College is not where you find a career. College is where you have fun and drink beer
 

Following up on the train of thought in Interesting Charts and Graphs, comes this new headline from CNN Money:

Community college grads out-earn bachelor's degree holders

With a four-year degree in Computer Science from a competitive private northeastern college and a third of the coursework towards an MBA, and 25 years experience, I am unemployable in my field unless I move across the country. Well shit happens, and a degree doesn't prepare you for that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-jobs/1868817/

We don't need degreed people any more. We are now short on uneducated people:

Doesn't this mean over 70% of Americans with bachelor's degrees make more than those with associate's degrees?

Yes it does, but the author, editor, and everyone making decisions about the story were college-educated...

I think they are referring to jobs created today. If you want a good paying job today, get a two-year degree.

There was an article a couple weeks ago in the Washington Post (actually, it was probably an opinion piece) that said that yes, college is losing its luster, but it's still the best way to get a high paying job. The piece acknowledged that a lot of college graduates are having a hard time, but that more non-college graduates are having an even harder time. Graduating with a college degree today sucks, but not having one sucks even more.

This is a topic that is very important to me and I want to be as knowledgeable as possible about it. I need to figure out how much I should try to influence my kids' decisions about what they study and if they go to college.

I think it's less about if you go, and more about what you study. The majority of those in community college are not majoring in English, or Theatre, or History, or the worst, Undeclared. They are generally a few years older on average, paying for it themselves, and are studying nursing, or teaching, or some other useful thing, because they've tried the real world and want something better.

If you go to a four year university and study engineering, you'll probably be okay. Study something without a lot of career structure underneath, like economics, for example, and you're going to be unemployable compared to the guy who became a lab tech at the local community college.

You have to go to college for a reason, not just because college is the thing you're supposed to do.

So many people think that college/university degrees are job training.
From a "job" perspective, I think it's better to see them as "union cards".
They are the credentials that get your foot in the door; after that it's up to the individual.
Without that degree, those doors are forever locked.

UT's link above reports that those with a Bachelor degree eventually catch up and pass (> $50k/yr)
those limited to just a community college or high school graduation.
More importantly, I believe college degrees are about life experiences for the future.

Any job will get boring and generate dissatisfaction.
A salary increase has a satisfying effect for only about 6 months.
So if $ is all there is to go on the "job" becomes "work", not a "career".

John Adams' recent thread is a good example...

College degrees are absolutely union cards. They probably shouldn't be, but they are.

That is the commonly-held belief which ten years from now will be considered a mistake. You heard it here first. If you want to make money you will need a *real* card in HVAC or plumbing.

That was true twenty years ago but now you have to pick the right engineering degree. If you pick nuclear engineering and the nation decides to not build more nuclear plants, you are shit out of luck and will be driving a taxi or working retail. If you pick networking and the nation decides to allow 250,000 more H1B visas on top of an already-depressed tech labor marketplace, you are shit out of luck and may have to work at a pawn shop.

If we don't make things in this country we don't need engineers to design them. A card or degree won't help you if there are no jobs.

That's true, in my head I was thinking mechanical or electrical engineering. Even civil engineering is having major problems right now, because no one has the money to build.

Do you really think the Bush-economy and under-employment will last for the next 10 years ?
I don't.

Just from $ alone, your CNN link above says:
In my view, AA-degree'd jobs will face much harder times.

IT and "social media"Technology are well on their way to replacing
the "self-educated computer geek" and the "MS-certified" technician.
Apple, Google, MS, etc are already investing in "patent wars", not new soft- or hard-ware.
FaceBook is (desperately) looking outside it's own origins for success,
and automotive engineers have already incorporated more than enough micro-chips, trying to sell cars.

Registered Nurses with only a 2-yr degree are well on their way to extinction
because Medicare/caid etc. are requiring RN's with 4-yr degrees.
If they don't they will lose their jobs or be demoted because
only the hospitals employing those with higher requirements will be reimbursed.

So don't invest in button hooks.

Yes, I think the real trend is the rise of the overseas middle class which is competing with the US middle class.

