Excellence is what matters. It can be found in universities (and is in theory what universities are for), but in my professional experience, a C.S. degree is no guarantee that one has been trained with excellent taste and judgement. In fact, I usually react to the new hires with C.S. degrees with some degree of frustration at what schools are teaching these days.
Excellence can also be found in independent reading, and it can be learned with professional mentors as well.
You can learn it from AI, too, actually. I'm skeptical about the central use of AI in writing code directly, but find it incredible as a teaching tool. It is especially impressive when I use it as something between a tutor and a search engine, talking to it a lot about the best way to do things and asking it about standard methods and resources. It's not infallible, to be sure, but it's this incredible combination of tutor and textbook, with a better connection to the zeitgeist than all but the very best of tutors and textbooks.
In this way, AI is not dissimilar from school, independent reading, or work experience: you can use these tools in different ways, to serve different goals. If you focus on credential, skill, productivity, and money, you may entirely miss out on excellence in your craft. On the other hand, you can pursue excellence in any of these contexts.
> but in my professional experience, a C.S. degree is no guarantee that one has been trained with excellent taste and judgement
The range of degrees is very wide. Even within some universities you will find graduates with completely different levels of ability despite achieving the same degree. Some universities are set up to pass everyone through to graduation and the professors try to give opportunities for the really motivated ones to actually learn.
The range of degrees you will see is also dependent on where you’re hiring. Graduates from the programs with the strongest degrees aren’t applying to average jobs. They’re being recruited before they leave campus and they have a deep network of people in top companies to get referrals from.
This creates a strong selection effect where the type of C.S. graduates you encounter is dictated by the strength and compensation level of your company. Top school CS grads can go straight into jobs that pay higher than Senior SWE compensation in many markets. They’re not interested in applying to average junior SWE comp jobs at companies that nobody will recognize on their resume.
> Even within some universities you will find graduates with completely different levels of ability despite achieving the same degree.
Agreed. Even without considering students’ motivation and skill, sometimes this is just caused by flexibility in the degree design. Some universities offer students a lot of choice in the courses they take. For example, I chose not to take the algorithms class (I decided to self study it at that time) and instead took the graph theory class. It turned out that at that time my self-studying overemphasized algorithms likely asked in interviews (like greedy or dynamic programming) but didn’t cover more theoretical aspects like P/NP, pumping lemma, etc. This was something that I started regretting years after graduation.
I think offering too much choice to students who were still learning is probably a mistake.
> This creates a strong selection effect where the type of C.S. graduates you encounter is dictated by the strength and compensation level of your company. Top school CS grads can go straight into jobs that pay higher than Senior SWE compensation in many markets. They’re not interested in applying to average junior SWE comp jobs at companies that nobody will recognize on their resume.
My experience has been that it’s the norm to find that even people who come from “recognisable” names follow a bell curve distribution that matches people who come from other places.
I went back to school recently to get a degree after 20yrs in the industry. It's hard to overstate how helpful it is to able to open ChatGPT and ask "ok but why?" ad infinitum like children do.
I've spun up an AI-assisted RoR app. Having the AI "explain this to me like I'm a human" has been the quickest way for me to learn a new environment, language, and system that I've ever encountered.
The golden days are now: We can amplify our mind's ability to get stuff done before our AI overlords supplant us.
Kind of not kidding. My opinion: Get shit done, make stacks because it's going to get interesting even if AI never advances much further. The perception that it will be chaos enough.
Classic gatekeeping argument insisting a CS degree is necessary to write good software. I don’t have one and have 20+ year successful career with accolades, know many others in the same boat. Obviously there are CS degree people who were also successful, and the flip side comes for both camps, I’ve worked with absolutely awful engineers with or without a CS degree.
Same here, 20+ years, no degree. but have a slightly different view about folks either CS degrees.
It really comes down to the individual. Those who are good with CS degrees would likely be good without them. The majority of those who picked CS as a degree because “it pays well” are truly awful. Only a small handful end up enjoying and understand how to write code and make good software.
I agree about the existence of people who really just aimed for the grades (sometimes dubiously) to unlock a career. There were also enthusiastic folks with whom I learned a lot.
