Director unless I have a B.S. degree. That's my view, not the company's statement.
-
I understand. However, you are describing your company's policy, arbitrarily made by someone in HR or management who has no way of knowing whether paying a 50% premium for a degree makes a difference in the quality talent they recruit. If someone makes the argument that "formally trained" programmers are a better value, I would like to see the statistics on that.
MrPlankton
MrPlankton wrote:
If someone makes the argument that "formally trained" programmers are a better value, I would like to see the statistics on that.
I never said that. However, it does look "good" on paper. Los Alamos, NM claims the highest PhD per square mile than anywhere else in the region. Occasionally they claim the nation too, and its even true once in a while. It looks good on paper, so they get the money, so they hire more PhDs, which looks good on paper, which gets the money, etc. Eventually if you hire enough you will find someone will talent. I am not saying a degree makes you better, but it is a fact of life we deal with every day that a degreed person has a larger potential for making more money than non-degreed. What each does with their potential is completely up to the programmer. A degreed person can make less money because he fails to meet his potential.
MrPlankton wrote:
However, you are describing your company's policy, arbitrarily made by someone in HR or management who has no way of knowing whether paying a 50% premium for a degree makes a difference in the quality talent they recruit.
Well, actually it is US government policity that is required also of contractors, which in turn is encouraged to the rest of the business sector. But other than that, you are correct. ;)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Went for BS degree in EET, then MS in computer science. Damn, what a jerk I was... biggest waste of time in my life. At the end of the day just do it... OJT makes all things right.
Here's where I will disagree. Although a degree does not absolutely prove anything as far as skill, only your talent and ability can do that. A degree demonstrates dedication to finishing what you start, and it has a value on paper that allows for promotions. Our company has a requirement for 75% degree on the hiring block. So for every one like me who does not have a degree, they have to have three BS's, two MS's or a PhD to offset my lack of degree. There is also a limit on payscale based on degree. I never said the degree isn't worth the time, it simply doesn't prove anything about your skill as a programmer. Here you could make nearly 50% more as a maximum salary for the exact same job (higher than me, not necessarily higher than you where ever you are now). Now that is maximum, what you earn, you earn by doing the work and demonstrating that skill. Still, the lack of a degree is a problem, so don't knock the degree as a complete waste.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
Now that is maximum, what you earn, you earn by doing the work and demonstrating that skill.
I'm not sure I'm out of context here, but the way I read this, you are incorrect. You aren't earning the max by doing, you are artificially limited by the management's arbitrary scale. If you know X and degreeGuy knows X, then you should be paid for what you know and the application of that knowledge. Assuming (there's a risk here of assuming) that you both know and apply X. It is WORTH the same to the company no matter who X comes from. So they are profiting by putting you down, not because of your intelligence, but because circumstances were not perfect so that you could go to college. My family was on welfare (5 kids, mom, no dad), couldn't afford college (there are WAY more fees than the grants give you), etc... So I am penalized by some pinhead who came from suburbia? I don't think so. Sorry for the rant.
-
How many IT professionals here have had formal training and how many have not. Personally, I went to college for graphic design, and half way through changed to physics. Some time during all that I started working for Compaq tech support, and after playing with some web technologies got into their system admin team. From there I started doing lots of database work, ASP 3.0 & VB 6. And by then decided programming was where I wanted to be, and after 5 years in college in seemingly unrelated fields, decided not to go back to school for IT. I feel like I probably missed out on a lot not having formal training. I did take some programming courses, some out of interest and some as requirements for a physics degree. But not to a meaningful extent. Just curious about how many IT pros haven't had much formal training. And from those who did get IT related degrees, what do you feel it really gave you?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Wow a lot of fellow physics grads here :) Hons. Physics, was originally going to do a minor in CS, but after second year the courses available to the minors were too basic. U of Waterloo, they pride themselves on their CS (always in the top 5 for the ACM contest for example) and in general the department despises all others taking there courses. If you want to take a CS major course, you have to wait to a day before the deadline, and all CS students get first crack, then the math students, then everyone else. The end result is you sit in on the course for 3 weeks, but most likely won't be able to take it :( Anyways, I got 2 years as a intern doing scientific computing work (protein folding, superconductivity), 2 courses in simulation, software engineering, digital electronics, machine architecture, 2 courses in db, AI and a couple first year CS courses. So I guess I'm a CS grad minus the CS specific math courses :) (no C & O for me, no graph theory). My first job out of university is where I'm now, I'm everything IT for a cancer centre. DBA, workstation, a little programming, networking, etc. I'm looking to get back into heavy programming, who wants a crazy physicist, I know where you can find one :)
-
Wambach wrote:
There are competent, even excellent, programmers that are self taught but in my opinion they are the exception rather than the rule.
