hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/02/88)
Just to add another aspect to the discussion of education vs. real world
experience, the following ad appears in the positions offered section of
the Communications of the ACM, March 1988, page A-36 (spelling, grammar
and punctuation are theirs, elipses are mine):
INDUSTRIAL POSTIONS FOR
COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS
Positions nationally. Fees paid by em-
ployers. U.S. citizens or permanent res-
idents. PhD or minimum three years, <== Note
experience. Call or write ... [etc.]
Of course, that's just one recruiter's opinion. Makes you wonder, though.
My experience has been that CS degrees and CS competence are not closely
related.
I agree with the need to bring more of the real world into the class room.
I've had to clean up too many messes that would probably have received a
passing grade because they worked (until a boundary condition, or
something else unexpected, tripped them up).
I'm cross-posting to misc.jobs.misc because the degree question often
comes up there. Please edit the Newsgroups line appropriately before
following up.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombeshebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) (04/03/88)
In article <2218@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: > Positions nationally. Fees paid by em- > ployers. U.S. citizens or permanent res- > idents. PhD or minimum three years, <== Note > experience. Call or write ... [etc.] > >Of course, that's just one recruiter's opinion. Makes you wonder, though. Based on my recent experience in jobhunting, equating a PhD with however many years it took you to get it is quite common. Based on observation of PhDs in industry, if you take a job where they think that way, you will deserve whatever you get, which generally means almost zero creative work. The main use of your degree will be to pad proposals ("we're going to have 45 PhD researchers working on this project, if you give us the bucks"). Personally, I've sweated over my PhD too much to have it counted the same as warming a chair for five years. >My experience has been that CS degrees and CS competence are not closely >related. s/CS//g - this isn't some special defect of CS degrees. A while back I read some flame in an IEEE rag about how EE grads don't know the right things, and my dad the non-degreed (not even BS) research chemist has told some amusing stories about the ignorance of new chemistry PhDs. A degree is more like some minimum requirement than a glowing recommendation. If you can't manage to get a BS these days, you've got to be really defective somehow, like maybe you can't tear yourself away from a terminal long enough to find out that bubble sorts aren't the only choice! (flames launched, sir - tracking...) stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (04/04/88)
In article <5388@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) writes: >In article <2218@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: Positions nationally. Fees paid by em- ployers. U.S. citizens or permanent res- idents. PhD or minimum three years, <== Note experience. Call or write ... [etc.] This is clearly a typo -- it should read "PhD and three years experience or no PhD". :-) -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
stank@orca.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) (04/04/88)
In article <5388@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) writes: >Based on my recent experience in jobhunting, equating a PhD with however >many years it took you to get it is quite common. I think industry equates the time to earn a degree with equivilent time in the field because it is looking for results. Having a PhD does not necessarily guarantee results, having a good track record of results usually does. Industry tends to lay blame on our educational system. The hiring policy makers say that PhD's with no industry experience have difficulty making the transition from theoretical science to applied science and that PhD's don't know how to translate ideas into dollars. The following observation might illustrate what I'm getting at: A couple of years ago I read an article in the Sunday New York Times that said PhD's in Artificial Intelligence graduating from a leading school could earn something like $70,000. The article said that the starting salary was so inflated because of high demand for, and a small supply of Ai PhD's. I take this to mean that industry has spent a great deal of money on developing AI expertise. So far, I haven't heard of any companies reaping an acceptable gain on their investment in AI technology. AI has been applied mostly to internal systems development having only limited cost saving value. The few comercial products that use AI technology have met with only limited success. Perhaps it's too soon to tell, but it seems that in these days of "quick buck" business investment the AI PhD's have not been able to convert their knowledge into bottom line bucks. Who's to blame? Industry says that the fault lies with the educational system for not teachiing students how to apply technology profitably. Educational institutions blame industry for not providing enough financial support for education, for not fostering creative application of ideas, and for expecting too much from technology. The only conclusion I can make from all this is: IF WE DON'T CHANGE THE WAY WE ARE DEVELOPING AND MARKETING TECHNOLOGY WE WILL ALL LOSE! << DISCLAIMER >> The above opinions are my own, and are not necessarily representative of the company I work for (Tektronix). Please don't FLAME me if you diasgree with my analysis. I have merely stated my current opinion and I am open to calm, open-minded, discussion of these issues. I can even be persuaded to change my opinions when given a resonable counter argument. -- US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc. Information Display Group, Graphics Workstations Division PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458 uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank
jmm@thoth20.berkeley.edu (04/04/88)
(Disclaimer: I'm not any variety of engineering major, nor have I much experience in the world of business.) I always thought that universities were supposed to teach theory more than practice. There are going to be lots of different types of systems out there in the 'real world,' and if your educational background only prepares you to use one of them then it doesn't do you much good. If your education teaches you the general way that systems are built, why they're built that way, and leads you to think about new ways they could be designed, then your chosen place of employment can teach you the specific way it's implemented. Universities should not be expected to teach people the uses of any particular set of tools. That's what vocational schools are for. / James Moore / | jmm@bartleby.berkeley.edu / / |--------------------------------------------| / Ma ta Gaeilge agut, / | Nil aon speis ag Ollscoile na | / scriobh i! / | California im bharulacha fein. |
shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) (04/04/88)
In article <2524@orca.TEK.COM> stank@orca.UUCP (Stan Kalinowski) writes: >I think industry equates the time to earn a degree with equivilent >time in the field because it is looking for results. Having a PhD >does not necessarily guarantee results, having a good track record of >results usually does. Industry tends to lay blame on our educational >system. The hiring policy makers say that PhD's with no industry >experience have difficulty making the transition from theoretical >science to applied science and that PhD's don't know how to translate >ideas into dollars. What's the definition of "results"? Published papers or software profits? There are at least two assumptions here: one, that PhDs do "theoretical science", and that a PhD is necessary to do "applied science". Of course, people have differing ideas of theoretical vs practical - I've been accused of being "too theoretical" and "too practical" at the same time (but, fortunately, not by the same person :-) ). As I said previously, there is a habit of companies specifying "PhD" when they really want a good person with a master's. So let me ask this: does anybody actually know why companies specify PhDs when they have no intention of letting the employees do either basic or applied research? Or is it that the definition of "applied research" covers anything more creative than buying a commercial software package? >The only conclusion I can make from all this is: IF WE DON'T CHANGE >THE WAY WE ARE DEVELOPING AND MARKETING TECHNOLOGY WE WILL ALL LOSE! I don't understand who is going to lose what. Technology transfer is already incredibly efficient, so much so that many senior people in the field worry about loss of academic freedom because of companies insisting on funding only short-term work with clearly-defined goals. stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu
ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu (Mark P. Martin) (04/05/88)
In article <8295@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@thoth20.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes: >I always thought that universities were supposed to teach theory more than >practice. They do, greatly in error and to the disadvantage of the student. Employers are not looking for people with extroardinary skills in practicing theory, but for people with extensive experience in a multitude of systems, languages, and environments. NO, strike that! They are looking for experience on *their particular system*. Presumeably, this experience has been acquired elsewhere, as the employer finds it economically advantageous to hire capable people, rather than train new people. Some college programs seem to be realizing the fallacy of teaching extensive theory with no practical application, but in general the effort put forth is not effective. Consider the course in which the senior project is to develop and market a large software project: the primary objective in the course was to satisfy the instructor's emotional need for the use of non-sexist pronouns. :-) The secondary objective was to produce appealing packaging (never mind what went in) for the project. With so much emphasis on satisfying the instructors requirements, the true needs of the paying client were seen as "soft requirements." Not that packageing and user interface are unimportant, but I believe that employers looking for engineers would be more interested in academic work writing UNIX device drivers than poetic prose with little technical content. >Universities should not be expected to teach people the uses of any particular >set of tools. That's what vocational schools are for. I have yet to hear about a vocational school that teaches all the aspects of the internal design, programming and operation of computers, and still maintains a quality reputation. Vocational schools are not recognizeable degree granting institutions in such fields as engineering. And engineering is more ability to apply knowledge than the straightforward use of tools and techniques. The word "engineer" derives from "engenious man" (no sexism flames please, I have a reference). *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | "People can be divided into three categories: | Mark P. Martin | | Those who make things happen, | B.S.Comp.E - UNM | | Those who watch things happen... | ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu | | and those who wonder what happened." | | *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/05/88)
> In article <2218@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: > > > Positions nationally. Fees paid by em- > > ployers. U.S. citizens or permanent res- > > idents. PhD or minimum three years, <== Note > > experience. Call or write ... [etc.] > > > >Of course, that's just one recruiter's opinion. Makes you wonder, though. > > Based on my recent experience in jobhunting, equating a PhD with however > many years it took you to get it is quite common. Based on observation of I can remember some years back seeing an ad in the LA Times that said, "Minimum five years experience. Will consider two years graduate work equivalent to six months paid experience." And from my own days as a headhunter, a quote from a woman who was data processing manager for a major cosmetics manufacturer, "Don't send me anyone with a M.S. They don't know how to DO anything." Clayton E. Cramer
klee@daisy.UUCP (Ken Lee) (04/06/88)
Graduate degrees can be very valuable. Sometimes they're worthless. It all depends on the position. A research lab or university may require a PhD for certain positions, perhaps under the assumption that the education you received will add to your performance. Hacker houses may not care if you have any degree. It's up to you to choose a job that matches your career goals. You may also want to consider a degree that matches. Ken -- New simplified tax form: Line 1: how much money did you make? Line 2: send it in.
al@gtx.com (0732) (04/07/88)
In article <2000@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
->
->I can remember some years back seeing an ad in the LA Times that said,
->"Minimum five years experience. Will consider two years graduate work
->equivalent to six months paid experience." And from my own days as a
->headhunter, a quote from a woman who was data processing manager for a
->major cosmetics manufacturer, "Don't send me anyone with a M.S. They
->don't know how to DO anything."
