Quick Poll
-
That's a good way to do that. And you are correct, get more than "one" company on your list of clients. One way I time sliced, was to offer them (after the initial longer contract), three month and in some cases when there was a lot of work at several of my clients, a weekly and project by project basis. Kept me at about 60-80 hours a week. In AD time (after diapers when the first boo bear came) I had to scale back. I wish you immense skill because luck doesn't count. You'll do just fine.
MajorTom123 wrote:
I wish you immense skill because luck doesn't count. You'll do just fine.
skill I got, it's timing I suck at. ;P
_________________________ 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 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 started off pursuing a Math degree, which evolved into Computer Science which further evolved to add Computer engineering. My first programming language was Pascal, then went into machine coding and IBM Mainframe (OS/360) with MVS/JCL (showing my age, am I?) For me, the leap to OO was not quite so intuitive. I have self-taught most of the more 'modern' languages and am currently doing most of my 'work' using Python. The only advantage I see in learning in a classroom environment is the person-to-person atmosphere.;) Evelyn - System Engineer/Analyst - Northrop Grumman Corp.
-
Wambach wrote:
Would you make this same argument for other professions?
Actually it has been done successfully for quite a few of those professions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Waldo_Demara[^] What I am saying is a degree does not prove any specific talent, only that the person had knowledge available to him. Sure doctors have to have degrees. I also will refuse to be treated by some of them, period. Because they have a complete lack of understanding or caring for patients, they have no desire, nor goal to treat you. They don't want to know what is wrong with you, and couldn't care less. they are there for you to give money to, and to hand you an asperin (or other pill) and shoo you out the door. One of those doctors nearly killed me, another saved me. A doctor let me know what full-scale morphine withdrawal feels like, a nurse pulled me back. There are some pilots I would never set foot on a plane with, and some I would gladly. Some of the commercial pilots with non-military backgrounds I wouldn't touch, some of the military pilots I wouldn't touch either. and since you mentioned it, actually my backwoods lawyer beat the ivy leager, she had the high ground, he had the low even though he was paid almost three times her salary, my lawyer still won hands down. Sometimes it is about more than a degree. Which is what I am saying, if you would actually listen. The degree does matter, it does not replace, nor does it demonstrate talent or expertise. Those you will have to look for no matter what profession you are looking for. If you hire by the degree only, you get what you pay for, a piece of paper. If you hire by the talent, any combination of degrees, you get talent.
Wambach wrote:
If you had to choose between two people with identical intelligence, drive, and creativity for a programming job but only one of them had a degree in Computer Science which one would you hire?
I have never met a clone, I would hire both out of sheer curiosity. such a hypothetical situation can never truly exist. There are always balances, there are always give and takes. I would say the one that fit the "team" better since both are hypothetically identical. Team players are harder to find than degrees.
____
-
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 currently in my 5th semester at Kutztown University for my BS in Computer Science. My school has the Computer Science major split into two separate "paths", one for Software Development and the other for Information Technology. CS majors are required to take at least 3 or 4 semesters of C++, a semester or two of Visual Basic and I believe 1 semester of Assembly and Java. I'm currently in the IT pathway, but I'm planning on looking into possibly switching to the Software pathway or seeing if there's anything that I can do to get a general BS in Computer science to cover both pathways. About 80% of the courses offered in both paths are the same and I'm pretty sure that most electives are offered to the other pathway. I'm still sort of undecided if I want to actually program as a career, or go for a systems administration position. If anybody has any insight as to what is generally "better", I would appreciate it. I'm sort of leaning towards staying in the IT pathway because I figure I could still write programs as side projects.
-
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.