I don't know. I know only what we do, and we have both degreed and non-degreed. But I am a bit surprised people keep saying, well "formal education provides the math" or "formal education provides the structure". All of those the programmer can choose to learn. Sure, I hated math, I was the kid who believed computers were going to do my math for me. That and some issues at home, drove me out on the market early. I discovered within 6 months I had to do the math for the computers. still am. Without a formal degree, I still do the physics, the calculus, and even a smattering of various engineering works. You find what is needed, you find the answer. Doesn't matter if you have to find the research in a doctorate thesis, or a published book, or go back to school. You find the answer and use it. The difference comes down to the programmers who want to find the answer, and the ones who do not. Even formal trainging cannot save you from the latter, they will eventually forget anything they might have learned. The former, whether they come from formal education or not, will continue to strive for the answers that solve problems. If you are truly lucky, you get someone with enough skill and creativity to solve problems that have not been solved yet. That then pushes the company to the forefront of technology, the bleeding edge so to speak. Neither school, nor on the job training can successfully predict who will have that kind of creativity. You can encourage it, or discourage it, and most colleges I have seen discourage it until at least the PhD level. If you survive that long, you are allowed to get creative, if you want to. The primary advantage to a formal education without respect to skill, is that if you stay into PhD and never gain the skills to work in the work force, you can always teach at the same school you graduated from.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
El Corazon wrote:
Now that is maximum, what you earn, you earn by doing the work and demonstrating that skill.
I'm not sure I'm out of context here, but the way I read this, you are incorrect. You aren't earning the max by doing, you are artificially limited by the management's arbitrary scale. If you know X and degreeGuy knows X, then you should be paid for what you know and the application of that knowledge. Assuming (there's a risk here of assuming) that you both know and apply X. It is WORTH the same to the company no matter who X comes from. So they are profiting by putting you down, not because of your intelligence, but because circumstances were not perfect so that you could go to college. My family was on welfare (5 kids, mom, no dad), couldn't afford college (there are WAY more fees than the grants give you), etc... So I am penalized by some pinhead who came from suburbia? I don't think so. Sorry for the rant.
MajorTom123 wrote:
My family was on welfare (5 kids, mom, no dad), couldn't afford college (there are WAY more fees than the grants give you), etc... So I am penalized by some pinhead who came from suburbia? I don't think so.
So was mine. I ended up putting myself through school as a gardener (and lots of loans). Life is still what we make it. Sure it is harder, sure there is more effort to make it through. sure the payscales are better. But you still do your best and earn the top rather than the bottom of your payscale.
MajorTom123 wrote:
you are artificially limited by the management's arbitrary scale.
Well, it is the US government's payscale. Someone tries to argue with them, but they have the guns, they always win the arguments. ;) A four year degree is worth about 8-10 years of experience, so you gain higher ground with a degree. Since I have 22 years of experience, with a BS I would gain an instant one paygrade raise in the limit. I would eventually reach that same payscale without a degree, it only takes longer. You can see how adding a degree can quickly raise your pay brackets. A PhD is three grade levels base salary. But beyond the base is up to you and what YOU do with your own potential.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Balboos wrote:
Things are better now. But life without A CO2-TEA laser to blast local vermin is just not the same.
You just need to move to HEL. They always need another chemical laser in HEL.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
You just need to move to HEL. They always need another chemical laser in H
Co2 Lasers are not chemical lasers in the normal usage of the phrase. The TEA stands fors "Transverse Excitation - Axial". A mixture of Helium, Nitrogen, and (what else) CO2 are passed through a laser cavity and an electrical discharge (in the form of an almost invisible sheet) jumps an electrode gap. The energy transfer eventually results in an inversion of excited CO2 molecules: the rest is Einstein. The gain on CO2 lasers is extremely high, and conversion can reach 20%. It's so ready-to-lase that a scuffed spoon can act as one half of the resonator for the cavity.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
-
MajorTom123 wrote:
My family was on welfare (5 kids, mom, no dad), couldn't afford college (there are WAY more fees than the grants give you), etc... So I am penalized by some pinhead who came from suburbia? I don't think so.
So was mine. I ended up putting myself through school as a gardener (and lots of loans). Life is still what we make it. Sure it is harder, sure there is more effort to make it through. sure the payscales are better. But you still do your best and earn the top rather than the bottom of your payscale.
MajorTom123 wrote:
you are artificially limited by the management's arbitrary scale.
Well, it is the US government's payscale. Someone tries to argue with them, but they have the guns, they always win the arguments. ;) A four year degree is worth about 8-10 years of experience, so you gain higher ground with a degree. Since I have 22 years of experience, with a BS I would gain an instant one paygrade raise in the limit. I would eventually reach that same payscale without a degree, it only takes longer. You can see how adding a degree can quickly raise your pay brackets. A PhD is three grade levels base salary. But beyond the base is up to you and what YOU do with your own potential.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon, Sorry I just have to disagree with you on the premise, but agree with one of your specifics.
El Corazon wrote:
So was mine. I ended up putting myself through school as a gardener (and lots of loans). Life is still what we make it. Sure it is harder, sure there is more effort to make it through. sure the payscales are better. But you still do your best and earn the top rather than the bottom of your payscale.