While I'm an interested self learner, I significantly benefit from structured learning. I don't think I would have had the breadth of depth of knowledge if I didn't do a CS degree since I didn't think I would have done such a variety of focused projects and homework. I would "shop" for good teachers and wait until they taught to take a course. I would have lots of questions in class. At the end of many of my semesters, I genuinely felt like Neo's "I know kung fu" - knowledge given on a platter. I didn't think I would have left covering undergrad subjects if I didn't, well, feel the need to earn my keep and at least aim for higher level studies and get assistantships for initial financial independence.
That being said, this was all before the YouTube era. Although, YouTube is a double-edged library of distractions and amazing educational material.
As someone with a CS degree, most of the people I know with CS degrees are not very good developers. This is regardless of schools, as my anecdotal experience includes people from ivy leagues. The strongest developers I've met and worked with often come from other STEM fields or, interestingly enough, philosophy backgrounds.
Again, purely anecdotal, but it is 20 years of anecdotal experience across a very broad range of industries.
Becoming a good developer was nowhere in the curriculum at the CS program I attended, unfortunately. It still had some interesting topics. I think the profession evolved too quickly for an academic curriculum to cover anything relevant.
Nowadays I hope the CS curriculum explicitly disregards whatever the standard industry code factory meta is, since from the outside it appears to be soulless and dehumanizing. Who wants to take 101: Hit Approve all day on your 20 claude terminals?
The meta has changed in 6 months so the university is investing millions of dollars to design a new 101 course: Hit approve all day on the agent which should be taking your job any time soon.
There are many great developers who did not get CS degrees. Might be an unpopular thing to say, but in my experience interviewing a lot of applicants, the majority of applicants who don’t have CS degrees are not in that category.
It’s always great to find a diamond in the rough who has been passed over by other companies for lack of degree and is looking for an opportunity to shine.
On the whole, a CS degree is directionally correlated with being more likely to have a good understanding of the fundamentals, algorithms, and other important context that helps more as the problems get hard. These things can all be learned by someone without a CS degree, but in my experience being open to interviewing non-traditional applicants it’s more common for the self-taught applicants to be more trial and error type devs who got to this point by experimenting and seeing what works.
I always have to give the blanket disclaimer that a CS degree does not guarantee a great dev and a lack of CS degree does not mean the dev is not good. However, I honestly can’t say that a CS degree is not correlated with better developers on the whole. I choose to interview non-traditional applicants who don’t have CS degrees, but to be entirely honest I can’t fault companies who get a lot of applicants who start prioritizing those with degrees.
I think your interviewing experience is valid because tech interviews have been designed to filter out people without DS&A experience which a CS degree will give you a big advantage at. Day to day job performance (for the most part, in most roles) will have nothing to do with DS&A though. If you know when to use an array vs a dictionary then you’re good for 99.99% of actual software development day to day tasks.
> Neither the prestigious degree nor the good proficiency in algorithmic problem-solving guarantee a career success. They are factors that make statistics work in the favor of the candidate.
I think the article takes a more nuanced view than you suggest. And the existence of counterexamples to a "for the most part" claim are not counterexamples at all.
I think it honestly not even a signal of how good anymore. It's become noise in my experience..
I've worked with an absolute leetcode beast and had a masters in CS. He insisted we use Redis for a project with a lot of relational data. We ended up building a mini relational database on top of redis. Whatever you're imagining about the dev experience, it was worse. He was a lead/senior engineer at the company. Turns out he never bothered to properly learn SQL because he didn't like it. C'est la vie, ggs I guess.
One of the best engineers I worked with was a biochemist who fell in love with programming through chance.
Most of the people I admired in the industry are self taught and passionate about the craft; a lot of them are also immigrants who didn't have access to prestigeus unis. Some went to uni but admit they've been programming since before that.
You can't really learn to be passionate about the craft and to enjoy learning at any uni.
The author didn't have a CS degree so it's not classic gatekeeping: "For the majority of my career, I neither had a formal, rigorous computer science education...". The author also directly addresses the parent poster's viewpoint: "If I had to categorize the 'no need for education, no need for algorithms' crowd of our field, they’d fall into three categories: They either focus on the wrong things when developing software, they have a very shallow knowledge and lack of regard of how difficult good engineering is, or they’re utterly clueless and rely on good soft skills and politics."
Personally I agree that a CS degree isn't needed for most software jobs because frameworks and libraries hide most of the gnarly CS stuff. But those are the software jobs least likely to survive adoption of LLM-based software development.