I also believe that the idea that a President controls the economy is superstition. The economy is larger than the government, and Presidents are just lucky or unlucky for events to transpire while they are sitting at their desk.

Yeah medicine has long been considered one thing that can't be outsourced. Except it can: and then careers are ruined. You picked the one aspect, nursing, that can never be outsourced. I guess we'll all be nurses in the long run.

Online (at least partially) education is the apparent way forward. Lower costs, equivalent learning: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...t-disease.html

I've read reports in the last year arguing that there is an "education bubble" in the US economy. There does indeed come a point where an economy has enough accountants and engineers, and just needs someone to drive the cabs and mop the floors.

An OECD economy needs about 6% of their graduates in engineering. The US graduates about 3%. Meanwhile we have too many accountant and business school graduates. People educated in things that are unproductive. Leaving large numbers with high degrees, large debts, and lower salaries.

We also have an unusually large glut of recently graduated lawyers (according to current hiring rates). Also in great and increasing numbers are communication majors. As if advertising or spin creates productivity and innovation.

An iconic example of someone educated in something less useful was once the English major. That resulting joke still survives today even though the problem has more educated in other disciplines.

We also know from history and from Economics 101 that more jobs are created when existing jobs are done with less people every year. A reality that contradicts a popular soundbyte.

We have an increase in people with less education among the early 20 somethings. Whereas education level of girls has increased, a massive downturn in educated boys is growing.

We also know those who most succeed and graduate are uneducated immigrants. That has always been a secret power in the American economy. Large number of uneducated immigrants coming here to be educated and succeeding is why City College of NY historically has a large (if not largest) number of Nobel Prize winners.

In 1950, we knew the future of those kids was the transistor (even though some said it was plastics). Today, we know the future lies in quantum physics. How many today are educated in those principles? To a larger extent, immigrants. Unfortunately, we also have hate of foreigners. Large numbers, educated in such sciences, must now leave due to near zero H1B visas and other 'intentional' obstructions.

We have so few educated in useful disciplines that the Silicon Valley talks about ICs. Not integrated circuits. Indian and Chinese employees.

Source of everything productive in the American economy is innovation. It cannot be measured on spread sheets. Or predicted by economists. Cannot be increased by government. But it can be subverted by politics and financial money games.

Bill Moyers interviewed an economics dude a few weeks ago. Unfortunately I didn't catch the first part and don't know who he was. But what struck me as amazing is him telling how virtually every school has a separate staff and separate buildings (usually at opposite ends of the campus), for economics and business curriculums. The bottom line was, never the tween shall meet, which strikes me as ludicrous.

An Economist is the scientist of that discipline. A business school teaches science application. In all disciplines, the two are maintained separate.

Reason for Bell Labs (Murray Hill) success was that the Labs only did fundamental research. Application of the science was always done elsewhere (ie Allentown). Keeping the two sciences separate is essential.

Bell Labs was the source of communication theory (that makes the internet and cell phones possible), the transistor, computer voice and recognition, Unix (later called Linux, Windows, OSx, etc), Telstar (communication satellite), microwave communication, laser, C programming language, origins of the universe (ie big bang theory), and a long list of other inventions now considered standard products. Only possible because in the 1940s through 1990s, research was always kept separate from application.

Then AT&T and Lucent virtually destroyed the Labs by making scientists more productive - to do research that only had a purpose. Important is to keep scientific research separated from engineering applications.

My two cents would not to try to push your kids into a specific field (to certain extent) but to try to be top tier in whatever field they pick. I can't really back this up besides my limited personal perspective but that seems to be a better indicator of employment than fields of study. I would highly recommend this if your kids go into engineering. "Work hard, play hard" is the cool thing to do by senior year and looking back at my experience, I wish I had that mentality as a freshman.

Also, if your kids are good with their hands, going into the trades may not be a bad idea. Out of all my friends (many of them electrical/biomed/civil engineers), the guy making the most money right now just has a two year degree from a private technical college and fixes machines in the nuclear field. Keep in mind that he graduated 2nd or 3rd in his class and job placement after graduation is near 100% at that school.

