Degree v.s. No-Degree - Which is Better?

kenjicpl

Thanks again for the great response on the tech stack question. As another follow-up, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of having a degree in computer science when developing software.

For example, the majority of well-known developers in the cypherpunk movement seem to lack a degree. On the other hand, employees of big tech companies tend to have at least a bachelor's in computer science.

Would be great to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Pelvis

You could ask the same question with regards to any career path. Having a degree or formal education (a trade for instance) is pretty much always better, depending on where you are in your career.

Talisman

A degree is an education level baseline (Maths, algorithms, operating systems etc.), tech companies use it as a means to filter out unsuitable candidates.

Getting into IT without a degree isn't necessarily common or uncommon. Not having a degree puts you on the non-traditional road into the world of programming. It is a tougher route than if you had a degree and proving that you have the necessary skills is an important part of making the non-traditional route work.

B-D-P--

At a graduate age, Degree for me. I wouldn't look twice at someone who hasn't been through college and still likes code.

Graduates can at least say: yes I have experienced different languages, worked in groups, Had Projects and deadlines, and still want to be part of the software world!

DefinitelyMarc

Self-taught/bootcamp/alternatives to college, given the same timeframe as someone who's going to college, certainly has some benefits:

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-programming-boot-camps-that-are-really-more-effective-than-an-undergraduate-degree-in-computer-science-under-some-circumstances

If you could learn enough in a few months to get a job, one could definitely argue that the overall job experience and money gained from going this route is worth more than doing a college degree.

I don't know how easy it would be to do something like this in Ireland though.

Talisman

I wouldn't put any faith in coder bootcamps - There's no incentive to produce high quality job candidates, they get paid whether or not the candidate finds employment after completing the course. The business model proved unsustainable in the U.S. because there is a limit to the amount of candidates that the industry can absorb who have very limited experience and have simply taken a crash course in a tech stack. The fact that the area remains unregulated means would-be employers have no guarantee of the standard of the applicant that completed a bootcamp course. There are plenty of free resources online that can teach you the fundamentals of Computer Science if you are willing to apply yourself. Personally I would have more faith in a person who never attended a bootcamp course but collaborated in a few github projects and could demonstrate their coding knowledge.

Recognition Scene

Talisman wrote: »

I wouldn't put any faith in coder bootcamps - There's no incentive to produce high quality job candidates, they get paid whether or not the candidate finds employment after completing the course. The business model proved unsustainable in the U.S. because there is a limit to the amount of candidates that the industry can absorb who have very limited experience and have simply taken a crash course in a tech stack. The fact that the area remains unregulated means would-be employers have no guarantee of the standard of the applicant that completed a bootcamp course. There are plenty of free resources online that can teach you the fundamentals of Computer Science if you are willing to apply yourself. Personally I would have more faith in a person who never attended a bootcamp course but collaborated in a few github projects and could demonstrate their coding knowledge.

While I absolutely have my doubts about the quality of graduates a lot of these camps are churning out, can't agree with the part I bolded above.... they're far from unsustainable, at least here in the Bay Area. They're pumping out graduates, and I personally know quite a few people out here who have been through them and found work as a result.

14ned

kenjicpl wrote: »

Thanks again for the great response on the tech stack question. As another follow-up, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of having a degree in computer science when developing software.

As it was in 2001, when this tech bubble pops, the first to get fired - irrespective of ability - will be those without degrees, then those without Masters degrees. It's the least risk approach for HR to take, you can't get sued for wrongful dismissal.

Niall

Molly

Had a whole thread about bootcamps already. No need to go there again (outside of a bunch of them shutting down recently).

No degree will absolutely limit your ability to get past HR in certain industries. The degree can be in anything once you have a bit of experience.

server down

14ned wrote: »

As it was in 2001, when this tech bubble pops, the first to get fired - irrespective of ability - will be those without degrees, then those without Masters degrees. It's the least risk approach for HR to take, you can't get sued for wrongful dismissal.

Niall

The degree should be irrelevant on that. If it mattered at all - and it doesn’t in most of the US - they would have to let go based on performance.