Yup. This post is the worst idea I've ever seen. There's a reason some jobs require formal education, training, and certification (neurosurgeon).
If you're young and thinking about making this your career, absolutely go to school. It's a LOT harder to land a job without that stupid sheet of paper. Especially if you can get someone else to pay for your education.
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, zaksa.... you're not a brain surgeon. You're scared that you're on longer a rare resource.
Guy writes like he’s the main character when he’s probably dev #48373 at CrudCorp. I bet the internal company tool he works on is pretty slick though.
Most smart people I know don’t like toy leetcode problems, they like real problems which are orders of magnitude harder and not solvable by LLMs. Leetcode is for people who got good grades and want to feel smart by learning the rote tricks to solve leetcode.
1. the complete demystification of computing. If you’re writing c or assembly and working on OS concepts there’s a sort of aha moment that the computer is not a mystery.
2. The degree pushes you past the hump where a lot of folks get stuck on when learning to program. There’s a seeming spot where things makes sense and you actually understand what’s going on. Forcing yourself to stick with it for 4 years where you’re taught by experts is helpful for that.
3. It gives you a space to explore a wide array of topics. Whether they are useful to an employer or not.
I assume folks can accomplish these 3 on their own. But it would be more or less building your own balanced curriculum and also trusting as you start that your curriculum will work. Whereas within the school system the trust is baked in: if you successfully complete these assignments you will learn foundational concepts.
I have a CS degree. I learned some useful things. However, I graduated in 1998. I've had to learn a bunch of stuff since then because it didn't exist in 1998.
For folks that don't have CS degrees, they just have a little more to learn outside college. When I started my career, a significant majority of my colleagues didn't have CS degrees. It just wasn't a popular major in the 90s.
Among the best developers I've ever worked with never went to college at all.
100% agree. The second I got a degree, gatekeeping stopped.
Becoming an MBA candidate, the barriers were minimized even more, if not eliminated.
I can only imagine if it was a top ten school instead of top 30.
Combine a top 10 with a proper computer science degree. If only I knew and understood this was the “proper” path a decade ago or more.
Taking the harder path helped me become who I am today, but, it sure is easier to take the easier path.
If you are looking for a practical computer science degree, Georgia Tech’s OMSCS feels tailor made for late 20s and 30s. There’s no age restriction of course, but if you are younger, on campus networking is better.
Based on the comments here and the content of the post... I sort of agree. But maybe less so directly with their gatekeeping. But maybe we should formalize closer to "real professions".
And if we think college degrees don't matter, there's plenty of professions that require time on the job, rotations, flying low/no passenger planes, and so on.
We require people get a license to own a firearm (or ostensibly should...). And AI can be an extremely powerful weapon.
I see a gatekeeping argument. I don't agree with their requirements. I'd rather see that regulation than banning models.
It also has the side effect of preventing AI from taking jobs as aggressively, keeping it at bay in schools, and getting people to maybe respect(?) / acknowledge the dangers involved here.
What you are saying is impractical, we cannot uninvent AI or force all countries to abandon it, a simple laptop is sufficient compute to run it. Licensing to access AI cannot be implemented. Why stop at AI, maybe we should license people to use the internet as well? Own computers? Electricity could also be a powerful weapon, should we only trust some people to have electricity?
> Experience has shown that, things rarely work out in the long-term if you aim to have a successful career without a degree or by skirting coding interviews. Lacking these skills in the current conditions might be career-ending.
Perhaps your experience is unique and not at all representative. This reads very out touch.
> They either focus on the wrong things when developing software, they have a very shallow knowledge and lack of regard of how difficult good engineering is, or they’re utterly clueless and rely on good soft skills and politics.
I’ve worked with plenty of people like this that had degrees. A few of them even have masters.
> The people I wrote above weren’t considered bad performers.
Did management - the people who are supposed to deal with the issues described - have degrees?
Crazy. It depends on the kind of software being built. Working on embedded systems for avionics is an entirely different animal than working CRM software development as an example. Even Wozniak didn’t have a degree until 1986, long after Apple went public.
Most of the people I worked with at Apple didn’t have CS degrees yet they built the thing many of you are using to read this.
Much of software development is deciding what to build rather than how to build it — that takes skills far beyond CS. We are building software for people to use rather than building it for its own sake.