I don't regret getting my Bachelors and my Masters, but I'm not sure they were necessary. I dunno...I really got a LOT out of the Masters beyond theory and I took some really cool classes as an undergrad. But I've been looking for a job commensurate to my schooling and experience off and on for 5 years now...and have not been very successful. I love the work I do right now, but I didn't need to really go to college to do it.

I think my son will wind up doing a trade. Granted, he's only 10 right now and a lot can happen between now and then...but he's so bored with regular schoolwork. My brother was the same way.

Maybe if the people running the business knew more about economics that wouldn't have happened. :eyebrow:
Lucent died of adding umpteen layers of middle management which bled them dry.

This article came through on NASFAA News this morning. It speaks about student loan debt and 'is it really worth it?'

For me, my bachelor's degree got me in the entry-level door in Higher Ed. But now I see, with the Sidler not even having an associate's degree...it doesn't really matter much these days.

I've thought (very briefly) about getting my Master's degree but for what? I have no aspirations to be a 'director' of anything. I can't see anything a Master's would afford me that my bachelor's doesn't...and that ain't much. If this career goes down the toilet, I expect I'll be back in QA/manufacturing or I'll get training in some sort of outdoorsy field.

The times they are a'changin'.

But no one can ever take your education away from you, and I am glad I attended a liberal arts college and was exposed to so much more than just 'you do this to get this job' but I don't know that's a luxury many people have these days.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/33...still-worth-it

Well. It's true that the cool programming jobs (at least the ones I think are cool) are in NYC, Chicago, and the west coast. But there are lots of corporate, access the database and print a report, jobs out there. According to dice.com, there are 84,116 tech jobs out there. I could be more targeted, but I don't know what your skillset is.

A year and a half ago I was working for a huge corp we'll call HAL and I didn't like it very much. HAL had bought the company I worked for and it was like being absorbed by the borg.

So I evaluated where I was in my career and decided that I needed to move into mobile development. I already had an iPad. I bought a Mac Mini and taught myself iOS programming. After a few months, I put my resume up on dice and the ball started rolling. From first insight to iPad job took just 7 months. That's one of the great things about programming - you need new skills? Go ahead and learn them.

If you've got object-oriented skills, I could put in a good word for you here. Yes it would mean moving. But sometimes you have to move for the right opportunity.

Mrs. Z and I grew up in STL. When I got into PC programming, there wasn't anything there (still isn't by the way). We moved to Seattle, a few other places, and ended up in Chicago. And employment is the reason we still don't live in St. Louis.

I haven't coded professionally since 1999 and don't know object-oriented programming at all. I was a system administrator.

I just checked. There are Android jobs in the greater Philly area. You have an Android phone, no? Why not teach yourself Android programming. Companies are desperate for mobile developers.

You can break out of this UT.

I taught myself web design, is what I did... founded a small company to do microsites for small businesses.

Turned out there is not much call for it round here. I know you don't believe me. Ask bluecuracao. And when they hire 'em, they hire fresh-outs, not 49-year-old fat guys. Because they can pay the kids nothing and ride their ass to work a shit ton of overtime.

So I picked the wrong thing to learn. Or maybe I did what I wanted, and the money didn't follow because the economy.

Also I forgot, again, that people do not hire generalists to work in IT. IT is always specialists. I thought, surely I will be invaluable to someone, as a guy who can do a little of everything: web design, web programming, system administration. But IT prefers to hire three different specialists for each of those things.

But I guess I overstated my problem because I don't think of it as a problem. IT managers, around here, routinely suck, and tend to make your life a living hell. The only way I escaped that was to try building my own businesses. I imagine that I will be much happier, at this stage of life, working as a pharmacy assistant or behind the counter at a vet hospital. We will see what happens.

I do know that I was unable to learn anything while working full time, having two hours of commute each day, and J on weekends.

Oh yeah and unlike Apple product stuff, true Android development happens in Java. Not really my... cup of tea

My experience is skewed because I've almost exclusively worked for software development companies.

