A career question
-
If I designed an airplane you certainly wouldn't want to fly in it, neither would I. Sadly we weren't discussing designing airplanes so I think you missed the mark but thanks for trying. ;)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
So aeronautical engineering isn't a technical field? I certainly thought it was with all those equations and science thingies I had to learn. I'd say it's a heck of a lot more technical than grinding out software.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
I have no degree at all. The hard thing is getting the first job with no qualifications. I got lucky. From there, I worked hard, and now I have more work than I can deal with, and no-one ever asks what my qualifications are - my work history speaks for itself.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Completely agree. The bit you need is the "get lucky". Fortunately I did too and am now in the situation where I often farm out work to sub contractors. And for the record, I am not interested in degrees when employing them either. Work ethic, work history, ability to communicate and a strong focus on getting it done as opposed to making it elegant. Don't get me wrong I strive for an elegant solution (for maintenance reasons if nothing else), but getting it done gets you paid :)
The only thing unpredictable about me is just how predictable I'm going to be.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
-
Just be aware that most of the advice you are seeing here is coloured by the (often limited) experience of the poster (as is this post). At the risk of adding another generalisation, most of the generalisations made (e.g. PhDs do or don't xxx etc) are mainly a result of limited experiences. I have seen PhDs that I'd struggle to employ as a technician and good graduates that are as good as any PhD. If you are considering a doctorate then you are probably an honours student near the top of the class. You have to decide whether you want to use your talents to go out and make the best 'widgets' (includes software) or whether you want to develop emerging technologies and focus on unsolved problems. A PhD is not essential here, but the appropriate one may be a good pathway to these jobs. My generic advice to those making career choices is to list what they like and don't like about the options, go out and meet people (and work with them if possible - holiday jobs can be great helpers) and refine your list. If still in doubt go for the one that keeps most options open.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
Good point cp. In addition, if you decide to go the PhD route you need to be quite sure that it is the right way to go. Dropping out in the middle of the PhD program is not nice for your self esteem, nor for your resume. While changing jobs after 3 years is just fine.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
> b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) > b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) > b.3)Try to do both. If you are asking this question, then you must be a citizens not having any problem getting a job (otherwise your only option is academia), but also not having a family and home mortgage to pay for (otherwise your only option is to get a reasonably well paid job). You must also be leaning towards an industry career, but must feel you would be able to handle getting a PhD. I know a few people that were in a similar situation and chose b.2) and did very well. And I also know a few that did b.3) and did very well. I personally also went the b.3) route. The ideal path along b.3) is to pick a field of PhD research that is very concrete and has an immediate industry demand. One current such example is GPGPU programming. But in general, when you pick your PhD advisor, look at the research projects he has as well as the consulting he does for companies. IF you are very excited about the research project, AND there are companies willing to pay him money to consult for them or it he has a sub contracting side business in the same topic area, THEN you know that what you do your research on can also be counted as relevant experience. And during summers and toward the end of your studies you can work on some of the industry related projects of your advisor, or even better on internships in side some of the industry partners. That will put you in a pretty good position for the a little more "researchy" position inside industry R&D labs.
-
dnh wrote:
People will call you a doctor!
Right. If they don't, I will remind them to. My name tag in office and my business card both say "Dr. Xiangyang Liu". :laugh:
-
John C wrote:
I believe a higher education in a technical field is about as worthwhile as toilet paper
Yeah, I'd really love to ride in a plane that you designed. I think I'd much prefer one that was designed by someone who had a bit of an idea of what makes them fly. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
I think I'd much prefer one that was designed by someone who had a bit of an idea of what makes them fly.