->
One of the reasons for getting an advanced degree is so you don't have to
work in the data processing division of a large cosmetics manufacturer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
( {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad) (04/08/88)
In article <2705@charon.unm.edu>, ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu (Mark P. Martin) writes: > In article <8295@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@thoth20.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes: > >I always thought that universities were supposed to teach theory more than > >practice. > > They do, greatly in error and to the disadvantage of the student. Employers Compare this statement with the ones below. > are not looking for people with extroardinary skills in practicing theory, > but for people with extensive experience in a multitude of systems, > languages, and environments. NO, strike that! They are looking for > experience on *their particular system*. Presumeably, this experience has > been acquired elsewhere, as the employer finds it economically advantageous > to hire capable people, rather than train new people. In other words, employers want people with skills in the straightforward use of tools and techniques. > I have yet to hear about a vocational school that teaches all the aspects > of the internal design, programming and operation of computers, and still > maintains a quality reputation. There is a reason for that. Such is the domain of an institution which teaches theory. If you try to design something, and don't understand the underlying theory governing that something, you aren't an engineer, you're a parrot. > Vocational schools are not recognizeable > degree granting institutions in such fields as engineering. And > engineering is more ability to apply knowledge than the straightforward use > of tools and techniques. The word "engineer" derives from "engenious man" > (no sexism flames please, I have a reference). Here you come around and agree with me. (How can we have a good argument if you insist on agreeing with me?) However, this wasn't what you said in your first paragraph. I am reminded of the statement of a character from the TV program "Paper Chase". The show centred around a law school. "You will teach yourselves the law. I will teach you how to think." A bit pretentious, but it captures the role of a university. When I had finished my undergraduate degree, I had learnt how to design microprocessor hardware, and how to think like an engineer. The latter made a lot more money for my employer than the former. Even if he didn't think so. By the way, I am taking a broad view of theory. I mean much more than those interminable classroom lectures on quicksort. For software engineering, it includes examination of large systems. And it includes looking at challenges where the theory is incomplete. Doug
pepper@dasys1.UUCP (Angelique Wahlstedt) (04/08/88)
In article <8295@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@thoth20.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes: >I always thought that universities were supposed to teach theory more than >practice. There are going to be lots of different types of systems out there >in the 'real world,' and if your educational background only prepares you >to use one of them then it doesn't do you much good. If your education >teaches you the general way that systems are built, why they're built that >way, and leads you to think about new ways they could be designed, >then your chosen place >of employment can teach you the specific way it's implemented. > >Universities should not be expected to teach people the uses of any particular >set of tools. That's what vocational schools are for. Good point! HOWEVER, sometimes I feel that half the stuff that computer science programs in many schools teach is pretty irrelevant to the Real World. For example, at Colorado State University, I'm taking CS-201 (Discrete Structures) (simply cuz CSU told me to. :-) that covers all sorts of things from binary trees to boolean algebra. Some of those, obviously, have uses in the Real World, such as binary search trees. But, to this day, I still can't figure out what applications some of the other things, such as monoids and isomorphisms (if you don't know what they are, don't ask ME :-) have in the real world. I'm also taking Symbolic Computing (LISP and Prolog) which is fun, but I doubt that most of us in the class would ever use either language in the Real World. Some of the courses that I think should be required in college are Software Engineering and Technical Writing (some colleges such as Rochester Institute of Technology already require this). Another possibility could be Database Concepts since so many jobs seem to involve databases. -- Angeli "Ms. Pepper" Wahlstedt UUCP: wahlsted@handel.colostate.edu - or - ...!hao!handel!wahlsted ...!dasys1!pepper (Big Electric Cat)
ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu (Mark P. Martin) (04/08/88)
In article <121@edson.UUCP> doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad) writes: >In article <2705@charon.unm.edu>, ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu (Mark P. Martin) writes: >> In article <8295@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@thoth20.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes: >> >I always thought that universities were supposed to teach theory more than >> >practice. ... deleted ... >> engineering is more ability to apply knowledge than the straightforward use >> of tools and techniques. The word "engineer" derives from "engenious man" >> (no sexism flames please, I have a reference). > >Here you come around and agree with me. (How can we have a good argument if >you insist on agreeing with me?) However, this wasn't what you said in your >first paragraph. My original intention was in saying that there should be practical application to accompany the teaching of theory, otherwise the theory will have only academic value. My earlier statements probably reflect my somewhat jaded view if the neanderthal nature of our national job getting system. I have been scanning the ads searching for languages, systems and other acronyms which match my background. This is to say that what employers appear to be looking for is not always the same as what they need, and not even the same as what they will get. And now I find at least one individual who holds dear the same values I do which make engineering valuable as a profession -- the desire and ability to solve problems. I thank you for bringing to light my ineffective presentation of our profession. Perhaps the lacking of this understanding in the universities and job places indicates a vacancy which either one of us could somehow correct, or at least use to advantage in seeking employment. *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | "People can be divided into three categories: | Mark P. Martin | | Those who make things happen, | B.S.Comp.E - UNM | | Those who watch things happen... | ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu | | and those who wonder what happened." | | *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (04/09/88)
I don't have a Ph.D. in windowing graphics; in fact I don't have a Ph.D.
