A career question
-
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.
-
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.
I did it totally backwards. Started as a night computer operator and went to school during the day to get an Associate in Comp Sci at a local JC that was excellent - lots of hands on. Got promoted to programmer daytime (before I got the 2-year degree), did this for a while, went back and got a Bachelor's in MIS. I just think that a degree, for some companies, shows that your disciplined and have perserverance. And of course, it does get your foot in some doors that might otherwise be closed. But as for experience, getting it on the job can't be beat.
-
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,
El Corazon wrote:
First John is referring to programming
Yes, I was well aware of that the thread was offering suggestions for a software career. However, John made the blanket statement that technical degrees are as worthless as toilet paper which is patently untrue. And if you'll notice, I even quoted that part back to him.
El Corazon wrote:
These people discovered these things not because of their college education
You can always point to a few people who do it without a formal education. They're the exception rather than the rule. And for every one of those I can point to a hundred who tried and failed or a few who got it partly right and because they didn't have the education with the fundamentals, couldn't figure out why they kept getting pieces of it wrong wrong. Or they get it to work by accident and convince themselves their theory is correct and then proceed to grind out mistake after mistake.
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:
1. Getting a Ph.D.
Then I have to ask you why you got a PhD? What did you expect to do that required a PhD. Primarily, PhDs teach at university level and/or do research at university, private, or government research facilities. If what you wanted to do was be a code monkey, getting a PhD was not only irrelevant but counterproductive, a waste of time and money that probably wasn't yours.
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
2. Expecting to find other jobs after getting a Ph.D.
What kinds of jobs were you looking for? You've not made that clear. What were your restrictions? Did they tell you why they didn't hire you? I know you went to school in the US but I'm assuming from a few things that you came here to go to school. Was it you restricted your search to jobs where they'd let you stay? I suspect that's a tough sell these days, especially in software. Green cards don't flow like they used to before 9/11.
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
Successfully hiding the Ph.D. (and found a job)
And you're happy working at a job that requires much less education and skills than the degree you invested all that time and effort to obtain? You're really not told us much about what you are doing so we can judge whether you should even be moderately satisfied.
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
Not realizing my fatal mistake is #1, should have disappeared from the face of earth when #2 failed
Again, this brings us back to why you did it in the first place. Why did you get a PhD? Was it the type of work a PhD does that attracted you or did you simply think it was a ticket to any good job? It costs money to hire people and employers want emplyees who will stay and do a good job. People working at much less than their potential because the job requires less tend to get bored and bored employees can become liabilities.
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 !
-
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).
-
El Corazon wrote:
First John is referring to programming
Yes, I was well aware of that the thread was offering suggestions for a software career. However, John made the blanket statement that technical degrees are as worthless as toilet paper which is patently untrue. And if you'll notice, I even quoted that part back to him.
El Corazon wrote:
These people discovered these things not because of their college education
You can always point to a few people who do it without a formal education. They're the exception rather than the rule. And for every one of those I can point to a hundred who tried and failed or a few who got it partly right and because they didn't have the education with the fundamentals, couldn't figure out why they kept getting pieces of it wrong wrong. Or they get it to work by accident and convince themselves their theory is correct and then proceed to grind out mistake after mistake.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
Or they get it to work by accident and convince themselves their theory is correct and then proceed to grind out mistake after mistake.
and the same thing happens with people with the college education. In fact more often than not, those leading the way are not those with college educations because most of the ones with college educations are "done" everything that could be learned is learned and they can regurgitate anything that was taught and innovate nothing. Innovation by itself is the exception of all people, degrees or not. any discussion related to innovation is automatically a discussion of exceptions. You implied that you would not fly in an airplane designed by a non-degreed person, good luck, because you probably already have.
_________________________ 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 did it totally backwards. Started as a night computer operator and went to school during the day to get an Associate in Comp Sci at a local JC that was excellent - lots of hands on. Got promoted to programmer daytime (before I got the 2-year degree), did this for a while, went back and got a Bachelor's in MIS. I just think that a degree, for some companies, shows that your disciplined and have perserverance. And of course, it does get your foot in some doors that might otherwise be closed. But as for experience, getting it on the job can't be beat.
It is all about experience (and luck) where I live. Even though I obtained my degree a year and half ago, all my attempts to get a job were unsuccessful due to the lack of experience. But still, the degree is a factor in your pay. Regarding PhD, that only works for research and academia where I live.
-
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
1. Getting a Ph.D.
Then I have to ask you why you got a PhD? What did you expect to do that required a PhD. Primarily, PhDs teach at university level and/or do research at university, private, or government research facilities. If what you wanted to do was be a code monkey, getting a PhD was not only irrelevant but counterproductive, a waste of time and money that probably wasn't yours.
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
2. Expecting to find other jobs after getting a Ph.D.
What kinds of jobs were you looking for? You've not made that clear. What were your restrictions? Did they tell you why they didn't hire you? I know you went to school in the US but I'm assuming from a few things that you came here to go to school. Was it you restricted your search to jobs where they'd let you stay? I suspect that's a tough sell these days, especially in software. Green cards don't flow like they used to before 9/11.
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
Successfully hiding the Ph.D. (and found a job)
And you're happy working at a job that requires much less education and skills than the degree you invested all that time and effort to obtain? You're really not told us much about what you are doing so we can judge whether you should even be moderately satisfied.
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
Not realizing my fatal mistake is #1, should have disappeared from the face of earth when #2 failed
Again, this brings us back to why you did it in the first place. Why did you get a PhD? Was it the type of work a PhD does that attracted you or did you simply think it was a ticket to any good job? It costs money to hire people and employers want emplyees who will stay and do a good job. People working at much less than their potential because the job requires less tend to get bored and bored employees can become liabilities.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Wow, you almost made me feel getting a Ph.D. and not working at a university is crime. As to why I did it in the first place, it's a long story, let me just say: 1. Not everyone knew what he/she wants to do in the beginning. 2. Not everyone knew what he/she will end up doing in the beginning. 3. Not everyone can choose his/her area of study based on interest alone. From what you wrote, I guess you probably never know many people with Ph.D. I happen to know a lot of them, and many of them have happy life and productive career outside of academics.
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page
modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 2:10 AM
-
Wow, you almost made me feel getting a Ph.D. and not working at a university is crime. As to why I did it in the first place, it's a long story, let me just say: 1. Not everyone knew what he/she wants to do in the beginning. 2. Not everyone knew what he/she will end up doing in the beginning. 3. Not everyone can choose his/her area of study based on interest alone. From what you wrote, I guess you probably never know many people with Ph.D. I happen to know a lot of them, and many of them have happy life and productive career outside of academics.
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page
modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 2:10 AM
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
I guess you probably never know many people with Ph.D.
That's a pretty wild assumption. I've known and been friends with quite a number of people with a PhD both while I was getting my degrees and later when I was working. I've worked for several companies which did considerable research and employed many PhDs. A number of them were my bosses. When I started out, I planned on getting one myself.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
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.
a.2 ! life is too short , you need to earn mony and have alot of fun when you are still young!!!! b.1 If you are capable to cope with doctorate degree , you will get a sallery during the studies. learning and research is the best fun in the world.
One more fan of Simplicity.