Degrees might matter on hiring but I personally think github matters as much.

14ned

server down wrote: »

The degree should be irrelevant on that. If it mattered at all - and it doesn’t in most of the US - they would have to let go based on performance.

Degrees might matter on hiring but I personally think github matters as much.

When hiring, they are generally trying to hire the best bang for the buck.

When firing due to an economic collapse, HR and Legal are told to get rid of percentages of head count via the minimum possible cost i.e. lowest chance of getting sued for wrongful dismissal. It then has nothing to do with merit or value added, it has to do with cost-benefit and risk.

I was there at BlackBerry whilst BB10 was failing. Every Monday they'd fire people. You'd watch the security folk repeatedly walk to some cubicle in the big open plan floor, the person would be bundled into an office for termination, their belongings would be scooped into a cardboard box by their manager and you'd be dumped outside with your lanyard passes and phone removed. They were firing people in such volume there were no free taxis around to take you home. I ended up walking it actually, it was a beautiful day, and hey, I had the free time to take a two hour walk!

That's every company in tech when a tech bubble pops across the board. I watched the exact same in 2001. Just pray they pay you any redundancy at all.

Niall

server down

14ned wrote: »

When hiring, they are generally trying to hire the best bang for the buck.

When firing due to an economic collapse, HR and Legal are told to get rid of percentages of head count via the minimum possible cost i.e. lowest chance of getting sued for wrongful dismissal. It then has nothing to do with merit or value added, it has to do with cost-benefit and risk.

I was there at BlackBerry whilst BB10 was failing. Every Monday they'd fire people. You'd watch the security folk repeatedly walk to some cubicle in the big open plan floor, the person would be bundled into an office for termination, their belongings would be scooped into a cardboard box by their manager and you'd be dumped outside with your lanyard passes and phone removed. They were firing people in such volume there were no free taxis around to take you home. I ended up walking it actually, it was a beautiful day, and hey, I had the free time to take a two hour walk!

That's every company in tech when a tech bubble pops across the board. I watched the exact same in 2001. Just pray they pay you any redundancy at all.

Niall

Yeh but what’s that got to do with your claim about them firing people without degrees first and then those without masters?

It sounds like that was an at will state where people were fired for any reason.

pauliebdub

I think it's harder to find work in IT without a degree. I know a quite a few former colleagues who don't have degrees and it has affected their career mobility and some have ended up trapped in a particular organisation whilst other more qualified colleagues including myself found it easier to move on and move up.

14ned

server down wrote: »

Yeh but what’s that got to do with your claim about them firing people without degrees first and then those without masters?

It sounds like that was an at will state where people were fired for any reason.

I was in HQ in Waterloo, Ontario where similar unfair dismissal legislation exists as in Ireland.

As http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html states, you can fire people on these grounds only:

• Capability
• Competence
• Qualifications
• Conduct
• Redundancy
• Breaking the law

What you as a HR person wants to do is to make it impossible for those fired to sue you and win for unfair dismissal. So if you fire person X with a degree but keep person Y working alongside them without a degree, person X can very reasonably make a case in court that they were fired for unfair reasons rather than ones in the list above because otherwise person Y ought to have been fired first if say prejudice weren't at work. Under Irish law the onus is on the employer, not the employee, to prove that unfair dismissal did not occur. So the employee just needs the benefit of the doubt to win.

I know people without degrees don't want to hear this, but right now you're in a tech bubble. It will burst eventually. When it does it's all about not losing your job in the first year and your employer not going out of business. If you can survive both, you stand a good chance of riding it out whilst everyone you know goes and retrains into a less risky profession, thus clearing out the excess number of people seeking work who will drive down pay rates considerably.

Niall

jmcc

kenjicpl wrote: »

For example, the majority of well-known developers in the cypherpunk movement seem to lack a degree.

A movement? Don't think it was ever such but it isn't simply an IT thing. It has people with many different abilities and areas of expertise and there are people there with serious academic backgrounds too.

Regards...jmcc

server down

14ned wrote: »

I was in HQ in Waterloo, Ontario where similar unfair dismissal legislation exists as in Ireland.

