On Monday 02 February 2004 14:15, Omer Zak wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 February 2004 22:11, Omer Zak wrote:
> > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 01 February 2004 10:39, Yuval Yaari wrote:
> > > > > Seems like I'm never going to get a new job.
> > > > > Why do companies insist on having BSc. ???
> > >
> > > [... snipped ...]
> > >
> > > > I think one reason is that they probably see it as another way to
> > > > separate the men from the boys. They want to have such a criteria so
> > > > they'll be able to choose among less applicants. Or they think that
> > > > it actually really matters.
> > >
> > > There is one thing which an university degree can prove (see disclaimer
> > > below):
> > >
> > > If someone has earned an university degree, then this means that he is
> > > able to finish a big project, no matter what happens, no matter what
> > > are the obstacles on his path.
> > >
> > > This is because getting a degree is analogous (in a way) to doing a big
> > > project, dealing with all kinds of crazy difficulties, silly
> > > constraints, aggravatingly cold-hearted administration, clueless fellow
> > > students and senile professors.
> > >
> > > In other words:what one really does in university when he aims at a
> > > degree for getting a better job - is not as much learning as about
> > > proving that he can get something done (passing tests at reasonably
> > > high scores).
> > Well, it does not mean that someone who did not finish university is
> > incapable of doing that.
> I agree, and this is why I said that a candidate without academic degree
> needs another way to prove his worth.
> > As for the university itself - I think it's a very extreme and
> > masochistic form of a project. In most of my past workplaces, people
> > werefriendly and supportive, there were good working conditions, there
> > weren't any stupid tests in the traditional sense (you just had to code
> > or write documents), I could consult others most of the time if I had
> > trouble, received money to do my job instead of given it away, and
> > generally was psychologically rewarded for good performance instead of
> > being given an arbitrary grade.
> Not all workplaces are good. Not all bosses are considrate. Not all
> criteria for doing well are logical or reasonable.
Well, I wouldn't want to work in a workplace that isn't good. (better become
independent in this case) I'm pretty sure I can find a job where the people
there would treat me well. After all, I was able to find such jobs in the
past, and I did not made prior filtering based on this criteria. (I just
accepted the job)
> > > Of course, what material one covers in the university matters.There are
> > > several possible ways to prove oneself, and one would be wise to choose
> > > a way which yields him those skills, which are most relevant for his
> > > future career.
> > Right.
> > > The consequence of the above when it comes to getting a job without
> > > academic degree:
> > >
> > > The candidate should be able to prove, in another way, that he is able
> > > to embark on a few years long demanding project, and complete it in
> > > spite of all difficulties and obstacles.
> > However, the obstacles you face when completing a project when you work
> > in a good workplace are very different from the ones you face when doing
> > a university degree.
> When looking at the big picture, the obstacles are not that different.
> * Both universities and companies have stupid bureaucrats.
Not all companies have stupid bureaucrats. I've been in a few like that.
> * Both universities and companies have leaders (professors/project
> managers) who are clueless about anything which requires light more than
> 33pSec to travel from it to their nose.
This is not always the case. Many times I knew things better in several
respects than my superiors, but was able to explain it or demonstrate it to
them and they understood. Several times, they enlightened me on what to do
> * Both universities and companies have tests (companies sometimes need to
> subject their creations to certification tests, like the ones required
> by FDA, FCC section 15, etc.).
The difference is that tests at companies are not at a time frame of 3 hours,
and that you always have enough time to make sure you passes them (and you
know what the "exact questions" will be in advance).
Furthermore, the tests are taken by the entire group, and you gain genuine
appreciation and support for passing them. (which is not the case for the
So it's a bad analogy.
> * Both universities and companies have deadlines (companies are driven by
> faire dates, subcontract work schedules, etc.).
Perhaps. The difference is that in universities, there are several deadlines
concentrated at once, and then you have exactly 3 hours to maneuver
throughout the deadline. At a workplace, if it is run right, you can always
make sure the conditions for the deadline are met a long time before the
> * Both provide opportunities to procrastinate and to waste time on
> peripheral/irrelevant tasks.
Right. But that alone cannot make the analogy stand.
Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
I don't believe in fairies. Oops! A fairy died.
I don't believe in fairies. Oops! Another fairy died.