Ph.Ds From MIT, Berkeley, and a Few Others Dominate Top School's CS Faculties 155
An anonymous reader writes "A Brown University project collected the background information of over 2,000 computer science professors in 51 top universities. The data shows a skew in their doctoral degrees, "Over 20% of professors received their Ph.D. from MIT or Berkeley, while more than half of professors received their Ph.D. from the [top] 10 universities." For those professors, fewer work in theoretical computer science and there is a growing trend of recent hires in systems and applications. The original data is also publicly-editable and available to download."
So the conclusion is... (Score:5, Funny)
Got it!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
how do you have 51 top universities? and if they're so top - how come 20 of the profs come from 2 of them?
Re: (Score:3)
If you understood statistics, you'd be able to answer your own question.
Re:So the conclusion is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm ... really?
When I was in school, in the summer most of the profs were still around. Either because they had summer classes, or because that's where they went to keep doing their normal research.
Other than being on sabbatical, I always got the impression that most of the profs were pretty much there year round, albeit with a slightly lower course load in the summer.
I spent 4 summers doing research with one of my profs, and all of
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in school, in the summer most of the profs were still around. Either because they had summer classes, or because that's where they went to keep doing their normal research.
They could be there but it is not required. If you are already a professor, you are required to teach 2 semesters (Spring and Fall). Summer semester is not really their standard. The professor would get paid extra if teach all 3 semesters (but they don't really want to do that because they usually want to work on their research/publication).
Re: (Score:2)
also, professors can use their flexible time to do private consulting. most schools have fairly permissive policies about this, with a limit of X hours per week. sure, if you're seeking tenure it might not be the smartest way to use your time, but a consultant who is active technical faculty at an Ivy League school can command quite a premium.
Re: (Score:2)
...if you want a low paying job in your field after you graduate, get your doctorate from one of the best schools in the country.
Wow. As someone else posted, these are certainly not low-paying jobs. And that's just the salary. I take you have absolutely no clue how much some of these guys can demand for consulting gigs???
Re: (Score:3)
Being a professor is not a low paying job.
Being an adjunct professor is usually unpaid - but it's because you're a professor (or otherwise employed) elsewhere, and sessional instructors are paid a pittance because they're supposed to have other jobs, including grad students.
But I just started as an L5 (which is the same pay band as a starting assistant professor) where I am - I'll slide over to assistant professor when I am actually granted the PhD, and that's a starting salary of 82k, 6 weeks vacation and
No faith in thier own. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.
If I had just gotten a PhD, and it ended up being so worthless that even my own school wouldn't accept it, I would demand a refund.
Re:No faith in thier own. (Score:5, Informative)
It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.
Many universities have policies that forbid or discourage directly hiring their own graduates for faculty positions. The reasoning is that it inhibits fresh thinking and the cross fertilization of ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring everyone from the same 10 schools (and mostly the same 2 schools) doesn't exactly make for fresh thinking either.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring everyone from the same 10 schools (and mostly the same 2 schools) doesn't exactly make for fresh thinking either.
It would still instill 10 times as much fresh thinking as hiring from within though. If you agree with the argument that hiring from other schools introduces fresh thinking that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Although there is some truth to that, there typically is lots of diversity in PhD graduates from any one department due to the diversity of research groups/advising. A bulk (by time at least) of the undergrad education is coursework and most BS graduates in a CS department have all taken 70-90% the same courses. So there perhaps is some level of uniformity there. In contrast, the bulk of a PhD education is research-oriented and greatly impacted by the advisor you have / research lab you're in. There can be
Re: (Score:1)
It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.
If I had just gotten a PhD, and it ended up being so worthless that even my own school wouldn't accept it, I would demand a refund.
Could it be that after going through all the BS to get a post graduate degree, the graduate ends up with little faith in their school?
I'm a lowly holder of a B.S. degree, somehow that has worked out well for me. I have friends that went on to get PhDs rom very good schools, some on this list, and except for one exception, all of them distanced themselves from academia as soon as they could. Something about finding out how the sausage was made.