CS people might know algorithms but do they understand why they even need it? How does it help the user? Some of the worst places I’ve ever worked had lots of CS degree people who spent more time complaining about framework defaults than building something people are able to quickly use and pay money for.
Inventors of Perl, C, Turbo Pascal, Typescript, Delphi, C#, FORTRAN, PHP, and COBOL pioneer Grace Hopper — no CS degrees.
Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Zuckerberg, Chris Wanstrath (GitHub,) Arash Ferdowsi (Dropbox.) — no CS degree.
Stewart Butterfield (Slack) had degrees in philosophy! Reid Hoffman — also a liberal arts guy.
Avie Tevanian (Architect of MacOS,) — no CS degree. And while Steve Jobs wasn’t as technically astute as Wozniak — he still did tech and of course, no degree at all.
I could go on all day — I only mentioned the famous ones. At Apple I could list a hundred top engineers with no CS degree. I am sure most people here could.
The CS degree gatekeeping is complete ridiculousness.
I am biased though— I spent 7 years at Apple and have been in this business 16 years and my degree? Journalism.
CS people might be able to answer questions, but many times they don’t know the questions to ask. Tech has room for everyone and everyone brings a different skill set to the party. Not all doctors need to be neurosurgeons.
Yeah it's demonstrably not required. We can just rule that out by observation. There are a million examples of successful self taught people in software.
If that's the case, then why do we see increased cargo-culting, jumping on to hype trains, and less understanding on computer fundamentals in general that favours more and more abstraction in this field?
It's not like we're in a rush to bring software out there asap, and we still have some people who measure software success by LoC. Something doesn't add up.
> If that's the case, then why do we see increased cargo-culting, jumping on to hype trains, and less understanding on computer fundamentals in general that favours more and more abstraction in this field?
Because leading the pack you find Harvard/MIT-bred Leetcode ninjas that are absolutely void of any engineering skills, any whatsoever. The type of people that spend years thinking that Grokking the coding interview is a valuable way to spend time and are pushing memory leaking React+Tailwind garbage to billions of people as a living.
Absolutely pathetic.
If that is engineering and that is what it leads to (people rat raceing big tech while writing very poor bloated software) and that should be the elite, no wonder the rest of the world quickly figured out a degree had little to offer beyond (some) selection.
I haven't had much exposure to the Ivy League grad engineers until now, but if they are also on Leetcode treadmill and about grokking interviews... yeah we're in a bit of trouble. I thought they would bring in fresh ideas instead.
While I agree with this in principle, I think the market is a separate problem. As much as this is correct, the market is not going to select for competence. The market is going to select for affordability.
Ultimately the most affordable worker of the future is going to be the person who knows just enough to prompt an agent to first build a feature and second fix it "fast enough" when it ultimately breaks.
Companies might have a couple of people who actually know how to design systems and think deeply on hand for overall architecture, load balancing design, and serious problems but this will be a small cadre of employees. In some sense, I suspect, in relation to degrees, computer science will eventually look like the field of curation: an extremely small pool of outstanding positions looking to be filled by an orders of magnitude greater number of degree holders.
Unless the bubble does eventually burst, in which case people will hopefully return to their senses.
You're missing nepotism from the equation. The salaries available at American Big Tech have made it so that graduates see a dev career as more desirable than traditional prestige industries like investment banking and law. The same nepotistic hiring practices common in those industries will also become entrenched in tech and already are to an extent.
Well written. I have a similar background and I agree with most of your observations and conclusions. Not the part about prestigious universities catering to 'rich kids", though, at least not any STEM departments.
Excellence is what matters. It can be found in universities (and is in theory what universities are for), but in my professional experience, a C.S. degree is no guarantee that one has been trained with excellent taste and judgement. In fact, I usually react to the new hires with C.S. degrees with some degree of frustration at what schools are teaching these days.
Excellence can also be found in independent reading, and it can be learned with professional mentors as well.
You can learn it from AI, too, actually. I'm skeptical about the central use of AI in writing code directly, but find it incredible as a teaching tool. It is especially impressive when I use it as something between a tutor and a search engine, talking to it a lot about the best way to do things and asking it about standard methods and resources. It's not infallible, to be sure, but it's this incredible combination of tutor and textbook, with a better connection to the zeitgeist than all but the very best of tutors and textbooks.