I think you are misrepresenting John, and ignoring some obvious assumptions. First John is referring to programming which is available easily in book form and you are comparing it to aerodynamics which follows fluid dynamics in usage. Of course some of us are actually using fluid dynamics although we do not have a college education, the books you buy in college are also available at the bookstore. Second, someone once invented/discovered these, you are assuming that no one today has the brains to learn/discover them on their own without private tutorage? how in the world were they discovered in the first place if this is an absolute? Now let me tell you a story, don't worry, it is fully applicable. In high school junior year I was beat out for international science fair by a new young bright kid with a project in aerodynamics. Seems he reinvented the wing, or rather significantly improved it. Without a college course on fluid dynamics he learned the motion of fluids through an air chamber and then proceded to shape wing shapes with clay such that he could try dozens if not hundreds in minor variations to fully understand the motion of air around a wing. With simple "what if we did this?" type operations. His wing, a new modern wing is still a well kept secret. I know approximately who he now works for, because I can smile every time I see this new wing. Before him I was beat out for International by a gentleman with a project on oil spill capture and recovery. He was granted a job straight out of highschool with his college education paid for in full by the company. That oil spill capture and recovery system is in use today. These people discovered these things not because of their college education, they were in high school at the time. The discovered these things because they thought outside the box, rather than restrict themselves to the same-old-same-old taught and retaught sciences, they dared to ask the questions, "why?" and "how?" These are the questions you do not get to ask in a college education where everything is laid out for you in black and white and nothing new is taught. No college in this world teaches innovation, they teach what others have innovated, and some of those innovations came without a college education. I am all for a college education, the paper would help on my wall and increase my income,
-
Personally I think you should do what you want. I believe a higher education in a technical field is about as worthwhile as toilet paper when you get into the job market if you actually plan to do something rather than manage or teach or research something, wheras real world experience is priceless and will take you extremely far and the fundamentals can be learned in a much shorter period of time. Give me a stack of books and a couple of months and I could probably learn the equivalent of any masters degree, couple that with real world on the job experience and "Bob's your lobster" as they say. I'm sure many with degrees will vehemently disagree with me but I've found this to be true in the real world job market. If I'm hiring a programmer the one who has the real world experience gets the job *every* time over the one with the degree and no experience. In fact I wouldn't even consider the degreed programmer with no experience, I'd shred the resume and move on and even if they did have experience I'd be highly doubtful that they could ever fit in as a part of any team of people. All the people I know with degrees are far happier discussing things than actually getting the job done. But perhaps most importantly of all, if you are young it's a terrible mistake to go to university or college without getting some real world experience in...well in *anything* really. Take a few years to travel and or work at a variety of jobs, learn how to deal with people and be a well rounded human being then you will really appreciate higher learning and take full advantage of it and when you come out you will not be a socially retarded ivory tower git like some of the people that hang out here. ;)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
modified on Monday, March 3, 2008 2:24 AM
I agree John 100%, And another thing.. TimCraig is not even on topic, and if he has a degree in aeronautical physics why would he be writing software. He should be writing the formulas and other concepts for the coders to use in aircraft design software.
-
When I am interviewing developers, I'm generally more interested in their career experience. I am interested in how long they held their last position, did they grow in their position (ie. promoted from developer to senior developer, or senior developer to lead, etc). Finally I am interested in the scope of work that they engaged in. The best developers that I have encountered were mostly self taught, had exceptional career histories, had a long track record of success and promotions and took on jobs of greater complexity and company significance. More than the eduction and work experience though are the soft skills. I've always felt that I can teach you the technical skills to become successful, but I cannot teach attitude. The employees that differentiate themselves are those with a positive attitude, who are self motivated and have a passion for the field that they work in. I have turned down quite a few who were technically superior, had better educations, outstanding qualifications, but poor working attitudes. If the rest of the team does not want to work on a project with you because they don't like interacting with you on a personal or professional level, then you become an anchor that drags the whole department down. So, in order of importance (to me at least): 1. Attitude and soft skills 2. Work experience 3. Education
-
How arrogant, I can't stand phd's who require you to address them as Doctor. I pity doctors or anyone that have this attitude that they are better because of their degree.
SD SteveG wrote:
I can't stand phd's who require you to address them as Doctor.
Relax, nobody can require you to address them as doctor, not even the real doctors.
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page
modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 2:14 AM
-
Thanks Steve! As everyone who frequents this site already knows, the IT landscape changes every 18 months or so, meaning that developers must engage in constant learning cycles. It's because of this property, which is unique to IT careers, education and to a degree experience play less of a role than attitude. The ability and willingness to learn new techniques/technologies, the ability to communicate and work effectively in a team and passion for what you do are qualities that companies are starting to focus on during the interview process. Add to this the recent corporate trend of hiring developers that are capable of business analysis, end user communication and documentation efforts, it becomes quite clear that companies are demanding more from their developer groups than just programming prowess.