As http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html states, you can fire people on these grounds only:

• Capability
• Competence
• Qualifications
• Conduct
• Redundancy
• Breaking the law

What you as a HR person wants to do is to make it impossible for those fired to sue you and win for unfair dismissal. So if you fire person X with a degree but keep person Y working alongside them without a degree, person X can very reasonably make a case in court that they were fired for unfair reasons rather than ones in the list above because otherwise person Y ought to have been fired first if say prejudice weren't at work. Under Irish law the onus is on the employer, not the employee, to prove that unfair dismissal did not occur. So the employee just needs the benefit of the doubt to win.

I know people without degrees don't want to hear this, but right now you're in a tech bubble. It will burst eventually. When it does it's all about not losing your job in the first year and your employer not going out of business. If you can survive both, you stand a good chance of riding it out whilst everyone you know goes and retrains into a less risky profession, thus clearing out the excess number of people seeking work who will drive down pay rates considerably.

Niall

Firstly I personally have a degree, I am disputing your point.

Secondly your list mentions qualifications but thats a reason to fire people if they werent as qualified as they claimed in an interview, no sane company is going to fire a good guy with no degree over an incompentent without one.

Actually it says

Fair dismissal on grounds of qualifications can happen in two ways. One situation is where you misled your employer about qualifications you had when applying for the job. The other is where your employer made continued employment conditional upon your obtaining further qualifications and you failed to achieve this, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

So not relevant to someone who was hired without a degree unless he lied or refused to get one.

Lastly you were laid off, not fired. And it looks like you had a degree, like most of the people that were laid off by Blackberry. What happens when tech bubbles collapse is that the people in the companies affected most by the bubble collapsing lose their jobs.

14ned

server down wrote: »

no sane company is going to fire a good guy with no degree over an incompentent without one.

That's in normal times.

When business is going badly, they usually cut the admin side of things first, so specifically HR. Then when it comes to axe developers, HR simply don't have the resources to do any better than cull on the basis of the information available to them, which does not detail competence or value added to the company. Generally senior management give them a priority list of departments, and percentages for culling headcount are allocated by division and team. People are then axed, quite randomly in fact. Some HR departments do try to randomly choose people without children first, but many do not.

For some reason you don't appear to want to be believe me. That's okay. Once you see it happen around you then you'll believe me. Downsizing takes on a life of its own, especially once it starts then most of your top people start quitting for more stable jobs, leaving your workplace hollowed out of experience and talent, with no idea if you'll have a job next week. It's quite a thing to experience.

Niall

server down

14ned wrote: »

That's in normal times.

When business is going badly, they usually cut the admin side of things first, so specifically HR. Then when it comes to axe developers, HR simply don't have the resources to do any better than cull on the basis of the information available to them, which does not detail competence or value added to the company. Generally senior management give them a priority list of departments, and percentages for culling headcount are allocated by division and team. People are then axed, quite randomly in fact. Some HR departments do try to randomly choose people without children first, but many do not.

For some reason you don't appear to want to be believe me. That's okay. Once you see it happen around you then you'll believe me. Downsizing takes on a life of its own, especially once it starts then most of your top people start quitting for more stable jobs, leaving your workplace hollowed out of experience and talent, with no idea if you'll have a job next week. It's quite a thing to experience.

Niall

I dont believe you because you have provided no, or misleading evidence.

Even in that particular response there is no evidence that companies let developers without degrees go first. You dont even mention it. I know that people are laid off in recessions, thats not really what I am arguing against. I honestly think you have forgotten what you are arguing about.

kenjicpl

Really interesting conversation. So a degree is not a substantial differentiator but nonetheless is a good additional protection to have when things come down to on-paper qualifications?

I've read quite a few stories about people without a comp-sci degree getting engineer positions with top tech companies. Would you say that this is a minority case, or would it rather be common practice?

14ned

kenjicpl wrote: »

I've read quite a few stories about people without a comp-sci degree getting engineer positions with top tech companies. Would you say that this is a minority case, or would it rather be common practice?