at all. Ph.D. or not, I simply don't have the background to design a
major windowing system like X-Windows. If I wanted to do so, I'd have
to hire somebody who *did* know, like perhaps a recent MIT Ph.D. grad.
On the other hand, those same friendly X-Windows folks recently released a
faster version of "make depend". Only one teeny problem: if you don't
have sources to cpp, the expression-evaluation routine (the one that handles
'#if <expression>' statements) reads, in its entirety:
return (TRUE);
As has been said before, I'd rather have correct code than fast wrong code,
thanks anyway.
The moral: if you have a "research-y" problem, get somebody with a
research background. If you want professional code, though, hire
somebody with professional experience; Ph.D. or not as appropriate. The
average new Ph.D. graduate is a beginning programmer by professional
standards, just like the average new Bachelor's/Master's graduate.
(P.S. Please don't get your hackles up, Bob; it's just one of many
examples I could cite from many sources. And yes, you'll be getting a
bug report on it.)
--
Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {uunet,trwrb}!desint!geoffpeking@sfsup.UUCP (L.Perkins) (04/11/88)
In article <3763@dasys1.UUCP> pepper@dasys1.UUCP (Angelique Wahlstedt) writes: >Some of the courses that I think should be required in college are Software >Engineering and Technical Writing (some colleges such as Rochester Institute > >-- Yes, Yes, Yes. However, the real world has great difficulty communicating the necessity for good writing to faculty in Computer Science departments. While employed at a company whose managerial problems (including LACK of documentation of its products) was sending it down the drain, I was simultaneously taking courses from two different instructors, both with backgrounds in government and military systems, who said, in effect, that documentation was unimportant and merely something that junior people would have to put up with. Implication: as briefly as possible. Yet both individuals were members of professional associations that identified bad documentation as a key factor in the failure of HW and SW products "making it" in the marketplace. -- ________________________________________________________________ attunix!peking "The few, the proud, the red-haired" ---------------------------------------------------------------
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/12/88)
In article <613@gtx.com> al@gtx.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: }In article <2000@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: }-> }->I can remember some years back seeing an ad in the LA Times that said, }->"Minimum five years experience. Will consider two years graduate work }->equivalent to six months paid experience." And from my own days as a }->headhunter, a quote from a woman who was data processing manager for a }->major cosmetics manufacturer, "Don't send me anyone with a M.S. They }->don't know how to DO anything." } }One of the reasons for getting an advanced degree is so you don't have to }work in the data processing division of a large cosmetics manufacturer. Yeah, but people -- even PhD's -- want the money, and business is where most of it is, because that's where most of it comes from. I think this series of postings is fundamentally about whether advanced degrees are worth their high cost. The answer being given seems obvious.
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/13/88)
In article <3042@sfsup.UUCP> peking@/doc/dmg/pekingUUCP (xt1124-AUG881-L.Perkins) writes: >In article <3763@dasys1.UUCP> pepper@dasys1.UUCP (Angelique Wahlstedt) writes: >>Some of the courses that I think should be required in college are Software >>Engineering and Technical Writing (some colleges such as Rochester Institute >> >Yes, Yes, Yes. >However, the real world has great difficulty communicating the >necessity for good writing to faculty in Computer Science departments. One of the reasons it has this difficulty is that the said Real World won't pay for documentation or the associated skills. Suppose you can both write well and program well: if you go where the money is, you'll never have anything to do with documentation. (In saying "Real World" I assume you speak about "business"; I don't know what the story is in academia, government, or other areas, but I'll bet it's the same.)