In this way, AI is not dissimilar from school, independent reading, or work experience: you can use these tools in different ways, to serve different goals. If you focus on credential, skill, productivity, and money, you may entirely miss out on excellence in your craft. On the other hand, you can pursue excellence in any of these contexts.
> but in my professional experience, a C.S. degree is no guarantee that one has been trained with excellent taste and judgement
The range of degrees is very wide. Even within some universities you will find graduates with completely different levels of ability despite achieving the same degree. Some universities are set up to pass everyone through to graduation and the professors try to give opportunities for the really motivated ones to actually learn.
The range of degrees you will see is also dependent on where you’re hiring. Graduates from the programs with the strongest degrees aren’t applying to average jobs. They’re being recruited before they leave campus and they have a deep network of people in top companies to get referrals from.
This creates a strong selection effect where the type of C.S. graduates you encounter is dictated by the strength and compensation level of your company. Top school CS grads can go straight into jobs that pay higher than Senior SWE compensation in many markets. They’re not interested in applying to average junior SWE comp jobs at companies that nobody will recognize on their resume.
> Even within some universities you will find graduates with completely different levels of ability despite achieving the same degree.
Agreed. Even without considering students’ motivation and skill, sometimes this is just caused by flexibility in the degree design. Some universities offer students a lot of choice in the courses they take. For example, I chose not to take the algorithms class (I decided to self study it at that time) and instead took the graph theory class. It turned out that at that time my self-studying overemphasized algorithms likely asked in interviews (like greedy or dynamic programming) but didn’t cover more theoretical aspects like P/NP, pumping lemma, etc. This was something that I started regretting years after graduation.
I think offering too much choice to students who were still learning is probably a mistake.
> This creates a strong selection effect where the type of C.S. graduates you encounter is dictated by the strength and compensation level of your company. Top school CS grads can go straight into jobs that pay higher than Senior SWE compensation in many markets. They’re not interested in applying to average junior SWE comp jobs at companies that nobody will recognize on their resume.
My experience has been that it’s the norm to find that even people who come from “recognisable” names follow a bell curve distribution that matches people who come from other places.
Graduates from every university follow a distribution. I’m not trying to claim that all graduates from a university are equal.
The center of that distribution is higher or lower depending on the university. The university matters a lot.
I went back to school recently to get a degree after 20yrs in the industry. It's hard to overstate how helpful it is to able to open ChatGPT and ask "ok but why?" ad infinitum like children do.
What made you want to do that btw?
I've spun up an AI-assisted RoR app. Having the AI "explain this to me like I'm a human" has been the quickest way for me to learn a new environment, language, and system that I've ever encountered.
The golden days are now: We can amplify our mind's ability to get stuff done before our AI overlords supplant us.
Kind of not kidding. My opinion: Get shit done, make stacks because it's going to get interesting even if AI never advances much further. The perception that it will be chaos enough.
Classic gatekeeping argument insisting a CS degree is necessary to write good software. I don’t have one and have 20+ year successful career with accolades, know many others in the same boat. Obviously there are CS degree people who were also successful, and the flip side comes for both camps, I’ve worked with absolutely awful engineers with or without a CS degree.
It is a signal, not the signal.
Same here, 20+ years, no degree. but have a slightly different view about folks either CS degrees.
It really comes down to the individual. Those who are good with CS degrees would likely be good without them. The majority of those who picked CS as a degree because “it pays well” are truly awful. Only a small handful end up enjoying and understand how to write code and make good software.
I agree about the existence of people who really just aimed for the grades (sometimes dubiously) to unlock a career. There were also enthusiastic folks with whom I learned a lot.
While I'm an interested self learner, I significantly benefit from structured learning. I don't think I would have had the breadth of depth of knowledge if I didn't do a CS degree since I didn't think I would have done such a variety of focused projects and homework. I would "shop" for good teachers and wait until they taught to take a course. I would have lots of questions in class. At the end of many of my semesters, I genuinely felt like Neo's "I know kung fu" - knowledge given on a platter. I didn't think I would have left covering undergrad subjects if I didn't, well, feel the need to earn my keep and at least aim for higher level studies and get assistantships for initial financial independence.
That being said, this was all before the YouTube era. Although, YouTube is a double-edged library of distractions and amazing educational material.
As someone with a CS degree, most of the people I know with CS degrees are not very good developers. This is regardless of schools, as my anecdotal experience includes people from ivy leagues. The strongest developers I've met and worked with often come from other STEM fields or, interestingly enough, philosophy backgrounds.
