programming jobs without degree

[Feoggou]

Gaming is a huge field, what do you want to work on? Graphics, AI, networking...? Different parts of the game have different engineers who have very different skill sets.

And I disagree about the part of knowing exactly how linked lists and vectors and trees work not being necessary. How will you correctly choose your container for you case if you don't know exactly how they work. There are also cases where you may want to write your own variant of one of those. I have written my own implementations of string, vectors, lists, and trees for various reasons.

sincerely, I don't know. I'd love to know to program graphics, though I love AI more. I'm not interested with network programming, but if necessary, I will learn. And, besides graphics, audio, AI and networking, I don't know what other fields exist. Anyway, if it is to work as a game programmer, the least memory usage and the highest speed are the top priorities. And I think it fits in all fields of game programming. Now I don't pretty know how I can learn to do that... I mean, I can think myself of optimizing, but there's a long road until I find all things that can be optimized and how.

[ninja9578]

Do you know OpenGL? The OpenGL API is bigger than the entirety of STL, and a must for graphics programming. EVERYTHING uses it, it has a complete monopoly on anything graphics with the exceptions of Windows gaming which doesn't really matter.

Game AI is fake AI, not true AI. It uses a lot of shortcuts and little tricks to cut down on CPU. I actually wrote a 3 part article on it a few years ago.

[nuzzle]

Experience is more important than a degree,

That's not true. Graduates also get experience and experience is much more valuable if it's on top of a thorough theoretical understanding of what you're doing. Fumbling in the dark without knowing nada is also an experience but not a very good one. By trial and error you will learn what buttons to push eventually but you'll never know why it works and if it couldn't be done better.

Graduation gives you a jump-start and an accelerated learning curve with experience that no one without a degree can ever match (except maybe for a few geniuses).

The notion that "experience is more important than a degree" is a myth carefully guarded by people who wished they had one. It's just a way to deal with an inferiority complex. They realize what they're missing and would give their right hand to have it.

So if you want to tilt the wheel of fortune firmly in your favour - get a degree!

[nuzzle]

Do you know OpenGL? The OpenGL API is bigger than the entirety of STL, and a must for graphics programming. EVERYTHING uses it, it has a complete monopoly on anything graphics with the exceptions of Windows gaming which doesn't really matter.

Game AI is fake AI, not true AI. It uses a lot of shortcuts and little tricks to cut down on CPU. I actually wrote a 3 part article on it a few years ago.

That's not true. Gaming matters for sure. OpenGL is no more important than Direct3D. And if need be you can learn both because they're very similar. The trend towards shaders rather than fixed pipeline has made them both less complex and more alike.

Gaming AI is no fake. Just because some decisions can't wait doesn't mean it's not AI. When there's time the game AI can plan carefully otherwise it makes quick decisions. Also real intelligence is importance based like that. You plan ahead for what to do should the lion come closer but when it's about to bite your azz you quickly decide to run without further ado.

[nuzzle]

sincerely, I don't know. I'd love to know to program graphics, though I love AI more. I'm not interested with network programming, but if necessary, I will learn. And, besides graphics, audio, AI and networking, I don't know what other fields exist. Anyway, if it is to work as a game programmer, the least memory usage and the highest speed are the top priorities. And I think it fits in all fields of game programming. Now I don't pretty know how I can learn to do that... I mean, I can think myself of optimizing, but there's a long road until I find all things that can be optimized and how.

Okay, you have a dream. Now face reality. To make it happen you need a theoretical foundation and the fastest and easiest way to get one is by the way of a degree.

If you had what it takes to get a job as game programmer or phone-app developer or whatever you'd already been busy doing it. It's a characteristic of the self-taught programmer. They're highly skilled in a specific area and they know where they want to work and for whom. One day they just show up at his/her office, explain what they know and what they can contribute to the company, and start coding the same day.

[JohnW@Wessex]

That's not always a bad starting point. I've met some really good low-level coders who stick to the C aspects of C++ (when they deign to use C++ at all).

The problem we have is that whoever takes the reins over from me will have be the authority on changes to our now extensive, in house, template library. Most of our applications solve similar types of problems, so this library is important for getting new projects off the ground. Any applicant that doesn't have a firm knowledge of templates, inheritance, polymorphism, design patterns etc. are going to find it difficult to regulate changes. Unfortunately, when bad ideas, inadvertent or not, get into a library and used in applications, the possibility of them staying there permanently is high.

[superbonzo]

That's not true...

what make you think that GCDEF's concept of experience fits yours "Fumbling in the dark without knowing nada" ? experience does imply an understanding of what you've done; indeed, is it possible to write a non trivial program in C++ without understanding the language in all its relevant apsects ? I would say that the probability that one happens to develop a fully functional stable non trivial program in C++ by pure chance is near zero ...

of course, as GCDEF said, it's hard to imagine a way in which someone could hire you without any form of indipendent certification ... but saying that mere graduation implies "thorough theoretical understanding" and "a jump-start and an accelerated learning curve" is a myth as well.