There has been an awful lot of talk asking whether degrees are worth it recently. Artifact of a tech bubble. I remember the exact same talk before the 2001 crash.

You don't need a degree to get promoted to the very top if it's obvious how much value you contribute. But as with all promotion, a lot of it is luck and perception of value contribution. There are engineers I have known who were valued as worthless by management and ripe for firing, yet they were the glue which held a team together, and when they got fired, team productivity dropped like a rock because the rock stars refused to coordinate.

But honestly, if you don't have one and intend to keep working in tech, go get a degree and then go get a Masters. It's a slam dunk choice for investing in your future career. And who knows, you might just become a much better developer after being grounded in the fundamentals!

Niall

BrokenArrows

14ned wrote: »

...
But honestly, if you don't have one and intend to keep working in tech, go get a degree and then go get a Masters. It's a slam dunk choice for investing in your future career. And who knows, you might just become a much better developer after being grounded in the fundamentals!

Niall

Id agree that having a qualification definitely helps in the long run with regards to the fundamentals.

Ive seen so many self thought junior and mid level developers whose code stinks of the self taught, good enough, ah it works so whats the problem.

Self taught people have never had someone criticize and mark their work on a weekly basis so all they have seen is their final product and if it works they think they have done a good job.
Then when they move into an actual job they dont realise its not just about the final product, its about the constant changes that are made to the initial product over time and if your code stinks all the change requests are made infinitely harder.

And like anything not just programming, self taught bad habits are much harder to lose than good habits are to gain.

Juniors who come fresh out of a degree sometimes know less than their self taught colleagues but they tend to surpass them very quickly.

14ned

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Self taught people have never had someone criticize and mark their work on a weekly basis so all they have seen is their final product and if it works they think they have done a good job.

Dunno, getting a patchset past the Linux kernel devs demand far higher calibre code than academic coursework grading.

But if you're not working in an environment where your commits must pass a high quality peer review and your org is not employing coding experts who proactively examine code for smell and bring individuals to account for bad commits, then sure you'll get lousy code quality. Far too common in Ireland unfortunately. We don't think of a codebase as an asset here, it's seen as a cost center.

Niall

bpmurray

The reality is that it would make much more sense to have an apprenticeship system for programmers - the academic stuff learned in Universities is unlikely to ever be used, and coding is a skill that is best learned on the job under the eye of an expert.

That said, if you're looking at one of the American multinationals, their HR departments have a filter that rejects anyone without a 4-year degree. Some even filter on the specific colleges, e.g. only graduates from the older Trinity, UCD, UCC & NUIG need apply. So yes, a degree is important.

Earthhorse

14ned wrote: »

As it was in 2001, when this tech bubble pops, the first to get fired - irrespective of ability - will be those without degrees, then those without Masters degrees. It's the least risk approach for HR to take, you can't get sued for wrongful dismissal.

14ned wrote: »

When firing due to an economic collapse, HR and Legal are told to get rid of percentages of head count via the minimum possible cost i.e. lowest chance of getting sued for wrongful dismissal. It then has nothing to do with merit or value added, it has to do with cost-benefit and risk.

14ned wrote: »

I was in HQ in Waterloo, Ontario where similar unfair dismissal legislation exists as in Ireland.

As http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html states, you can fire people on these grounds only:

• Capability
• Competence
• Qualifications
• Conduct
• Redundancy
• Breaking the law

In cases of mass lay offs people are basically being made redundant; or more accurately, their position is made redundant, which means no one will be hired into the position again in the near future. Redundancy is even listed as one of the fair grounds for dismissal in your post.

I don't know what the US law is like but it's certainly not the case here that the company would be prioritising based on the risk of unfair dismissal suits (unless, and this is quite possible, their HR department was incompetent). Besides, as you can see above capability and competence count toward unfair dismissals too and these can be evidenced by things such as annual reviews (conducted in most firms large enough to have a HR department).

I don't have a degree in CS myself but I do have one in commerce and, what is more relevant, used to work in an industry related to redundancy. I think you're far wide of the mark on this one.

As for the original question, ultimately it does not matter. There may be a general trend one way or the other but each developer will bring a different set of skills to the table that will fit better with certain roles than others.