I get the impression sys-admin jobs are being eaten by developers. DevOps is kind of a hand-wavy term IMHO. But the trend towards developers taking over operational jobs is real, at least in certain situations.

There is a point of scale where the DevOps tools are weak enough that people do bring in dedicate administrative folks, but it's often limited to networking/high-end infrastructure management.

I for one love having a dedicated ops engineer. But they have to be top notch or they are as much hindrance as help. At a previous gig, our ops (2 guys, part time) rocked and could keep up with the pace of development. At my current gig the guy who handles production ops is a clown. His skills are still pre-DevOps and overall he just can't keep up with the pace of change. That said the guy who does our Windows ops (mostly supporting the sales folks) is pretty good.

Most of the non-software shop programmer jobs I see really want an admin and programmer in one. Handle the file shares and desktop support and maintain our applications.

Now I'm hearing excuses. I'm no genius. If I can do it, you can.

If admin is out. Learn something else.

Get a mac mini and an ipod touch. Total outlay ~$800. Less if you go used. Learn Objective C and iOS.

Learn php or python.

Or move. We have html/css people of all age ranges where I work.

Or don't move, suck it up and don't be picky. There are Android jobs in your area.

Or you can reject all these things and earn less than you are worth.

There is no "true" way to do Android development. There is the way that most books will teach you, using Eclipse and Java. But then there is the "fun" way using whatever JVM language tickles your fancy. Clojure (a LISP), JRuby, Mirah, and dozens of others will get you started. If you run into a performance issue they can be resolved or you can rewrite a portion of the app in Java.

It's all very fluid.

I've heard that during depressions and recession the two industries that actually increase are Alcohol and entertainment. Apparently people like to forget their troubles. Entertainment is all whack now with the internet, not like in the old days when you could spend all day at the movies. Now you spend all day in front of a computer or TV. But as of yet, there is no beer app.

Hence my current career path.

10-15 years ago, the programmers couldn't manage stuff... because it was pretty tricky business just to manage 1-2 servers. Now, systems are better, much easier to run, disk space became cheap, and hardware is commodity. So now full-time system administrators may run 500-1000 systems.

And they may do it in the cloud - which means no need for hardware expertise, no having to know how to wire the server closet.

It goes back and forth. These are good days for developers, but in the years between the Y2K crunch and the Apple revolution, the country had about 1M fewer coders than it does today.

It's excuses. I know PHP4, I could just learn object-oriented programming and do PHP5 and then I'd be hireable for that. 6 weeks if I'm not working, 6 months if I am.

Or fuckin Drupal or Wordpress or JQuery, people like that shit.

On the other hand, after chasing resume keywords for over half my lifetime, to get uninspiring jobs in cubicle farms, under Office Space bosses who are miserable and want to share their misery, now you say I should consider moving away from family friends and J... for who for what? I am dog tired of this approach to life.

Seriously. The Job is the be-all end-all purpose in life. If one does not have The Job, then one is stagnating and lazy. Our entire purpose on earth is not to be happy (whatever makes you happy) our purpose is to attain and hold onto The Job. No one cares about your misery, if your misery makes you rethink The Job. You better shuck and jive and jive and shuck your ass off to get and keep The Job, or you might as well crawl into the sewer. When you are old enough to leave The Job, you may have a couple years to enjoy the buck-fitty you put away for your few years alive after The Job. Or, you might die first. No matter, others will fill The Job.

In other words, I hear ya UT, I hear ya!

I didn't say you should move. Just that it's an option.

What I heard you saying was that your degree was crap because it won't get you a job anymore. But that's provably false.

I can tell you from experience that there are plenty Office Space bosses out there. But I also know that there are jobs out there without that kind of crap.

But now I'm wondering if you belong in CS. Is there a CS job you'd like to have? If so, what?

Thread hijack, it is now all about me!

My life is not a good narrative to make my original point.

Specifically CS as in the Sciencey part of it? The best and brightest of us was supposed to go off to Bell Labs and do work writing compilers, but instead they took the one with the 4.0. I don't think I've done much with the S part of the CS. Not much call for it round here except maybe at the defense contractors.