Re: (Score:2)
Most departments in most fields are reluctant to hire their own graduates. Hiring your own graduates will simply lead to rehashing of the same old ideas and intellectual stagnation. The same type of discrimination against own graduates is observed in graduate school admissions. I often see the pattern that at many competitive schools they don't really like admitting their own graduates into PhD programs. It happens, but not that frequently.
Shagging someone else's sister (Score:2)
Your school is unwilling to employ you, but that guy's school is unwilling to hire him. It sort of evens out.
News Flash! (Score:3)
Top professors dominate top positions at top school!
Who would have ever guessed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same was true at places like IBM Research (Score:5, Interesting)
Overheard at lunch there around 2000 (paraphrase): "We hire the most competitive candidates from the most competitive top three schools and then we wonder why they have trouble cooperating and getting along..."
I hope the policy has changed since... It also seemed like they were passing over a lot of interesting people and thus limiting their cognitive diversity.
See also Scott E. Page book "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies"
http://www.amazon.com/Differen... [amazon.com]
Google probably suffers to a lesser extent from a similar problem as I suggest here:
http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org]
stats with no background = useless (Score:1)
Many schools did not even have a CS degree program until recently, so there might be a bias there. What you would really want to see is "what fraction of CS PhDs from this school wind up being professors". Maybe Cal and MIT created more than 50% of the total CS PhDs (they've been cranking em out a long time) and they're actually under-represented.
As for "even my own school wouldn't accept it": This is a perenial problem: schools generate far more PhD people than there is a need for them in academia. Nobo
PhD or not Phd? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is fairly standard for all departments (Score:2)
This phenomena is also why large-scale paradigm shifts in a field only tend radiate outward from top universities. As a professor, you disseminate wholly new ideas via your graduate students, who then take positions at other universities and influence others.
It's pretty much impossible to fundamentally change minds once they're established in the field - after all, who wants to embrace something that makes much of their past work irrelevant?) So paradigm shifts tend to occur by seeding your graduate stude
Something tells me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ivy league academia is a circle-jerk
Except that only three of the "top ten" schools in the list are in the Ivy League, and none of those are in the top five.
Here is the list from TFA:
MIT
UC Berkeley
Stanford
Carnegie Mellon
Univ of Illinois
Princeton
Cornell
Univ of Washington
Georgia Tech
Harvard
Re:dream on (Score:5, Funny)
At least you haven't let it make you bitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
middle of Wisconsin?
That might be half your problem. Still, I see where you're coming from. On the other side of that, many technical schools are just degree mills. Lots of candidates come out of technical schools that look good on paper and then when you hire them, it's like they never attended a day of class or learned anything. I think companies have gotten burned there, which really sucks for the students that come out that are good, and it sucks for the technical schools that are good because now 'technical school' ha
Re:dream on (Score:5, Funny)
I'm one of the best programmers anyone could hope to hire.
You sound so much better than those egotistical rich kids.
What a load of shit.
You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.
If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.
Re:dream on (Score:4, Insightful)
If a candidate is not smart enough not to understand simple concepts about the nature of interaction of social species, he are too dull to warrant employment. If he understands the concepts but ignores them, he is immediately declaring that he rejects the importance of established standards, and would make a substandard engineer. Either way, a person who does not communicate well with a goodly proportion of people is always the worse choice when pitted against someone who communicates well with many people. And engineers are a dime a dozen, while good communicators are rare.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Obeying illogical social conventions is not important to being an engineer at all.
If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short. It is common for dullards to reject as stupid or illogical observations that they do not understand. Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge. Psychology is a less mature science than engineering+mathematics, and sociology is very much in its infancy. But there's nothing supernatural about any of it. A
Re: (Score:1)
If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short.
Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.
Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge.
No, it's not. No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction.
Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, altho
Re: (Score:1)
Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.
You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords, and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them. When you engage in debate, try not to cram your opponent's answers into a mental box you've built from your own prejudices - it's a common enough fallacy, but it'll invariably result in your dismissing everything you hear as "illogical".
Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.
Modern school mathematics education is poor - it's not just that the curricu
Re: (Score:2)
You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords
Fortunately, I did not mention you. At least, not in the sentences you quoted. Looks like the straw man is yours.
and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them.
But because others are offended by them.