Again, purely anecdotal, but it is 20 years of anecdotal experience across a very broad range of industries.
Becoming a good developer was nowhere in the curriculum at the CS program I attended, unfortunately. It still had some interesting topics. I think the profession evolved too quickly for an academic curriculum to cover anything relevant.
Nowadays I hope the CS curriculum explicitly disregards whatever the standard industry code factory meta is, since from the outside it appears to be soulless and dehumanizing. Who wants to take 101: Hit Approve all day on your 20 claude terminals?
> Who wants to take 101: Hit Approve all day on your 20 claude terminals?
Obviously put all 20 in tmux sessions and have a monitor agent do the approvals.
The meta has changed in 6 months so the university is investing millions of dollars to design a new 101 course: Hit approve all day on the agent which should be taking your job any time soon.
There are many great developers who did not get CS degrees. Might be an unpopular thing to say, but in my experience interviewing a lot of applicants, the majority of applicants who don’t have CS degrees are not in that category.
It’s always great to find a diamond in the rough who has been passed over by other companies for lack of degree and is looking for an opportunity to shine.
On the whole, a CS degree is directionally correlated with being more likely to have a good understanding of the fundamentals, algorithms, and other important context that helps more as the problems get hard. These things can all be learned by someone without a CS degree, but in my experience being open to interviewing non-traditional applicants it’s more common for the self-taught applicants to be more trial and error type devs who got to this point by experimenting and seeing what works.
I always have to give the blanket disclaimer that a CS degree does not guarantee a great dev and a lack of CS degree does not mean the dev is not good. However, I honestly can’t say that a CS degree is not correlated with better developers on the whole. I choose to interview non-traditional applicants who don’t have CS degrees, but to be entirely honest I can’t fault companies who get a lot of applicants who start prioritizing those with degrees.
I think your interviewing experience is valid because tech interviews have been designed to filter out people without DS&A experience which a CS degree will give you a big advantage at. Day to day job performance (for the most part, in most roles) will have nothing to do with DS&A though. If you know when to use an array vs a dictionary then you’re good for 99.99% of actual software development day to day tasks.
We weren’t using DSA interviews at the job where I had the most leeway to interview candidates without CS degrees.
> Neither the prestigious degree nor the good proficiency in algorithmic problem-solving guarantee a career success. They are factors that make statistics work in the favor of the candidate.
I think the article takes a more nuanced view than you suggest. And the existence of counterexamples to a "for the most part" claim are not counterexamples at all.
I think it honestly not even a signal of how good anymore. It's become noise in my experience..
I've worked with an absolute leetcode beast and had a masters in CS. He insisted we use Redis for a project with a lot of relational data. We ended up building a mini relational database on top of redis. Whatever you're imagining about the dev experience, it was worse. He was a lead/senior engineer at the company. Turns out he never bothered to properly learn SQL because he didn't like it. C'est la vie, ggs I guess.
One of the best engineers I worked with was a biochemist who fell in love with programming through chance.
Most of the people I admired in the industry are self taught and passionate about the craft; a lot of them are also immigrants who didn't have access to prestigeus unis. Some went to uni but admit they've been programming since before that.
You can't really learn to be passionate about the craft and to enjoy learning at any uni.
The author didn't have a CS degree so it's not classic gatekeeping: "For the majority of my career, I neither had a formal, rigorous computer science education...". The author also directly addresses the parent poster's viewpoint: "If I had to categorize the 'no need for education, no need for algorithms' crowd of our field, they’d fall into three categories: They either focus on the wrong things when developing software, they have a very shallow knowledge and lack of regard of how difficult good engineering is, or they’re utterly clueless and rely on good soft skills and politics."
Personally I agree that a CS degree isn't needed for most software jobs because frameworks and libraries hide most of the gnarly CS stuff. But those are the software jobs least likely to survive adoption of LLM-based software development.
Yup. This post is the worst idea I've ever seen. There's a reason some jobs require formal education, training, and certification (neurosurgeon).
If you're young and thinking about making this your career, absolutely go to school. It's a LOT harder to land a job without that stupid sheet of paper. Especially if you can get someone else to pay for your education.
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, zaksa.... you're not a brain surgeon. You're scared that you're on longer a rare resource.