I would like to be: the guy who designs and runs the website and supports the desktops and laptops of the 20 other people who work there. They would let me write the marketing bits of the website, because Julie? The one who is supposed to be head of marketing? She kinda sucks. I would just write everything, and they would say, oh that's perfect, just leave it like that. And they like me doing desktop support, because I'm genuinely friendly with everyone. And they all talk about me, after that day I figured out how to get all the SKU information out of the Excel and right into the eCommerce thingie. Local hero for that one, and also for when I set up an online time card web thingie that has enough Javascript that they can move numbers around until they add up to 40.

I don't know what that job title is. Is it CS? I guess it doesn't really need a degree, even. Nothing my Algorithms class covered for sure. I don't think they advertise for it. But that's what I would like to be. I would be awesome at it.

I think M's company here in KC is looking for someone like that. The company itself is actually based in Jacksonville, and you might be able to do it remotely.

Would be nice to get a remotion!

What exactly is CS? Many college computer programming courses are about teaching Word, Excel, and Access. That's computer science?

A TV show "Uncover Boss" demonstrates the problem. Company bosses have no idea how the work gets done. A boss must understand what is going on at least three levels below him. When the boss has no idea, then first impressions are more important than what an employee can do. In the case of "Uncover Boss", the employee is rewarded with gifts rather than a boss actually addressing problems he has created.

Many IT bosses have little grasp of how the system works. Beause, in many organizations, its about telling his boss what he wants to hear rather than supporting employees who then better serve customers. In such organizations, losses due what never happened are apparent maybe four or more years later... by not appearing. IOW a boss never learns why he needed the more qualified employee.

So, yes, it is a problem for an educated worker who is 'over qualified'. Especially when a boss only understands Word, Excel, Access, e-mail, and stock quotes. So what really is computer science?

That's bullshit misdirection, TW. Yes, many CS departments provide courses for Word, Excel, etc. but those are for business majors etc.

Here's the current degree program from SPU where I got my degree. See any Excel courses in there?

http://www.spu.edu/acad/UGCatalog/20...CSC&path=MAJCS

It's a bad sign, TW, when you start quoting reality tv for your resources.

How long have you worked in IT, TW? Do you have anything to base this on?

I've got 30 years in the field. Some bosses have been great and some bosses have been clueless. It's just the way life is.

This thread is floating around in my head today. I really liked what ph45 said.

#1 is in college doing learning industrial design which she loves and appears to have a lot of directions she could go. I think she should be self employed and find her niche. #2 I worry about because she has a lot of me in her but fortunately smarter. She has time.

My administrator approached me today about a couple opportunities she wants me to consider. The first is starting a behavior focused classroom which county is desperate for and I basically asked for in a letter last month. The second is getting that administration certificate and starting to take the reins. Anyway I have the degrees as union cards and the certificate would be another even if they didn't play out smoothly when I first got them. I've said a lot of things in the past about "if I ran these classrooms" because I know what bad educational systems look like, anyway it may be put up or shut up time. Thing about these opportunities is with all the education, for the immediate future, I'll still be making 1/2 of what Pete does in a field far removed from her Fine Arts degree. College degrees are weird, they're both important and unimportant, its just a matter of how it plays out on the personal level. I'd prolly be better off a wood butcher.

In many (most?) corporate structures some dude in an office far away, decides which positions will require a degree in order for you to apply. But then likely as not the job doesn't relate to the degree, they often don't even specify degree in what. They don't care because they're going to train you to do the job the way they want it done. But they want to be able to brag how many degreed people they have

Boeing did a big push about 10 years ago where they pushed people out of jobs they'd been doing for 15 or 20 years, and replaced them with new college graduates. Well OK, fresh blood, new ideas, more gooder, right? No, they had the people being bumped out, train the new blood to do it exactly the same way, and warned the newbies not to deviate from what they were shown, as much of the methods/systems were specified by government contract. I heard a rumor that using degreed people allowed them to charge the government more for the same work, but couldn't substantiate that.