Interesting question. I may be showing my age but here goes. When I started all of our programming was done with a soldering iron and we spent most of our time replacing vacume tubes. Yep, that's right. Just think, where did the first programmer get his training? The first doctor, the first engineer etc. Formal training is great when it is available. However it will always be 3 to 10 years behind the technology (plus school time). To answer your question. I get most of my training on the run from books, magazines, seminars and lots of sites like this one. I don't except any popular system or hardware until I have tested, experimented and otherwise proven the scope and limitations of it and the people behind it. Good training helps us to avoid making mistakes. However, it has been shown that we often learn more from our mistakes than our sucesses. To be ahead of today's competition people need to be at the front of the group. Old eskimo saying: "If you are not the lead dog, the scenary never changes." The best training is to learn to organize you approach not just to work but everything you do. Aristotle is quoted as saying "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act but a habit." Good work habits evolve from good life habits. Polyprogrammer
-
Interesting question. I may be showing my age but here goes. When I started all of our programming was done with a soldering iron and we spent most of our time replacing vacume tubes. Yep, that's right. Just think, where did the first programmer get his training? The first doctor, the first engineer etc. Formal training is great when it is available. However it will always be 3 to 10 years behind the technology (plus school time). To answer your question. I get most of my training on the run from books, magazines, seminars and lots of sites like this one. I don't except any popular system or hardware until I have tested, experimented and otherwise proven the scope and limitations of it and the people behind it. Good training helps us to avoid making mistakes. However, it has been shown that we often learn more from our mistakes than our sucesses. To be ahead of today's competition people need to be at the front of the group. Old eskimo saying: "If you are not the lead dog, the scenary never changes." The best training is to learn to organize you approach not just to work but everything you do. Aristotle is quoted as saying "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act but a habit." Good work habits evolve from good life habits. Polyprogrammer
Well said. And a good point about how schools tend to be far behind. When I was in college less than a decade ago, they were just starting to create CS degree paths. And when I started college, there were programming classes as part of the math department, but that was it. Like you say, any programmer that hopes to stay relevant has to be learning all the time. And the profession seems to primarily attract people that don't want to stop learning. I had a job a few years ago with a company that was in the process of converting their entire code base from Cold Fusion to .Net. 75% of the developers there seemed to have no plans to learn anything about .Net. To this day I don't understand what any of them were thinking. Just a strange situations. Very good stuff, I appreciate the input and the Aristotle quote. I think I'd heard that before, but it's a good one.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Well said. And a good point about how schools tend to be far behind. When I was in college less than a decade ago, they were just starting to create CS degree paths. And when I started college, there were programming classes as part of the math department, but that was it. Like you say, any programmer that hopes to stay relevant has to be learning all the time. And the profession seems to primarily attract people that don't want to stop learning. I had a job a few years ago with a company that was in the process of converting their entire code base from Cold Fusion to .Net. 75% of the developers there seemed to have no plans to learn anything about .Net. To this day I don't understand what any of them were thinking. Just a strange situations. Very good stuff, I appreciate the input and the Aristotle quote. I think I'd heard that before, but it's a good one.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
> When I was in college less than a decade ago, they were just starting to create CS degree paths. Excuse me, but that sounds like you were at some kind of backwater college. My experience is different. I've got a computer science degree that is more than a quarter century old.
-
> When I was in college less than a decade ago, they were just starting to create CS degree paths. Excuse me, but that sounds like you were at some kind of backwater college. My experience is different. I've got a computer science degree that is more than a quarter century old.
I may be mistaken, they may have just re-vamped their degree paths at that time. They had just created degrees for Networking and Telecommunications, and some Software Development. I know they had some degrees that were computer science related but I would say there were behind the times. At the time I wasn't headed in that direction, so I wasn't actively paying attention to what was available in that field. Fort Hays State University in central Kansas isn't really backwater, but certainly not cutting edge.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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)
Well, Bellevue is a saturated market. Its where Microsoft is. I have never had a problem with getting a job. And only one or two places preferred someone with one. Even Amazon overlooked it. And they are pretty intense with regards to data structures and algorithms. I'm not saying that it doesn't add more salt to the fries, thus making them taste better. I'm just saying it is rarely the key factor.
-
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.