I worked through it all too. I dropped out of college when the Assistant Dean teaching one of the classes I was "learning" in asked me to teach since "You know more than I do about this". Hrmph. And I'm paying for this? At the beginning of a full workload, I held two jobs. Quit one after a semester and the other was a programming job. After the first year of college the company begged me to work for them full time, and they would pay for night school. My career was launched.
El Corazon wrote:
A four year degree is worth about 8-10 years of experience, so you gain higher ground with a degree. Since I have 22 years of experience, with a BS I would gain an instant one paygrade raise in the limit. I would eventually reach that same payscale without a degree, it only takes longer. You can see how adding a degree can quickly raise your pay brackets. A PhD is three grade levels base salary.
I worked for one and only one company like that (and I know you are stuck with the government requirements), and I was asked by another company to work for them. I left the first myopic company where the programmers were asking me for help with their programs, but I was an un-degreed lowly tech. Their loss. What I agree with you on, is if you are starting out in our field the degree is perceived to be worth 8-10 years of real experience. It gives you a leg up in most organizations if you have a degree. Once you pass the 8-10 year mark of experience you can triumphantly, AND MAGICALLY I might add, say you are "worth it" now. I would be the first to hire a programmer who has worked in companies for 6 years against 99% of the degreed programmers exiting a college. They may lack some knowledge, but I can mentor them and direct them. If they are truly one of us, then they will grok it quickly. Good dialogue, gets both sides of the debate out.
-
I have a bit of a mixture. An electronic apprentiship, some formal university computer science training (but not to degree level), and lots of self taught knowledge. As a developer where a lot of self teaching is involved, I think there are 2 very significant parts of my training, both of them from university ... 1. The formal training involving hardware elements and macro level machine code (CS300), leading to developing a simple compiler. (on DEC - PDP systems) 2. Internal data structures using C (CS340) (lots of indirection involved - really hammering pointers). Having a good grounding in these 2 helps a great deal when learning new languages like C#, which is what I do now. I work with a group, and have worked with others in the past, who have not benefitted from these basics, and I find the difference in understanding what's going on when the programs execute and how systems hang together almost screams out. I am one of the 'old boys' whose learning started before moving into the OO world. For me it was an easy switch, but I can easily see it being difficult for mainframe cobol developers. My route was C, C++, C# (with basket weaving, better known as VB in there as well). I also wonder if starting to learn programming at the end - i.e. starting with something like Java, does developers a limiting disservice instead of starting at the beginning with good old C, or something even more basic like machine code. Ken Ede - lead developer - Europa Group.
I agree with Ken. When I went to university the 2nd half of 1st year we were taught assembler. I have found it invaluable to know what the machine is actually doing. I came up through C, C++ and have landed in C# (and java when I have to) and I know pointers although I have never been able to sucessfully explain them to those people who couldn't figure it out themselves. All .NET languages use pointers (those "ref" types and arguments), it's just that the compilers give you a prettier view of them. But when things start crapping out, sometimes you really gotta know. The other thing that university (any program, not just CompSci) teaches you is critical thinking and perseverance (ya gotta pass Stats even when you know you'll never use it). Perseverance proves that even if you're assigned a task which you totally disagree with, you'll still do it. It also teaches you how to properly learn. My cousin's husband (who is a university prof) always said, it you want a doctor, make him an engineer first, then he'll know how to learn. (He may be a bit biased) Gary Dryden One parting shot, how often do you go to a self-taught doctor?
-
El Corazon wrote:
You just need to move to HEL. They always need another chemical laser in H
Co2 Lasers are not chemical lasers in the normal usage of the phrase. The TEA stands fors "Transverse Excitation - Axial". A mixture of Helium, Nitrogen, and (what else) CO2 are passed through a laser cavity and an electrical discharge (in the form of an almost invisible sheet) jumps an electrode gap. The energy transfer eventually results in an inversion of excited CO2 molecules: the rest is Einstein. The gain on CO2 lasers is extremely high, and conversion can reach 20%. It's so ready-to-lase that a scuffed spoon can act as one half of the resonator for the cavity.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Balboos wrote:
Co2 Lasers are not chemical lasers in the normal usage of the phrase.
I know, but if you have laser experience, you'll be put to work on a chemical laser. I studied lasers when I was younger, now I am back to studying some again. I was actually making a very poor imitation of a joke, chemical researcher in this area of the world gets to work on chemical lasers, or other chemical products. Trust me, you'll want to work on the lasers unless you prefer doing hazmat or spending your whole life on black projects. They do have gas lasers, they get used for demonstrations, small-scale tests, and others such things. They call them toys. ;) They take the Co2 lasers to high schools and middle schools for the wow factor. That and a good hyperspectral camera so that you can "see" the beam. :-D Toys are nice too. I don't know if they have any Co2 TEA lasers in their collection of Co2 Lasers. I just make the software. Folks like you get to play with the big toys. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)