A friend just got forced out of one of Florida's biggest health care providers. He wrote and administered the programs that kept the pharmacies in seven hospitals supplied, and running smoothly. He even had an office with a door and window... but no degree. They decided to outsource his job to contractors, so they gave him three months to train them and buh bye.

The temptation to subtly mistrain your replacements must be very strong.

A degree is a good sign, in that it shows you have been able to stick at a project for three (or more) years and complete it, and jump through all the highly specified and often pointless hoops they make you jump through.

And - especially for the nerds and Asbergerish techie types - all that "having fun and drinking beer" is the development of "soft skills" like actually being able to communicate effectively with people. And maybe to recognise that moment when you've had enough.

Nobody checks up on the things you put in your resume anyway.* Just falsify it. The only moral question is, can you do the job appropriately, safely, and successfully? If so, the degree question is a harmless white lie.


*Except the government. I've been a personal reference for two people getting FBI clearance, and those guys do their homework.

Both Westinghouse and Boeing showed me the transcripts they obtained, and that was for a nobody job. I see in the news, frequently, someone in corporate or government being fired for lying on there resume. But that only came to light after they'd been in the job for some time, often years, and had pissed people off enough to start looking for a way to get rid of them.

And it's not like they could take back those years of salary, or give them any worse punishment than firing them. Take away the job they never would have had if they didn't lie? Not so bad.

We're getting to a point with electronic information collection that its probably harder to run a resume con without altering/creating an original record, but do that and its easy living.

I've often been asked for certified copies of academic transcripts and/or sighting of the original degree, and that's even for jobs outside universities.

I guess Mr. Clod and I have just always worked for companies with slacker HR departments. Maybe if they'd hired an HR manager with a degree... :)

The "science" of computing. Applied math, really. My program was theory heavy. Lots of mathematics, formal methods and systems programming (assemblers, compilers, etc.). We wrote C, LISP, various assemblers and Prolog. My favorite project was creating a VM for a hypothetical machine from the ground up.

We didn't touch the end-user stuff like Office, unless you count writing an HTML parser and an email client in C.

I've had excellent "IT" managers. My current one, the CTO of the company, has an MS CS from CMU. He can handle more information than any single person should, knows our business domain very well, and can still talk PL-theory when it comes up.

* IT is such a weasel term in my mind. It's like lumping butchers and surgeons into the same profession because they both cut meat.

Best IT boss I ever had came up through the ranks of the supermarket chain where we worked. He had interest, but not a lot of expertise in computing. But he knew people, and how to manage them, because he had actually had to do it and show results for two decades in the markets.

Most of the time he didn't know exactly what I was doing, but he could see that I was productive and effective. When I came in with a proposal to revolutionize the chain by networking the stores, he didn't know exactly what I was proposing, but he could see the benefit of it and fought for it with the company's board. Together we moved mountains.

Most IT managers are promoted from technical positions and have no idea how to actually manage people. The last director I had, when it came time for the company to move, specifically chose his office because it was furthest away from his people. He was a disaster, and it's partly due to him (and 85% due to his useless CEO boss) that the company no longer exists. He helped drive a wedge between development and marketing --the people who were trying to figure out how to monetize their services. He made it possible for development to become an empire of their own, and eventually empire was everything and development literally stopped producing new products for people take an interest in and buy.

Superbly describes the industry problem. When I was learning this stuff, programming languages were never college courses. You were expected to learn that on your own. Course descriptions from Seattle Pacific are apparently still based in that concept. But courses for many computer students today are:
•CIS 100 Introduction to PC's
•CIS 101 Introduction to Spreadsheets
•CIS 102 Intro to Data Base Management
•CIS 103 Intro to Word Processing
•CIS 104 Intro to Desktop Publishing
•CIS 105 Introduction to Windows
•CIS 106 Introduction to the INTERNET
•CIS 108 Introduction to Web Page Design
•CIS 110 Computer Info Sys for Management
•CIS 111 Computer Science I: Programming/Concept
•CIS 113 PC Maintenance and Support
•CIS 114 Web Design and Development
•CIS 117 Computer Aided Drafting I
•CIS 120 Teaching With Technology
•CIS 122 Visual Basic
•CIS 126 Computer Architecture and Organization
•CIS 136 C#
•CIS 140 Client-Side Web Development
•CIS 141 Introduction to Linux
•CIS 142 Linux Administration
•CIS 148 Computer Graphics I
•CIS 151 Systems Analysis and Design
•CIS 155 PC Applications on Networks
•CIS 156 Netware Administration and Support
•CIS 158 Windows Server Administration and Support
•CIS 170 Networking Fundamentals (Cisco Exploration Semester 1)
•CIS 173 Customer Service Skills-Help Desk Professional