My degrees are a B.A. in Urban Studies and an M.Arch (a professional Master's Degree in Architecture). In grad school I learned C++ in order to write plugins for 3DStudio. I found I liked programming better than I did doing menial space-planning work until 4:00AM every day for the equivalent of minimum wage for some famous architect (and thanking him for such an unearned privilege). Well aware of my academic shortcomings, I have made a large effort over the past 11 years to teach myself more than just how to drag and drop widgets onto forms from some toolbox. For example, I own the Knuth trilogy, and have read the first book of it, following along with the exercises for most of it. I have also also dipped into the second book on those rare occasions when the built-in container library of the platform I'm being forced to use somehow didn't meet my needs. If you're a C++, Java, or .Net programmer, you won't really need to know the details of how to implement that sort of low-level stuff yourself. But it can be helpful. A truck driver might not need to understand thermodynamics in order to start his or her engine, but such an understanding might enable him or her to drive a truck in a slightly more optimal way to improve fuel efficiency or engine wear--especially when extenuating circumstances arise. I have talked with a number of people studying computer science, and I have noticed the disconnect between what they are studying and what would be more immediately applicable in the real world. I think it's very important to get a theoretical background, but I also think it would be helpful if the schools would teach their students how to do useful work in programming languages and on platforms that are currently in widespread use. I don't see these two goals as being orthogonal. Whatever the combination of theory and practice is that is being taught, it doesn't seem to be getting the job done very well. From what I've seen of code "in the field" in corporate America, I'd say a good 90% of it is just absolutely awful. My head spins to think of how much money is being wasted by the extra work required to use, support, and work around badly broken software. If the amount of time I spend changing digital diapers is any indication, it's probably a third of all IT budgets combined. I've noticed that degree-holding computer scientists tend to do a better job than the rest, but by no means in all cases, and many of the best programmers I've ever met got their degrees in the Liberal Arts. So it is possib
-
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 took an IT degree (M.S. Comp Sci) so that I would have an IT degree. My original degree was Psychology, with Bio and Anthro as minors. I took a Basic course in high school, and another one in college. In both cases, the primary interface with the computer was a teletype machine - yes, I am that old. (My college acquired a VAX in my senior year, but I was for the most part too busy to use it, and I had lost my taste for computing after having one fight too many with fraternity bozos who thought their games were more important than my homework). It wasn't until 1983, when I was working as a sales rep in Houston, that I saw a system that excited me with the possibilities of programming. As it happened, this was also the year that Houston began its great depression of the '80s; with the price of crude oil at $10 per barrel, and with 3/4 of my customer base dependent on oil prices of at least $20/barrel, it was a good time to move back to Pennsylvania and redo my career. I took course at Drexel with the idea of getting either a MS or a second BS, then found the graduate program at Villanova, where all the classes were at night (during the day, the TA's and RA's would be doing work for the professors, so the rest of us working stiffs got the same coursework by the same professors as the "full-time" students). However, I didn't want to wait until I got the degree to be a programmer. I found a position as "computer operations supervisor" (read: glorified data entry clerk who knows how to do backups) at a family-owned restaurant supply firm, and in my spare time I played with some of the algorithms I was learning in class. During this time, C was unavailable as a course, but I knew it was going to be very important, so I "borrowed" a compiler from a friend and taught myself K & R as well as ANSI C. I got my first programming job not from any brilliance in the programs in my portfolio (printouts of code from a couple of experiments of mine as well as some grad school homework) but because I had developed debugging traces that could be turned on and off...thus demonstrating that I had developed, on my own, a very handy real-world skill. Around that time, Edsger Dykstra wrote his article damning the state of computer science degree programs. In his opinion, the programs at that time spent all their effort on teaching technique: how do build this data structure; how this algorithm acted with various inputs; and so forth. What these programs spent no time on was analysis. His study of successful progr
-
I took an IT degree (M.S. Comp Sci) so that I would have an IT degree. My original degree was Psychology, with Bio and Anthro as minors. I took a Basic course in high school, and another one in college. In both cases, the primary interface with the computer was a teletype machine - yes, I am that old. (My college acquired a VAX in my senior year, but I was for the most part too busy to use it, and I had lost my taste for computing after having one fight too many with fraternity bozos who thought their games were more important than my homework). It wasn't until 1983, when I was working as a sales rep in Houston, that I saw a system that excited me with the possibilities of programming. As it happened, this was also the year that Houston began its great depression of the '80s; with the price of crude oil at $10 per barrel, and with 3/4 of my customer base dependent on oil prices of at least $20/barrel, it was a good time to move back to Pennsylvania and redo my career. I took course at Drexel with the idea of getting either a MS or a second BS, then found the graduate program at Villanova, where all the classes were at night (during the day, the TA's and RA's would be doing work for the professors, so the rest of us working stiffs got the same coursework by the same professors as the "full-time" students). However, I didn't want to wait until I got the degree to be a programmer. I found a position as "computer operations supervisor" (read: glorified data entry clerk who knows how to do backups) at a family-owned restaurant supply firm, and in my spare time I played with some of the algorithms I was learning in class. During this time, C was unavailable as a course, but I knew it was going to be very important, so I "borrowed" a compiler from a friend and taught myself K & R as well as ANSI C. I got my first programming job not from any brilliance in the programs in my portfolio (printouts of code from a couple of experiments of mine as well as some grad school homework) but because I had developed debugging traces that could be turned on and off...thus demonstrating that I had developed, on my own, a very handy real-world skill. Around that time, Edsger Dykstra wrote his article damning the state of computer science degree programs. In his opinion, the programs at that time spent all their effort on teaching technique: how do build this data structure; how this algorithm acted with various inputs; and so forth. What these programs spent no time on was analysis. His study of successful progr
cpkilekofp wrote:
This is due to the razor-fine analyses any human psychology experiment required to eliminate unwanted effects from the interaction between the experimenter and the subject, among other things.
