Re: Testing job applicants

["Ruff Records" <ruffrecords@geocities.com>]

Donald Gillies wrote in message <7qoqh0$l59$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>...
>hnlute@optcamel.com (Howard N. Lute) writes:
>
>>In article <37ced3ff@195.34.192.13>, ruffrecords@geocities.com
>>says...
>>>
>>> Jerry Freedman Jr wrote in message <7qjlnv$r1l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>> >In article <FG7B1C.FL0@world.std.com>,
>>> >  jkenton@world.std.com (Jeff Kenton) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Note:  this was the thread about "Not enough real programmers", but I
>>> >> have hijacked it.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >I have met a *LOT* of people with Computer Science/Engineering degrees
>>> >who have told me "Yeah, I am getting this degree, but I really don't
>>> >want/like to program".
>>> >
>>>
>>> This may be controversial but as a rule we find people with computer
science
>>> degrees don't make good software engineers.  This is at least in part
>>> because nearly all our developments are cost sensitive embedded
>>> applications.  We find computer scientists have insufficient
appreciation of
>>> the hardware aspects.
>>>
>
>I think this is a bit of an over-generalization.  I have worked with
>many excellent programmers who have computer science degrees.
>However, two things are the norm :
>
>  (a) All were self-taught before their degree.  All were excellent
>      *before* the degree.
>  (b) All have *engineering* degrees (most in computer science in
>      engineering departments) The ones with science degrees are
>      at a significan disadvantage.  The ones with engineering degrees
>      have to take several hardware courses (circuits, logic, computer
>      design) and design hardware.  The science majors are clueless in
>      these subjects.
>

Degree courses in the US seem to alsways have been much more broadly based
than here in the UK.  The major/minor subject areas are relatively rare
here. CS is CS in the sense that each university builds the course from
topics it considers relevant.  There is generally no allegiance of emphasis
towards an engineering or pure science department (I am sure UK academia
will correct me here if I am wrong)


>======
>
>If you look at the best engineers in "anything", imho they are all
>self-taught.  The kids soldering together radios at age 12, the
>mechE's modifying their bicycle components at age 15, the aerospace
>engineers playing with model airplanes at age 10, etc.  It is said
>that the most outstanding people in a field typically develop their
>life-long interest and enthusiam for a subject at the age of 10.  And
>if they are going to be world-class, it usually, it takes about 10
>years for them to develop those world-class skills.

I like this self taught concept but I am not sure I would call it that.  I
agree the best engineers/scientists/mathematicians/musicians etc are those
that found and thoroughly immersed themselves in their talent from an early
age.  To that extent they are self taught ( because there are no quantum
physics courses aimed at 10 year olds) but the best then go on to uni so
they agin a sound theoretical background.  Interestingly, in another thread
on recruitment I suggested it is usefull for people to list hobbies/out of
work activities on their CVs and for recruiters to take note of them.  Not
many people agreed with me but in my gut I knew there was a good reason and
I think it is that is it often good evidience of an initially 'self taught'
person.


>
>Now if you like the non-computer science hires better than the CS
>ones, perhaps it's because they are all self-taught.  But I have seen
>a lot of simple problems that were badly botched by self-taught
>people.
>
>For example, who here wants to hire a compiler person who is self
>taught ??  Without a good formal background and a thorough
>understanding of language theory, an attempt to write a translator
>will be 100% guaranteed failue.  I've seen it several times in the
>past.  While it's possible to find someone who learned all this stuff
>on his own, the risk is not worth the reward...


I agree totally.

>
>A college degree is never a guarantee of competance.  When I graduated
>with good grades and a CS degree from MIT, my education was lacking in
>many important areas (numerical analysis, algorithmic theory and
>system science).  The person himself is the only guarantee of
>competance.  I returned to grad school to complete my education in
>these areas.
>


Exactly.  Raw grades are trained rather than usefull!!

Ian