Indeed, speaking about inferiority complexes, you can find them in-between any two of the multiple "degree" of graduation in both "directions" ( people with lower education criticizing higher education to justify their inability of achiving it, and people with higher education criticizing lower education to justify their inability of taking any real advantage out of it ); people deals with job-related psychological complexes indipendently of their social position or career status ... so, invoking psychological arguments is of no help here.

As other said, first level graduation acts at best as a "high-pass filter" in the labour force selection process, and only in some selected cases it's a real indication of knowledge quality.

That said, we all agree that a degree is necessary in the OP case

[nuzzle]

As other said, first level graduation acts at best as a "high-pass filter" in the labour force selection process, and only in some selected cases it's a real indication of knowledge quality.

Nonsense. You can argue this until kingdom come but that won't change the fact that a bachelor's or master's degree always beats not having one. Anytime. From any perspective.

Graduated programmers will have a much easier time both finding a job as well as keeping it because they're more resilient to technology change. They're also more likely to be paid well and get promoted.

Both graduates and non-graduates need experience to become really good. The difference is that graduates improve faster with experience.

I'm talking statistical averages here of course; graduates as a group vs. non-graduates as a group. There will always be the fool who's still a fool after graduation. And there will always be the geniuses and the lucky ones who didn't need an education at all. Especially not in hindsight. But statistically the picture is clear. You're much more likely to have a successful career as programmer with a university education than without.

Claiming that "experience is more important than a degree" is devious. It may fool people into thinking that higher education doesn't pay off. It always does.

[JohnW@Wessex]

We've had plenty of graduates who have supplemented their post university education with jobs at various establishments before coming to us for an interview. What we have learned is that while their theoretical knowledge is quite good (and their maths skills run rings around mine) they often seem to be lacking in the sort of creative (out of the box) thinking that we are after. One test is showing them an image captured by one of our applications and asking them to suggest as many different ways of finding the artefacts. Most churn out the same old set of image analysis techniques that have been around in textbooks since the 1970s. It's like they've all been conditioned to only looking at the problem one way. Having a uni education can obviously give you some good theoretical background, but we never discard a potential interviewee because of a lack of it. Sitting them down and asking questions we have seen that having a degree or not doesn't make a huge difference to their suitability for the job. More important to us is their employment history including responsibilities and demonstration of creative thinking. These skills are much more valued by us than pure knowledge. Knowledge is good, but wisdom is even better.

[nuzzle]

These skills are much more valued by us than pure knowledge. Knowledge is good, but wisdom is even better.

I don't buy that higher education should curb creativity or the ability to get wiser with age.

But what I do have noticed is that people drawn to programming tend to be detail persons with a strong belief in authority. It's not the kind of people you would expect to get out-of-the-box thinking from. And 99% of the time that's not what you want. You want solid within-the-box thinking and results in the form of working software based on best practices and existing language features. Forcing a sensitive artistic soul bursting with creativity to spend days on end pouring over boring documentation trying to locate that last bug would be torture, wouldn't it? That kind of work calls for an introvert, a programmer.

My point is that you should look for creativity where you can expect to find it. Programmers, graduated or not graduated, generally aren't made like that. For bells and whistles and 100 ways to skin a cat you should look elsewhere.

[GCDEF]

That's not true. Graduates also get experience and experience is much more valuable if it's on top of a thorough theoretical understanding of what you're doing. Fumbling in the dark without knowing nada is also an experience but not a very good one. By trial and error you will learn what buttons to push eventually but you'll never know why it works and if it couldn't be done better.

Graduation gives you a jump-start and an accelerated learning curve with experience that no one without a degree can ever match (except maybe for a few geniuses).

The notion that "experience is more important than a degree" is a myth carefully guarded by people who wished they had one. It's just a way to deal with an inferiority complex. They realize what they're missing and would give their right hand to have it.

So if you want to tilt the wheel of fortune firmly in your favour - get a degree!

If somebody came to me with 10 years of solid experience but no degree vs. a degree and no experience, I'd hire the guy with the track record. With equivalent experience, the degree would be the tie breaker. The degree becomes more important for management positions, but you usually won't get them without experience either.

FWIW, I have a masters degree in computer science, and 28 years in the business, so I'm not guarding any myth because I don't have a degree or experience. I'm talking about what I've seen over the years, and what factors weigh more heavily when I decide to hire somebody.