That's an interesting perspective. I had never thought of that, but it's a good point. It's easier to see the interesting ways that programmers can be adapted to other professions, but it's really interesting to see how seemingly unrelated fields give programmers strengths.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
cpkilekofp wrote:
This is due to the razor-fine analyses any human psychology experiment required to eliminate unwanted effects from the interaction between the experimenter and the subject, among other things.
That's an interesting perspective. I had never thought of that, but it's a good point. It's easier to see the interesting ways that programmers can be adapted to other professions, but it's really interesting to see how seemingly unrelated fields give programmers strengths.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
cpkilekofp wrote: This is due to the razor-fine analyses any human psychology experiment required to eliminate unwanted effects from the interaction between the experimenter and the subject, among other things. That's an interesting perspective. I had never thought of that, but it's a good point. It's easier to see the interesting ways that programmers can be adapted to other professions, but it's really interesting to see how seemingly unrelated fields give programmers strengths.
Yes, that was precisely Dykstra's point. I believe, too, that many computer science programs were modified after Dykstra's paper was published to include more study areas where analysis was required. The thing is, you can't teach analysis like you can teach data structures. Applying learned rules to solve easily identifiable problems is a vital task, but learning how to recognize when a problem isn't one of the easy ones and to use those rules to isolate and identify the problem is a very different yet even more vital skill to learn. Computer science programs will, however, give you a LARGE toolset of solutions. I run into this every day at work - my colleague in this department has a great deal of experience in many of the specific technologies, but not in many of the concepts and algorithms that aid the maintenance of large programs over time (we've had some discussions as to why SQL has no place in a Web page, for instance - strict separation of layers didn't start making sense to him until we started playing with XML and .NET DataSets) This sort of knowledge can be picked up by self-education, but it is easier for many to acquire it in the classroom setting.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
cpkilekofp wrote: This is due to the razor-fine analyses any human psychology experiment required to eliminate unwanted effects from the interaction between the experimenter and the subject, among other things. That's an interesting perspective. I had never thought of that, but it's a good point. It's easier to see the interesting ways that programmers can be adapted to other professions, but it's really interesting to see how seemingly unrelated fields give programmers strengths.
Yes, that was precisely Dykstra's point. I believe, too, that many computer science programs were modified after Dykstra's paper was published to include more study areas where analysis was required. The thing is, you can't teach analysis like you can teach data structures. Applying learned rules to solve easily identifiable problems is a vital task, but learning how to recognize when a problem isn't one of the easy ones and to use those rules to isolate and identify the problem is a very different yet even more vital skill to learn. Computer science programs will, however, give you a LARGE toolset of solutions. I run into this every day at work - my colleague in this department has a great deal of experience in many of the specific technologies, but not in many of the concepts and algorithms that aid the maintenance of large programs over time (we've had some discussions as to why SQL has no place in a Web page, for instance - strict separation of layers didn't start making sense to him until we started playing with XML and .NET DataSets) This sort of knowledge can be picked up by self-education, but it is easier for many to acquire it in the classroom setting.
Yeah, I guess the biggest thing you can get from a class is exposure to technologies and broad concepts, and problem solving techniques. The rest comes from the field. Luckily, in the last couple of decades, enough has been written on concepts such as separation of responsibilities that most programmers should be aware that it is important even if they don't yet completely know why it is.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
This may be too late for your poll, but I just returned from vacation. In 1962 I was hired as a mathematician/physicist at a company that had a computer. I asked the resident programmer how to make it work. He handed me an IBM pamphlet that listed the statements recognized by the IBM 1620 Fortran with Format complier. I programmed out of that for several whiles before I found out there was a Fortran manual. By the time the company felt it worth while to give the engineering staff a formal course in programming, I was already using assembler (1620 SPS) to make changes to the Fortran compiler. Those were the days! The only in-depth programming courses I have taken were in C++. The best was a week-long session with Dan Saks. I have never written an application (or significant part of one) in C++. Daily work involves C# and VB. Sometimes I get to write in C. I write code to solve problems and make things work. I do my best to distance myself from the notion of IT and all its attendant buzzwords. I get my jollies writing language translators that convert unreadable glop in the "Someone's Great Idea" programming language into something that an "IT Professional" can cope with.