Modern school mathematics education is poor
Indeed, but that still doesn't mean they have the aptitude to understand such concepts.
They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.
Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.
I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit.
I'm too old to go for this, "Go with the status quo because... it's the status quo, man!" bullshit.
but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong.
Then, rather than focusing on me or vague things like "communication," please make an actual attempt to justify why i
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
That is exactly what the AC said -- so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.. Others see what this mean but it seems that you are the only one who doesn't...
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
You can think that way about "controlling" others if you are looking from the opposite point of view. Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself. When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought. If one
Re: (Score:2)
Then I confirmed what he said. What's your point?
My straight point is that you will never understand because you always come back with pointless question as always.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
Every single interaction of humans can be seen as control in every way (and if you let it be). So you are trying to control me to NOT fire them? Of course. So please don't try to impose that there is only one side of control here.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
You confirm me that you are a short-sighted person. You cannot see anything far ahead and can't plan on anything because you are so afraid of anyone controlling you. I
Re: (Score:2)
What? You said something. I responded, and then asked your point. So... what was your point?
Straw man ;)
Yeah, almost.
As for firing them, that's just petty. However, I only try to convince others through argumentation; nothing more. That is not control, and it seems you have trouble understanding what it means to control others.
No, all of any human interaction can be seen as control, not most. Using your "convince" word, I can still say I am trying to "convince" others, not control. It is just your perspective seeing that it is "control" if anything comes from others and it is "convince" if it is come from you. Period.
You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
Why should I debunk when those who have a brain will see it clearly, so there is no debunk. Besides, if I say something, you will come back with pointless questions again. No need to go further than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things. The rest of us are trying to do our jobs and you are IN THE WAY.
Re: (Score:2)
Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things.
I don't have an "inability"; just a lack of desire.
Also, your overwhelming focus on promoting the inability to survive in the real world if other people are allowed to use words you don't like is a good signal of your inability to use basic logic. You seem quite controlling. Either that, or you're defending an irrational authoritarian status quo.
And while we're stating arbitrary nonsense without proof, the fact that you said "on on" proves that you're unable to do anything complex.
So yeah, do you have any p
Re: (Score:2)
Or it means you don't understand the words and the full meanings behind them.
'Shit' is a simple vulgarity. By using that word, you are implying that the the listener/reader is worthy of no better (or that you are yourself worthy of no better). Was that your intent? If not, consider what precision means to an engineer.
Re: (Score:1)
The word "shit" can be used for many things. It is you who doesn't understand human language. Not every use is an insult.
Furthermore, it's utterly subjective. No word is inherently 'bad,' and any claims to the contrary are religious nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say 'bad'? I believe I said vulgar.
Continue in ignorance if you will, perhaps the parenthetical part of what I said does apply after all.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to explicitly say "bad." The implication is that in many situations these words are considered "vulgar," or "inappropriate." Yes, I know. That's the sort of irrational nonsense I'm criticizing, so I'm well aware it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Vulgar = common with (for the last few centuries) the implication of poor quality when used in English.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That's the sort of thing I'm criticizing. The idea that certain words are inherently 'bad'. I'm aware that lots of people believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never get there. Connotation is not only nearly ubiquitous, it is the part of our language that allows it to be used to communicate with precision. It has existed since the beginning of language.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, okay. But I know plenty of people who don't give a fuck if someone uses swear words, and I know plenty more exist, so it's far from just me.
The world is moving forward in some ways. Atheists are less afraid to 'come out.' It's becoming less popular to have an irrational hatred of homosexuals. It might one day become less popular to believe that certain words are inherently bad. Or maybe the 'bad' words will just change.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that your reply had nothing to do with mine, and didn't debunk a thing, right? That's because you didn't actually respond to my real argument. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but I'm getting tired of fake 'nerds' roaming about on Slashdot. Damn, and there are almost no True Scotsman left.
To do otherwise is irrational.
Using a particular word is no more or less irrational than using other words.
Re: (Score:2)
The words are NOT inherently bad. If what they imply is what you want to say, they're just perfect. If I think someone is unworthy, I will use vulgarities. If something truly does deserve to be cut off from all that is good and burned for all eternity, I will damn it.