None of those would have been acceptable as college courses. Unfortunately another college course is remedial mathematics. To teach basic math that should have been learned in high school.

I cite this course guide because a girl said she was taking Word. They did not teach 'fields' or 'forms' or any other 'programming' features in Word. How is that a computer programming course?

What does an IT boss do when some computer science degrees are devoid of science? A fundamental fact from management. The boss must know how work gets done at least three levels below him. Many do not. The TV show "Undercover Boss" demonstrates that reality (and makes some people angry for the same reason).

How many times has someone said, "But he is an IT guy. He knows computers! He recommends a surge protector." My experience: most IT guys have no idea how electricity works. Most protectors do not even claim to do that protection. But he is an IT guy. He recommended it. Therefore it must be true!

If the boss has no grasp of the technology, then how would he know an educated IT guy from another who is only a tech?

Weasels. BTW, weasels also run many engineering departments. A high number of weasels would explain why so many better educated people cannot find jobs. For example, how many of UT's potential bosses really knew anything about IT?

An innovation that did not happen is not missed by a weasel. An innovation that is impossible with less qualified employees never appears as a loss on any spread sheet. Who is the reason for more job losses four and more years later? An innovation that does happen means even more jobs are lost four plus years later. Innovation and the resulting new jobs cannot happen when weasels are management. Meaning even more educated people have less job opportunities four plus years later.

Weasels are better when road kill. They make an innovative smell. How does one separate a potential educated boss from a potential weasel?

"CIS 106 Introduction to the INTERNET"
ha ha ha ha

But once Unisys and RCA stopped producing hardware, telephony became an uninteresting industry, Western Electric devolved, Commodore packed up shop, and half my CS friends moved to California, what real Computer Science was being done in the Philadelphia area?

I should have moved with them, if I wanted to stay in the industry. But it looked like Sysadmin was a pretty good bet, followed by being first into the Internets and whatnot. Now everything is commodity except the huge-ass corporations, when "enterprise-class" means they are still spending million$ on hardware for one reason or another.

I cain't work in a corporation I just cain't

Call it excuses, but those fuckers and I, we never got along

So that's why I went off the grid and tried to forge a different life story for myself, but that sorta hasn't really worked out, and I blame myself but uh I also found out that doing a lot of blaming myself was super-unproductive

Man I like it when a thread can be partly about me

I assume and hope "CIS" is short for something like Computer & Information Systems. But I wouldn't be surprised if they called it Science. I've seen curricula like that and it makes me sad.

There's nothing wrong per se with teaching specific tools to those who don't need to know more. But to pretend that sort of instruction will make you a strong technologist or builder of things is bad.

Theory for me has been the basis of what most would call a successful career. The languages and tools I have built and used are a byproduct of the practice of applying that theory. Theory is what I think should be taught as the core of any "science", even though the theory won't prepare you for a career applying it more than incidentally.

There are so many things about my career and work life that disappoint me or make me outright angry. People disregarding good engineering practice (usually just because of laziness!) and such. Mostly it's stuff I can change. I looked back at some of PZ's posts earlier in the thread and I think I'm finally prepared to force some of those changes.

Really? Laziness more than ignorance? That's interesting... and depressing.

Regarding tw's list of courses, many community colleges offer courses within a department that are not necessarily part of a degree in that department.

Many adults' computer skills are lacking. A young admin assistant may need a course in how to use Excel, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. And what department should that course go under, if not CIS? That doesn't mean that if she takes all the classes in tw's list, she's going to walk out with a Computer Science degree.