-
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
No, I would say too many bosses got the wrong job.
And I'd have to say you're horribly naive about how things work.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
And I'd have to say you're horribly naive about how things work.
Maybe. Just wondering which part of me is horribly naive:
- Getting a Ph.D.
- Expecting to find other jobs after getting a Ph.D.
- Successfully hiding the Ph.D. (and found a job)
- Not realizing my fatal mistake is #1, should have disappeared from the face of earth when #2 failed
:-D
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:40 AM
-
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
No, I would say too many bosses got the wrong job.
And I'd have to say you're horribly naive about how things work.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
What's academic credential gotta do with the price of beer ?? Individuals get their PhD for academic pursuit or other interests as well. Bosses can give a rat's ass about a PhD without a professional experience to back it up. So if you have credentials that don't pertain to the job requirements, "Keep it to yourself" is what we'd say. Anyone who thinks the majority of the bosses think otherwise is a Juvenile with an overdose of ego !
-
Completely agree. The bit you need is the "get lucky". Fortunately I did too and am now in the situation where I often farm out work to sub contractors. And for the record, I am not interested in degrees when employing them either. Work ethic, work history, ability to communicate and a strong focus on getting it done as opposed to making it elegant. Don't get me wrong I strive for an elegant solution (for maintenance reasons if nothing else), but getting it done gets you paid :)
The only thing unpredictable about me is just how predictable I'm going to be.
I went about it both ways. I got my first job in programming with no field-related degree, then while I was working I got my MSCS (American system). The degree had no impact immediately...but three years later, the degree figured largely in the 17% pay increase I got when our division's developer salaries were examined and recalculated. Later, I won at least one job based on having the advanced degree vs. a similar candidates BSCS. In addition, I've worked with some highly experienced programmers with no degrees but with evident ability who showed astonishing naivete in their design and implementation of systems - this turned out to be simply because they had never been exposed to the depth of techniques (including theory) that academic education offers when it is properly presented. I must say, the best of the "mustangs" (those who have never and will never acquire degrees in CS) have duplicated the education that an academic program would provide by "reading" computer science. I'll also mention Edsger Dykstra's proposition that, as of the early 1990's, computer science programs emphasized technique rather than analysis, with the result that the best analysts were coming from other academic fields where analysis was emphasized (one of those fields was psychology, where I earned my BS). Typically, the best developers are also the best analysts, just as the best scientists (and the best mechanics). If you have strong analytic skills, academic education may help fill out muscles on the bones of a developer, but those muscles can be built without it; without analytic skills, no matter what other skills you develop you will never be able to stand up as a developer because you lack that skeletal foundation of software development which is analysis - you can't run, walk, stand, sit or kneel without bones, and you can't do anything worth more than a minor note in software development without strong analytical skills. To sum up: 1. Degrees don't help unless you're changing jobs or your job is changing. 2. The education in technique that academia offers can be acquired elsewhere, but you can get a broader exposure in a shorter time in academia. 3. Without academic education or similar self-education (i.e. "reading" computer science) you'll wind up reinventing the wheel, or worse, delivering an inferior wheel. 4. The first and most important skill is analsysis, and computer science courses as such won't train you in analysis, so consider another discipline to learn to help develop your analytic skil
-
Tim Craig wrote:
And I'd have to say you're horribly naive about how things work.
Maybe. Just wondering which part of me is horribly naive:
- Getting a Ph.D.
- Expecting to find other jobs after getting a Ph.D.
- Successfully hiding the Ph.D. (and found a job)
- Not realizing my fatal mistake is #1, should have disappeared from the face of earth when #2 failed
:-D
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
Just wondering which part of me is horribly naive
Just one part: 5. Thinking individuals (like the one you're responding to) are ever going to serve you unbiased opinions. Especially those who equate "hiding" to a cardinal sin versus information abstraction (need-to-know-basis).