[GCDEF]

Claiming that "experience is more important than a degree" is devious. It may fool people into thinking that higher education doesn't pay off. It always does.

I never said higher education doesn't pay off. Don't be fighting straw men here. But look at the questions from students here. Most of what's being taught in the schools doesn't seem like it would be particularly useful in the real world compared to what you learn on the job.

A solid understanding of what goes on behind the scenes obviously makes for a better programmer, but you'll gain way more real world expertise your first year on the job than you will with four years of college.

[JohnW@Wessex]

I don't buy that higher education should curb creativity or the ability to get wiser with age.

That's not what i meant. It's that, until you get a bit more experience or are naturally an 'out of the box' thinker, your thinking can be be a little blinkered after being told the 'facts' for several years. I used to do a lot of music in a band years ago and used to write my own material. I had many a graduate music student tell me I was playing the 'wrong' combination of notes because "X is not in the key of Y and music theory say they don't go" or something in that vein.

But what I do have noticed is that people drawn to programming tend to be detail persons with a strong belief in authority.

Oh dear, that makes me a misfit then! Correct on the detail, wrong on the authority.

It's not the kind of people you would expect to get out-of-the-box thinking from. And 99% of the time that's not what you want. You want solid within-the-box thinking and results in the form of working software based on best practices and existing language features.

What we want is a creative person that can implement their ideas based on best practices and existing language features. One of our most successful image processing algorithms came about after throwing out the standard book methods and indulging in a bit of imaginative brainstorming.

Forcing a sensitive artistic soul bursting with creativity to spend days on end pouring over boring documentation trying to locate that last bug would be torture, wouldn't it? That kind of work calls for an introvert, a programmer.

You seem to be pigeon-holing people into one mutually exclusive group or another, which I don't believe is valid. Give me a coder that can question the 'correct' solution and look at a problem from another angle any day.
I consider myself to be very creative (and have been thought of as such by colleagues, if I may blow my own trumpet), but I also fall definitely in to the introvert camp.

[GCDEF]

That's not what i meant. It's that, until you get a bit more experience or are naturally an 'out of the box' thinker, your thinking can be be a little blinkered after being told the 'facts' for several years. I used to do a lot of music in a band years ago and used to write my own material. I had many a graduate music student tell me I was playing the 'wrong' combination of notes because "X is not in the key of Y and music theory say they don't go" or something in that vein.
Oh dear, that makes me a misfit then! Correct on the detail, wrong on the authority.
What we want is a creative person that can implement their ideas based on best practices and existing language features. One of our most successful image processing algorithms came about after throwing out the standard book methods and indulging in a bit of imaginative brainstorming.
You seem to be pigeon-holing people into one mutually exclusive group or another, which I don't believe is valid. Give me a coder that can question the 'correct' solution and look at a problem from another angle any day.
I consider myself to be very creative (and have been thought of as such by colleagues, if I may blow my own trumpet), but I also fall definitely in to the introvert camp.

nuzzle seems to be fighting straw men here. The best programmers I know are the ones that can decompose big problems into little solvable ones. Most of them tend to be more the maverick types than those with a strong respect for authority, and they set themselves apart by being able to think outside the box and see solutions that elude others.

That's more a personality trait than an education vs. non-education thing. Education gives you the tools, but experience gives you the wisdom of how best to use them.

If you were getting work done on your house, would you rather have a kid with a truck load of shiny tools, or a carpenter with 25 years experience and a box of well-worn tools he knew how to use?

[superbonzo]

Nonsense. You can argue this until kingdom come but that won't change the fact that a bachelor's or master's degree always beats not having one. Anytime. From any perspective.

if you are claiming that a degree makes the difference in finding an avarage job or not then, as I said at the end of my post and as everybody said in this thread, I agree with you. But claiming that this is due to a difference in knowledge quality is more debatable;

consider an hypothetical employer that's seeking labour force; he will hire people by maximizing productivity expectations and minimizing recruitment and training costs; if the latter were negligible at maximal productivity expectations then the very existence of degrees and other form of certifications external to the considered industry would be simply unjustified from an economical viewpoint and, therefore, unfavored. This means that certification programs of any kind are not intrinsic features of education systems per se, they are essentially mechanisms by which labour economy out-sources recruitment and training for (among many other reasons) reducing costs.

Moreover, suppose ad absurdum an education system that randomly assigns grades rejecting a fixed fraction of people and a job system that strictly requires this or that education certificate in order to be hired; the sole effect of decreasing the job demand and decreasing recruitment costs makes the existence of certification programs economically favored in this case.

Of course, I'm not saying that modern education systems are like that, I'm simply saying that a rigorous analysis of employments rates relative to education certificates is greatly influenced by dynamics that have little to do with knowledge quality, creativity or any other intellectual trait ...