It is depressing and infuriating.

I can't count the number of times I've told people (with the research and analysis to back it up) that something will fail early and spectacularly and then been disregarded. It doesn't seem to matter if it's a small effort to mitigate up front or the cost of the failure would be particularly high.

In my current and past situations I haven't had the power to force the right thing to happen. That's the core of what I want to change about my career. Move up to a lead or CTO spot, join a team where engineering is part of the culture, or just start my own company where that shit won't fly.

You can fight the good fight with swords held high. But I'd bet you still won't win. Mainly because you are fighting corporate culture, not department culture.

What's much easier is to find a company with the right corporate culture.

And the easiest way to do that is to find a company where software is a profit center, not a cost center. When the software you work on makes the company money. It is much easier to push them to do the right thing.

I also personally believe that life is much better at a midsize privately owned company. You won't get stock options. But you also won't get whipsawed by quarterly reports.

You might also want to look at the Spolsky Employer test. Spolsky is full of himself. But he is really introspective about the software development process and practices what he preaches. He doesn't post often these days. But if you haven't read them. Go back and read his articles that sound interesting.

If you don't have an interest in programming or admin anymore, then that's that.

But if it's just the corporate bullshit, I would recommend the same thing I said to PW. Look for a midsize company that's privately owned. It's a strategy that worked for me. (Until they get bought up by giants. Then it's time to leave.)

Listed were courses for "Computer Information Science". But keep it in perspective. Those are college degrees for technicians. Not college courses. How would a boss (ie as demonstrated by "Uncover Boss") know the difference between that technician degree and a degree from Seattle Pacific? He wouldn't. Both are called Computer Science. Too many IT managers have insufficient technical knowledge. Only know from word association. Too many IT managers got their jobs based in first impressions. By telling their boss what their boss wanted to hear. He was buying 'miracle' machines. So the IT guy who always smiles must be good?

That is, for example, why bankruptcies are so important. Same reason why militaries, that periodically fight a war, weed out incompetents. Bankruptcies or warfare are often how to identify the better trained and educated.

So, back to this topic. Why would so many companies not hire better trained and educated employees? One proposal says that bossed have no idea how the work gets done. And therefore hire mostly based in first impressions or the size of tits.

Another proposal says that more jobs are only created only when better trained employees are hired. Only then will innovation exist and create more jobs. On spread sheets, profits are higher when less trained and less paid employees are hired. In reality, profits are higher when better trained and more expensive employees are hired. Then the resulting innovation creates more jobs and more new products.

But that is not what is taught in business schools. Innovation and the value of a better educated employee has no entry on any spread sheet. Better trained employee only increases costs. Another reason why I even met a mechanical engineer who is driving a truck. Another who had even programmed in the language 'B'. In every case, people without jobs because they are overqualified. And no longer want to jump through hoops just to be productive. Means more jobs not created and available to 20 years olds.

How would a business school graduate determine the different between that Word educated 'computer science major' and one educated in Seattle Pacific? He can't. None of that is found on his spread sheet. Another example of why 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - when management is as naive as those in "Undercover Boss".

Others also noted ignorant managers who would hide out in executive offices and executive dining rooms. We all know why companies such as Intel prospered. Top management (ie Andy Grove) had his office in a cubical surrounded by other employees also in cubicals. Only then could innovation happen. Other companies eliminated executive dining rooms. So that executives ate with all other employees. So that innovation could happen. Since the only thing that creates jobs is innovation.

Another is UT's story. Innovators must never do any politics. That is the VP's primary job. To run interference on the technical incompetents who play politics rather than learn how things really work. So that innovators can do the only thing essential to a company's survival - innovation. Another example of what is so essential to create jobs. VPs must work for and protect employees so that employees can innovate. Then more and higher paying jobs are created.

But again, none of this can happen (better jobs created) when the boss has no idea how the work gets done.

Explained are factor that create (or destroy) good jobs. And also how to identify companies that what to make better products rather than foolishly make profits.