-
What's academic credential gotta do with the price of beer ?? Individuals get their PhD for academic pursuit or other interests as well. Bosses can give a rat's ass about a PhD without a professional experience to back it up. So if you have credentials that don't pertain to the job requirements, "Keep it to yourself" is what we'd say. Anyone who thinks the majority of the bosses think otherwise is a Juvenile with an overdose of ego !
archville wrote:
"Keep it to yourself" is what we'd say.
So hiding the Ph.D. when looking for a programming job is the correct approach then. For a moment I thought I don't deserve to do anything else if I was unable to find an academic job!
-
I have no degree at all. The hard thing is getting the first job with no qualifications. I got lucky. From there, I worked hard, and now I have more work than I can deal with, and no-one ever asks what my qualifications are - my work history speaks for itself.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
I agree that work is the best measure of and way to get experience. I have a BA + AA + Cert and am aiming for another Cert in web development, but don't get the impression that employers particularly care. I sense that really only a LOT of work experience prepares you and means anything. School is fun and I'm glad I'm getting to go, but it's pretty much a 'scratch the surface' thing. I can't imagine going for a Masters (or how much that would cost. . .) :cool:
_________________________________________________ Have a great day!!! -- L.J.
-
archville wrote:
"Keep it to yourself" is what we'd say.
So hiding the Ph.D. when looking for a programming job is the correct approach then. For a moment I thought I don't deserve to do anything else if I was unable to find an academic job!
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
So hiding the Ph.D. when looking for a programming job is the correct approach then
Most definitely ! Unless you have reason to believe from the job ad that convinces you otherwise. Or like you stated earlier -
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
Once you get some real experience, it does not matter any more.
You're never gonna know who's gonna poke questions in your face at the interview. It could be a new staff we just hired, a senior staff or one of the boss types who: a) Thought PHD means a "Pretty Hectic Day" b) Think you're trying to rub our noses in your degree c) Don't have enough experience or the skills to draw appropriate references. And plus, you could always pipe in your credential should you feel the need to emphasize your background. To be honest with you we'd rather hear it that way a lot of the time. Keep a genuine excuse (for the other types) in your arsenal on why it wasn't on paper to begin with. But also remember - not all Bosses can afford to, or are meant to have strong technical background. In mid to large orgs, there are enough of political reasons on why it could prove unfavorable. Leaning on my experience, it really boils down to character. A good boss should primarily boss well without being too bossy !!
-
Thanks Steve! As everyone who frequents this site already knows, the IT landscape changes every 18 months or so, meaning that developers must engage in constant learning cycles. It's because of this property, which is unique to IT careers, education and to a degree experience play less of a role than attitude. The ability and willingness to learn new techniques/technologies, the ability to communicate and work effectively in a team and passion for what you do are qualities that companies are starting to focus on during the interview process. Add to this the recent corporate trend of hiring developers that are capable of business analysis, end user communication and documentation efforts, it becomes quite clear that companies are demanding more from their developer groups than just programming prowess.
I agree again.. I know some programmers that refuse to learn new methods/paradigms. Within 2 years these types are so far out of touch they either quit or just constantly bitch. I agree it sucks, for example, to learn a whole new data access model, because MS has decided its old tried and true model is no longer the best. But sooner or later you have to. I have to laugh when I hear programmers argue about new models, with statements like: That's stupid, I don't like it, I'm not using it because I've learned or mastered the old way. Well guess what… get used to it, it will happen again and again.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
It appears that there is in fact not "right" way as each person seems to have gotten to where they are today from different starting points. Personally, I was retiring from the miltary with a background in electronics/computers AND BS and BA degrees in Bus Admin/Computer Information (focus in programming languages) and found that experience played a big part of what companies wanted, from me at least when getting my first civilian job (programming). Maybe it was my age or whatever but wasn't getting much interest even with my education as the work I did in the military wasn't "software" as much as hardware, so I (like most here) got lucky when I found a company who was looking for a programmer, but I got the job because the HR manager was a retired military like myself. But since then, most every job I have had has looked for a combination of both. Ph.D? Maybe if you want to teach at a university or write books, but not really of any use in most programming/development jobs. I have my MS degree now and that has helped with getting into more management positions, but again, experience is also the main focus. So, I guess knowing what your "right way" is trying to achieve might be the real question.