This is very similar to the rants I've given and heard from plenty fellow students back when I was still studying a few years ago. I can see exactly where it's coming from, and yet I can't agree. Partly it's the blatant snobbery of it, which I know from my own experience. It's frustrating to see folk with no interest in the discipline do better because they're more focussed on getting a first than actually learning anything.
The thing is, the industry is a lot bigger than it seems when you're at university. Developers/programmers are actually a pretty small part of it. For example, software testing/validation is a job in itself which can involve very little coding. Professional documenters are paid to write about software and do very little coding, but an understanding of the field is still useful to them. And lets not forget the good old ranks of management, forever considered to be a complete waste of time that gets in the way of "just hacking shit out". Except it turns out people don't want shit.
So basically, just because somebody is on your course and doesn't want to spend all night fiddling with their ubuntu installation, reading HN and learning the stuff you know that you'll need for the job you want, doesn't mean they wont be able to hack it in industry. If anything the industry could do with more normal people. Preferably ones with boobs.
A friend of mine has degrees in english and computer science, and works as a technical writer. While his job does sit at the intersection of those two fields, what he learned in college is laughably underutilized on a day-to-day basis.
If someone just wants to work adjunct to software development, why should they take the same courses as people who want to be software developers? A class that presents programming as a medium of communication rather than an exercise in minutiae seems like it would get a lot more traction with people who don't see the glamor in spending their nights and weekends in front of a computer screen.
I'm certainly not/not going to be the world's most stellar programmer, but I have to look at the other people in my class who are obviously holding up the rest of the students through their complete misunderstanding of the material.
Sure there is potential in everyone, and most likely a career path for any number of variables involved in producing a quality software product. But when a person is taking their second class in a programming language, and you ask them to show you their switch statement, and all you get is blank stares, is it your place to think that they need to find something else?
Obviously this is all from my personal experience, and I don't profess to know all the answers. But, as a general question, how do you handle a fellow student who is obviously not getting the coursework, and if they achieve the same degree will lessen the effectiveness of said degree from the same institution?
To a certain extent, it doesn't matter that much. This is a problem that affects most universities and most courses. Ultimately I became resigned to focusing on what I wanted from my course, which was to learn some knowledge and skills I found interesting. Also a degree seems to act as a sign that you're capable of getting a degree, and putting up with the bullshit that entails these days. It doesn't say anything about how good a developer you are or will become, or what kind of "Computer Scientist" you are. That's part of the reason why companies have interview processes, because you can only glean so much from a CV.
So, my advice is to give the guy a hand if you have time, you'll probably find he has skills that compliment your own which could come in useful someday. Also, try to stop caring so much about how your peers are performing, and focus on exploiting the access to people and resources available to you so you can get what you want out of the course. Ultimately there's very little you can do to change the behaviour of people your only mildly acquianted with.
I'm not sure this essay has much value. There are some fairly obvious observations, like "learning takes work", "not everyone is good for every career", "learn from your mistakes", and "programming involves typing". That's fine, but not particularly insightful.
Perhaps less useful is the author extrapolating from his community college classmates to the general programmer population.
But the part I disagree with is the reductionist description of programmers as people who only type and solve problems. This is only true if you expand the definition of "problem" to be so broad that it's meaningless. As a good software developer, you have to make aesthetic choices, exhibit empathy with customers and coworkers, do boring paperwork, be personable, and many other things. I'm not sure all of these things are problem solving.
I also don't think any of his 8 pithy statements of advice are very helpful. Just one example: "Take everything very seriously." Really? Is this tongue-in-cheek? How about, "Don't take yourself so seriously. Have fun and be curious about your world." That sounds like better advice to potential programmers to me.
You do make very good points, and I can't disagree with you. The article wasn't meant to be a blanket statement involving all programmers. It was rather meant to be a rant about how a lot of people who begin to go down that path either don't know what they're getting themselves into, or just simply don't care what kind of burden they are putting on others.
As for the statements of advice, you are correct. They are indeed broad, and would do with a good bit of expansion. This wasn't meant to be the alpha and omega of posts about what it means to be a programmer.
This should be required reading for those entering CS programs and, more importantly, for those that want to be developers that have a non-CS degree. There are way too many 'I got a B.A. in Art History but now I need to eat, so I'll program' people in this industry, and it shows.
Well I think it should rather be required reading for those responsible for all those young people not knowing how to study after 12 years of schooling.
There are many layers involved which lead up to this point. The teachers, parents, peers and selves all play a large part in how a person learns. A good combination of the involvement of each is needed to produce an upstanding member of society.
Yes. I fully agree. I didn't mean to imply that you could pinpoint some one responsible. But it is sad, that you are lured into college on false premises. If one is not generally prepared to study can we expect one to "Take a day or two and research what is involved in learning to program." ?
That's a very good point, one that I hadn't considered. Although I don't think that being able to study and doing a little research are mutually exclusive.
But, as you say, most likely a person who doesn't have the ability/desire to study and learn about a certain subject probably wouldn't take the time to consider the time and effort involved.
The thing is, the industry is a lot bigger than it seems when you're at university. Developers/programmers are actually a pretty small part of it. For example, software testing/validation is a job in itself which can involve very little coding. Professional documenters are paid to write about software and do very little coding, but an understanding of the field is still useful to them. And lets not forget the good old ranks of management, forever considered to be a complete waste of time that gets in the way of "just hacking shit out". Except it turns out people don't want shit.
So basically, just because somebody is on your course and doesn't want to spend all night fiddling with their ubuntu installation, reading HN and learning the stuff you know that you'll need for the job you want, doesn't mean they wont be able to hack it in industry. If anything the industry could do with more normal people. Preferably ones with boobs.