Don't use them in an interview for the same reason you don't call the interviewer 'butthead' or 'garbage breath'.
You may be confusing the value judgement based on children being forbidden to use them. That is not because the word is bad, but be
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the strength is going out of the words due to extreme overuse, much as a tinker's damn isn't worth very much. BUT when you're not addressing your friends, you should be aware that there are others who will take them at their traditional meaning and strength. As I said, I wouldn't swear in an interview, for example.
Alas, yes, many parents don't properly understand swearing, cursing and vulgarity either. That's why I qualified with originally.
A child may understand that a word can be used in anger, bu
Re: (Score:2)
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore. Their strength is exactly in a normal hesitation to use them. If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to. A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
Note that darn is often used as the G rated version of damn, but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb. It means the same thing roughly, so why doesn't it distract
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't help but think of Episode #12 - Using Proper English - The Many Uses of the F word [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes LITERALLY. Look up the origin of the phrase and you'll see what I mean.
Re:dream on (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also the world you live in. Whether you like it or not, people make impressions based on their interactions with you. These impressions override most everything you claim about yourself. Just ask yourself how many times a well dressed and respected person gets off with less penalties than the guy who shows up to court for the same charges acting like a street thug while trying to convince the judge he is an upstanding pillar of the community. There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution. It's a basic reason behind TPS reports and various other forms one has to muscle through while actually getting work done. It standardizes the communication process somewhat to make up for poor communication. Those who communicate better and are around better communicators, are likely to excel more so than those who do not communicate well. With the exception for foreigners for whom English is not a first language (for some reason, they are excused), not to many fortune 500 companies employ people with poor communication skills unless it is for some quota or to fill low level jobs that aren't really relevant to the operation. Those jobs are the lower paying jobs in the establishment too. It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.
When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I d
Re: (Score:3)
This is a free world, you can think anything you want about the courts or even people hiring others to work for them. It just doesn't change reality much.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.
This right there is why you didn't get a job with a software firm and ended up in IT instead. It might be a symptom of you not getting into one of these top CS schools in that when you are at such an university, you are surrounded by people who are as smart or smarter than you (perhaps for the first time in your life) and you realize really quickly that first impressions and looks are very likely to fool you when dealing with such people. You learn to look a bit deeper and you learn that a term like "smar
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I would make a poor engineer, I'm not even qualified to do the job. All that other rubbish you speak about is meaningless on me and knowing the imbeciles I come into contact with regularly, I would say it is meaningless in practice throughout most businesses.
No, my lack of qualifications is why I am barred from working in software firms on software projects. And I will almost bet that any company you are working for would reject you for showing up in less than appropriate clothing speaking less th
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen".
I actually was aware of that, and corrected it myself. I do not think it is fair to compare just "engineers" to "good communicators." People who are good at whatever it is they do are usually more rare than people who just do whatever it is in general.
And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.
You know, even if I had gotten that wrong, these sentences would still be idiotic. Being an engineer isn't about perfectly interpreting every possible sentence and never making a single mistake in language; it's about intelligence and logic. Do note that you d
Re:dream on (Score:5, Insightful)
If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment. Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
And I'm not buying the "CIO" thing at all, unless it's a one or two person operation functioning out of a garage someplace. There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this. He sounds more like a guy who is jealous of those who were able to attend schools like MIT. I'm sure he feels his personal experience added to his Associates degree is more than equil to 4 or 6 years at MIT, but I'm not buying it.
Re: (Score:1)
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.
If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.
Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.
Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.
If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.
Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.
Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.
Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.
There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.
Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.
So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.
People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations. Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult). Labeling someone as "uptight" or "razor thin" just because they value the accepted professional behavior norms in the work environment shows an extreme lack of social intelligence and inability to see
Re: (Score:1)
People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations.
Indeed. I think you'd find my workplace is far different. We don't hire irrational people who think some words are inherently 'bad', or whatever.
Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult).
"professional" is subjective.
What's unacceptable and uncomfortable to me is when others try to control other people's language, and deny them the opportunity to speak casually. What a stressful, hostile work environment.
If you're so understanding of 'diversity', then realize it works both ways.
You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.