Guy writes like he’s the main character when he’s probably dev #48373 at CrudCorp. I bet the internal company tool he works on is pretty slick though.
Most smart people I know don’t like toy leetcode problems, they like real problems which are orders of magnitude harder and not solvable by LLMs. Leetcode is for people who got good grades and want to feel smart by learning the rote tricks to solve leetcode.
3 positives from a degree are:
1. the complete demystification of computing. If you’re writing c or assembly and working on OS concepts there’s a sort of aha moment that the computer is not a mystery.
2. The degree pushes you past the hump where a lot of folks get stuck on when learning to program. There’s a seeming spot where things makes sense and you actually understand what’s going on. Forcing yourself to stick with it for 4 years where you’re taught by experts is helpful for that.
3. It gives you a space to explore a wide array of topics. Whether they are useful to an employer or not.
I assume folks can accomplish these 3 on their own. But it would be more or less building your own balanced curriculum and also trusting as you start that your curriculum will work. Whereas within the school system the trust is baked in: if you successfully complete these assignments you will learn foundational concepts.
I have a CS degree. I learned some useful things. However, I graduated in 1998. I've had to learn a bunch of stuff since then because it didn't exist in 1998.
For folks that don't have CS degrees, they just have a little more to learn outside college. When I started my career, a significant majority of my colleagues didn't have CS degrees. It just wasn't a popular major in the 90s.
Among the best developers I've ever worked with never went to college at all.
A lot of the leet code problems are "math shaped". LLM's are pretty strong at that.
My guess is that interview questions would test your skills combined with the llm, because when testing skill without, the difference is just too big.
100% agree. The second I got a degree, gatekeeping stopped.
Becoming an MBA candidate, the barriers were minimized even more, if not eliminated.
I can only imagine if it was a top ten school instead of top 30.
Combine a top 10 with a proper computer science degree. If only I knew and understood this was the “proper” path a decade ago or more.
Taking the harder path helped me become who I am today, but, it sure is easier to take the easier path.
If you are looking for a practical computer science degree, Georgia Tech’s OMSCS feels tailor made for late 20s and 30s. There’s no age restriction of course, but if you are younger, on campus networking is better.
I plan to do it sometime after my MBA.
Based on the comments here and the content of the post... I sort of agree. But maybe less so directly with their gatekeeping. But maybe we should formalize closer to "real professions".
And if we think college degrees don't matter, there's plenty of professions that require time on the job, rotations, flying low/no passenger planes, and so on.
We require people get a license to own a firearm (or ostensibly should...). And AI can be an extremely powerful weapon.
I see a gatekeeping argument. I don't agree with their requirements. I'd rather see that regulation than banning models.
It also has the side effect of preventing AI from taking jobs as aggressively, keeping it at bay in schools, and getting people to maybe respect(?) / acknowledge the dangers involved here.
What you are saying is impractical, we cannot uninvent AI or force all countries to abandon it, a simple laptop is sufficient compute to run it. Licensing to access AI cannot be implemented. Why stop at AI, maybe we should license people to use the internet as well? Own computers? Electricity could also be a powerful weapon, should we only trust some people to have electricity?
This is a very dated view. We're in the process of offloading that to the machines.
> Experience has shown that, things rarely work out in the long-term if you aim to have a successful career without a degree or by skirting coding interviews. Lacking these skills in the current conditions might be career-ending.
Perhaps your experience is unique and not at all representative. This reads very out touch.
So says "zaksa".
Follow up question. Who is zaksa?
Even if you take the problem seriously as he describes it, it is delusional to imagine that a formal degree would be the solution.
Not that I would consider a "licensure required to use a sharp knife" kind of world, even if it would solve some problems.
> They either focus on the wrong things when developing software, they have a very shallow knowledge and lack of regard of how difficult good engineering is, or they’re utterly clueless and rely on good soft skills and politics.
I’ve worked with plenty of people like this that had degrees. A few of them even have masters.
> The people I wrote above weren’t considered bad performers.
Did management - the people who are supposed to deal with the issues described - have degrees?
Crazy. It depends on the kind of software being built. Working on embedded systems for avionics is an entirely different animal than working CRM software development as an example. Even Wozniak didn’t have a degree until 1986, long after Apple went public.
Most of the people I worked with at Apple didn’t have CS degrees yet they built the thing many of you are using to read this.