Speaking as a self trained dev, yes, I do struggle at times with stuff that is probably elementary to a CS grad but which I haven't had cause to learn in my roles. Having said that, I've encountered many a qualified developer who could talk all day about stacks and heaps and buffers but who struggle to understand requirements, write complicated solutions to problems they were never asked to solve and spend much time speculating about the route cause of defects without spending a single second investigating the same. The amount of bad code I've seen come from "good" developers which I've had to investigate and fix is evidence enough for me that a degree won't make you care about the job you do or buy you any more time when deadlines are tight and you have to release (regardless of the state of the code).

14ned

I don't have a degree in CS myself but I do have one in commerce and, what is more relevant, used to work in an industry related to redundancy. I think you're far wide of the mark on this one.

Mmm. Depends on how you look at it.

I don't claim that the majority of HR think that they're firing on the basis of least risk and cost. I do claim that HR do do this because they are strongly incentivised to do so. Same as the way that we all think that we personally write high quality code, and others do not. Yet I can categorically assure you that we all do not write high quality code.

Anyway, some proof of my claim recently turned up on HN, enjoy: https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers/

No doubt some will feel this is a one off. I agree it's an outlier in how extreme they took things, but that sort of mentality of getting rid of as many expensive people as possible, whilst minimising their ability to sue, is I have found is extremely common, yet never said openly.

I strongly believe redundancy has very little to do with contribution nor skill. There are different motivations than engineering concerns at work there. Often ideological ones, political ones, expediency ones. Little to do with engineering value.

Niall

Earthhorse

The article you posted sort of supports the opposite of what you originally said though. They got rid of their most expensive employees yet surely those with degrees can command a premium?

The suits being brought against IBM are all related to age not qualifications. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all companies, particularly large US multinationals, act in good faith during downsizing exercises; they obviously don't. But most do and even when that's not the case there are more important factors than a degree at play.

14ned

Earthhorse wrote: »

The article you posted sort of supports the opposite of what you originally said though. They got rid of their most expensive employees yet surely those with degrees can command a premium?

That's interesting ... I automatically assumed that the older workers would be much less qualified than the younger worker IBM replaced them with. That's without evidence, though I'd be almost sure I'm right.

The suits being brought against IBM are all related to age not qualifications. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all companies, particularly large US multinationals, act in good faith during downsizing exercises; they obviously don't. But most do and even when that's not the case there are more important factors than a degree at play.

The point is, though, that management wanted age. It was illegal. HR found ways to implement it anyway by any lies necessary. Had they not been so stupid as to write down what they were doing, they'd have gotten away with it.

When headcount reductions land, management will say "get rid of 15% of the workforce". They are not specific as to whom. Degree vs non-degree is an easy metric to use. That was the point I was making originally.

Niall

Earthhorse

But why did management want age? Because of cost and lack of knowledge regarding new tech stacks. Nothing to do with degrees really. I agree they could have used degrees as a good proxy to hide their intent but they didn't so the example isn't really relevant.

But to get back on topic I honestly think a lack of a degree is going to limit you more in entering and moving in the market but not as much as say poor networking and poor interview skills might. In short, lack of a degree can be made up for in other ways.

beauf

In my experience they simply axe teams and projects which aren't deemed essential by the bean counters. Often its done by external accountants who have no idea about the people involved.

beauf

Earthhorse wrote: »

...I honestly think a lack of a degree is going to limit you more in entering and moving in the market but not as much as say poor networking and poor interview skills might. In short, lack of a degree can be made up for in other ways....

Lack of a degree stops you getting past HR and Agencies who filter the applications.

Once you get to interview, I doubt a degree would be critical. More it will be experience, skillset. A degree will part of your experience and skillset.

There are a few places who want a first class honors or 2.1 perhaps even from specific colleges and universities. I've seen that.

awec

There are always exceptions to the rule but they are just that, exceptions. There is always the guy who has a great job and says he has no degree, but then there are the 10 guys who struggle to get interviewed (or get past interviews) because they don't have one. By and large, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a degree > no degree.