No, I live in reality, and I realize that zero tolerance policies are al
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you have it backwards. If an employer, or employer, is too petty or stupid to use language politely, they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards and all their work will require constant review and repair before publication.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be defining "polite" to mean whatever it is that you like. The word is, in reality, completely subjective.
I can't fathom why anyone would think it's objectively "polite" to not hire someone merely because of your irrational hatred towards certain words. This is like religious fundamentalism; utterly irrational. Such bigotry, this desire to control others' language at such a basic level.
they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.
Besides being a non sequitur, do you really not see the proble
Re: (Score:2)
>> they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
>> they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
> What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "polite". The problem is not the employers providing, and expecting, minimum standards of courtesy somehow interfering with the self-expression of the crude. Ignoring those standards of basic courtesy has gone with racism,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All IT workers swear. If they don't, they're probably a sociopath and serial killer.
But just because they do swear does not mean they aren't a sociopath and serial killer. In fact, I'm pretty sure that where I work all three are required to move into management.
The value of being articulate and eloquent (Score:2)
All things considered, using crude language (and especially swearwords) is typically a sign of weakness in people. As in: being unable to get their point across without being vulgar and being frustrated at their own inability to do so. Or simply being too lazy to care.
Suppose you're in charge of hiring engineers and you can get someone who (being equally competent on the engineering side) has the a
Re: (Score:2)
Not using 'swear words' is simply a way of being eloquent, articulate, and effective at influencing people.
All things considered, using crude language (and especially swearwords) is typically a sign of weakness in people. As in: being unable to get their point across without being vulgar and being frustrated at their own inability to do so. Or simply being too lazy to care.
I see a lot of people stating their opinions and arbitrarily deciding that people who use 'swear words' are bad at communicating, have weaknesses, or are lazy, but I've yet to see anything objective.
It's comical. Your own prejudices are keeping you from realizing that what you're saying is utterly subjective. You've created all these arbitrary standards that people must meet in order to be 'good' communicators, yet you don't seem to acknowledge that they're just standards you and people like you created you
Re: (Score:2)
And I think that you've yet to start looking. And I don't mean on Slashdot.
It will surprise you to know that there is a branch of science dealing with questions like: "what makes people better or worse at being listened to and influencing others?". It's called Psychology, and it's about objective study of th
Re: (Score:2)
It's called Psychology, and it's about objective study of the human mind. Including personal effectiveness.
Most of what comes out of psychology is just bad science. Subjective criteria, blatant researcher bias, lack of rigor, etc. It doesn't even come close to a field like physics.
But many people like it because there's always something there for them. Want a study that says video games cause violence? No problem; one exists for you. Want one that says they don't? There's one for you, too!
If in addition the plain fact that you won't hear any successful managers, professors, lawyers, salespeople, or politicians swear in their official capacity isn't "objective" enough for you, what is?
None of this means that 'swear words' are inherently bad; just that many people don't like them. This is the "disease" I was
Re: (Score:3)
I find "what a load of shit" to be a very apt and useful expression in many circumstances. Rudeness and eloquence are not incompatible.
I also think the CIO's point is valid, and fear that whatever percentage of CS professors received their training from MIT may still lack a college education, as I do. (Certainly MIT does not offer a college education, instead diverting people into excellent technical training.)
I've often wondered what the results would be of a poll that compared long term outcomes for stu
Re: (Score:2)
I also think the CIO's point is valid, and fear that whatever percentage of CS professors received their training from MIT may still lack a college education, as I do. (Certainly MIT does not offer a college education, instead diverting people into excellent technical training.)
You have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about, none.
Re: (Score:1)
a national Tek Systems/Aerotek exam
I have no idea what this is, but I once studied for an MSCE but decided the exams weren't worth the entrance fee. In trial exams I got 100%, which must make me some sort of computer janitor god.
who went to a better college because
You know how I got into a £30k/year private boarding school? By winning a scholarship, so my parents had to pay £0/year.
You know how I got through a top tier UK university? By winning a place on merit, then making use of govt assistance.
You know how I funded my MSc? By winning another scholarship.
You know
Re: (Score:2)
It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
You know what you are? Bitter.
I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.
But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
You know what you are? Bitter.
I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.
But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.