Much of software development is deciding what to build rather than how to build it — that takes skills far beyond CS. We are building software for people to use rather than building it for its own sake.
CS people might know algorithms but do they understand why they even need it? How does it help the user? Some of the worst places I’ve ever worked had lots of CS degree people who spent more time complaining about framework defaults than building something people are able to quickly use and pay money for.
Inventors of Perl, C, Turbo Pascal, Typescript, Delphi, C#, FORTRAN, PHP, and COBOL pioneer Grace Hopper — no CS degrees.
Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Zuckerberg, Chris Wanstrath (GitHub,) Arash Ferdowsi (Dropbox.) — no CS degree.
Stewart Butterfield (Slack) had degrees in philosophy! Reid Hoffman — also a liberal arts guy.
Avie Tevanian (Architect of MacOS,) — no CS degree. And while Steve Jobs wasn’t as technically astute as Wozniak — he still did tech and of course, no degree at all.
I could go on all day — I only mentioned the famous ones. At Apple I could list a hundred top engineers with no CS degree. I am sure most people here could.
The CS degree gatekeeping is complete ridiculousness.
I am biased though— I spent 7 years at Apple and have been in this business 16 years and my degree? Journalism.
CS people might be able to answer questions, but many times they don’t know the questions to ask. Tech has room for everyone and everyone brings a different skill set to the party. Not all doctors need to be neurosurgeons.
Yeah, no.
Milk takes 3 days to age. This is already spoiled.
i dont think a whole degree is required for software dev, prolly better to just make it a major in some other degree like eng or sci
Yeah it's demonstrably not required. We can just rule that out by observation. There are a million examples of successful self taught people in software.
If that's the case, then why do we see increased cargo-culting, jumping on to hype trains, and less understanding on computer fundamentals in general that favours more and more abstraction in this field?
It's not like we're in a rush to bring software out there asap, and we still have some people who measure software success by LoC. Something doesn't add up.
> If that's the case, then why do we see increased cargo-culting, jumping on to hype trains, and less understanding on computer fundamentals in general that favours more and more abstraction in this field?
Because leading the pack you find Harvard/MIT-bred Leetcode ninjas that are absolutely void of any engineering skills, any whatsoever. The type of people that spend years thinking that Grokking the coding interview is a valuable way to spend time and are pushing memory leaking React+Tailwind garbage to billions of people as a living.
Absolutely pathetic.
If that is engineering and that is what it leads to (people rat raceing big tech while writing very poor bloated software) and that should be the elite, no wonder the rest of the world quickly figured out a degree had little to offer beyond (some) selection.
I haven't had much exposure to the Ivy League grad engineers until now, but if they are also on Leetcode treadmill and about grokking interviews... yeah we're in a bit of trouble. I thought they would bring in fresh ideas instead.
While I agree with this in principle, I think the market is a separate problem. As much as this is correct, the market is not going to select for competence. The market is going to select for affordability.
Ultimately the most affordable worker of the future is going to be the person who knows just enough to prompt an agent to first build a feature and second fix it "fast enough" when it ultimately breaks.
Companies might have a couple of people who actually know how to design systems and think deeply on hand for overall architecture, load balancing design, and serious problems but this will be a small cadre of employees. In some sense, I suspect, in relation to degrees, computer science will eventually look like the field of curation: an extremely small pool of outstanding positions looking to be filled by an orders of magnitude greater number of degree holders.
Unless the bubble does eventually burst, in which case people will hopefully return to their senses.
You're missing nepotism from the equation. The salaries available at American Big Tech have made it so that graduates see a dev career as more desirable than traditional prestige industries like investment banking and law. The same nepotistic hiring practices common in those industries will also become entrenched in tech and already are to an extent.
What is it you think "nepotism" means?
I have worked for 40 years in software. I have seen very little nepotism. Contacts, yes. Nepotism, no.
I'm not denying that it happens. I don't think it's a significant driver, though.
Well written. I have a similar background and I agree with most of your observations and conclusions. Not the part about prestigious universities catering to 'rich kids", though, at least not any STEM departments.
I removed dot zip from the interwebs using dnsmasq. https://web.archive.org/web/20260822143156/https://zaksa.zip...
address=/.app/0.0.0.0
address=/.vercel.app/0.0.0.0
address=/.zip/0.0.0.0
address=/.mov/0.0.0.0
address=/.so/0.0.0.0