Clearly written by someone who never was at one of these top CS schools. I assure you that rote memorization won't get you a degree at any of them. Most of my tests at CMU were open book and open note and I can count on 1 hand how many times I used my textbook or notes during a test. Why? Because the tests weren't rote memorization tests but instead tested for your ability to synthesize what you learned and apply it to a domain you might not have ever considered. One question on my OS final was to writ
Re: (Score:2)
The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique
That's the same thing. You learn to spot certain patterns.
What I speak of is actually understanding the reason *why* the math even works. To have an intuitive understanding of it such that you know why it can't be any other way.
That's not to say that you don't have that understanding. And I haven't seen the specific exams in question, but I have seen exams described exactly as you described yours, and they involved rote memorization.
Every profession is one part memorisation
No one said that memorization is never necessary. Without the ability to re
Re: (Score:1)
Jealous much?
I had *no* fiscal support from my family for MIT: I was an emancipated minor at 16. Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet. MIT is *filled* with people whose parents didn't or couldn't fund their full costs: they have a "needs blind" admission program that is very helpful to kids, and families, who struggle with the costs.
So you can take your jealousy and put it somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet.
Not to mention the few who were so determined to do it no matter what, that they lived in the student center. God, I had money difficulties, but at least not that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Jealous much?
I had *no* fiscal support from my family for MIT: I was an emancipated minor at 16. Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet. MIT is *filled* with people whose parents didn't or couldn't fund their full costs: they have a "needs blind" admission program that is very helpful to kids, and families, who struggle with the costs.
So you can take your jealousy and put it somewhere else.
CMU is much the same way. No legacy admissions and grants and scholarships are entirely need based and not an honor (like say the Rhodes Scholarship is). Keep in mind that this for the CS departments, other schools in the universities are a bit different.
Re: (Score:2)
good job CS is not IT and at some schools not even being able to do most of the real world programming work.
Re: (Score:2)
People hire people who are like themselves.
Those who went to second class universities will be hired by those who went to second class universities.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be rich to study at Princeton. They have generous financial aid packages, and most students leave debt-free. If you're smart enough, and work hard enough to get in, they will make sure that you can afford it.
http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/aid/pdf/1213/PU-Making-It-Possible.pdf
You'll meet plenty of smart poor kids at Princeton, who have public education. You'll also meet plenty of smart rich kids, who had the luxury of the best private educ
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you are really an arrogant fool. First, MIT has never been a "legacy" school. The vast majority of students there get significant financial aid because their middle- and working-class families cannot afford the full price. (The Ivies have also been moving away from admitting the sons of sons of sons, and focusing more exclusively on merit.) Second, you obviously have no idea how much work it takes, how competitive and hard-working students have to be, just to get into these top tier schools, much less
Re:dream on -- silicon valley perspective (Score:2)
In Silicon Valley, what you've accomplished matters more than where you went to school. Open source recognition will get you far if you want to be a programmer. At my company, we hired a guy from Tunisia who's an expert in computer vision.. They did not even give him a programming test, as it was clear from his open-source project what kind of code he was capable of writing.
One thing that managers often really dislike are people that are overly arrogant. I've seen good people turned away because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the CIO of my company and we don't hire rich kids.
How do you know they are rich? Sounds like you have a discrimination lawsuit coming your way.
Re: (Score:2)
PRISM, you mean?
Surprising Title (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with a PhD from a top school would not want to work for someone with only a bachelors and with a colossal ego. He would not have accepted your offer, he would rather be working elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
...PhD really does imply PiledHigherAndDumber...
Uhm, no. The old joke is that PhD stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper", as in the depth of pile of bullshit. What a pathetic AC, criticizing PhD's but unable to even get the classic joke about them correct ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to wake up to reality. There is a vast difference between an education at a top school and the other colleges.
That depends on the market. A recent Economist article [economist.com] (probably paywalled) compared the ROI for degrees from a number of universities. The ROI from the University of Washington (Seattle) is higher than that for MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech and a bunch of other 'big name' tech schools.
It depends on what the market wants. And the market in business is willing to pay well for talent, regardless of the name of the school. Faculties, on the other hand, probably place a higher premium on the name and type o
Re: (Score:2)