This passage underscores how, for this guy and whoever he was selling himself to, a CS degree was just a credential. He did not have much intention of actually learning anything. That’s (I believe) fundamentally different than most people who seek college degrees.
For many/most degrees in the US, most folks are just going through the academic motions for the piece of paper and/or the college social experience.
“Serious” students are largely only found in degree programs that have weeder courses.
I went to a top 20 university, even higher ranked CS program. There were plenty of weeder courses. There were also plenty of students that were only there to get the piece of paper they believed, probably rightly, was necessary to get the job they wanted. All of the CS courses were recorded, attendance never mandatory for lectures. It was not uncommon at all for lectures to be less than half full due to students watching a months worth of lectures right before exams.
I strongly disagree, you are missing the point of competency based education.
It's important to understand that an undergraduate CS degree needs to be accessible even to people without much IT experience. Some people come in with no experience with computers at all.
Look at the names of the first four courses:
C182: Introduction to IT
C172: Network and Security - Foundations
C779: Web Development Foundations
C173: Scripting and Programming - Foundations
Most people on Hacker News would be bored out of their minds taking these courses. Do you know what a computer is? Do you know the difference between HTML and Javascript? Can you write basic scripts using Bash or Python? That's what foundational courses are for.
If you are already beyond this level- which the author clearly was- you can just test out of them. Pass an exam to prove that you already know this stuff, so then you can move on to more advanced material that's more appropriate for you.
My experience talking with people suggests otherwise. When I became an adult and got a few years into my career, it was surprising to me how few people had anything interesting to say about their line of work even to the point of actual disinterest. Yeah, I know that a lot of people don't like to talk about work, but I'm saying that many people not only avoid the topic of their career but will even tell you they don't really care about or like what they do. I've had so many girls I went on dates with who were completely disengaged with their careers and even admitted they got a degree just to make money. I'm talking girls who were chemical engineers, biologists and so forth. Some genuinely liked what they do, but I think ~70% didn't give a f---.
I'm not blaming people in any way, but I think the reality is that not everyone, or even most, are doing what they do as part of a greater calling. They're just humans trying to get by and maybe have a family. The appreciating value of intellectual work along with the idea that everyone should be well-rounded contributes to this impression that people are doing things like getting degrees for reasons that aren't merely utilitarian, but most of the time I think that's not the case.
Any reason not to think that there was a selection bias for the sample of women who choose to go on a date via the platform you used, or choose to try a date with you?
This is also how the programs are designed - if you fail the course there's no hand holding, you have to do it again or give up the degree. And the support that large universities give for their introductory courses is minimal, so generally your resources consist of the textbook and your lecture notes. The lectures online are just as good if you actually want to learn the material.
Did you intend to include a "not" as in "not for the credentials"? I would think you do a tough EE or Physics (or Classics) because you want to learn the stuff.
That seemed to be the case when I was at MIT, though that was a generation ago. Everybody seemed into their work, despite claiming to be upset by the course load. Complaining about it (IHTFP) seemed to be more of a ritual or social activity rather than earnest protest.
Actually I'd bet it's fundamentally the same reason most people get a degree. Especially lately, it has become in the US nearly the default post highschool choice, mostly due to implicit social pressure and America's unique lack of technical training schools like in e.g. Switzerland
That directly contradicts what the author said about his intentions and experience:
>> While I had some PAs returned for improvements, I made sure to never fail an OA – even if retakes (up to 3-4) were allowed. It wasn’t a race, and my goal wasn’t to brute force my way into a degree. I came for the piece of paper, sure, but I also used it as an opportunity to assess and fill gaps in my knowledge. As a result, I never came close to failing an exam.
I'd say that some people are looking for the "college experience." That's unrelated to education other than by proximity to it.
Most universities will let you audit a course, even graduate courses (if you can convince the professor you have experience in the area) just by paying a fee for that one class. You don't need a credential to do this.
I got my Masters in a field I had already been working in for years, and the majority of the classes I took taught me nothing new since I already knew the subjects. A few taught me some things about subjects I was not familiar with and took some extra effort but overall the classes weren't that useful. But it was still important for me to get that credential on my resume.
It's not just him. At least at the time I was doing it, it was a lot of people in the program. Maybe even half.
At the time, it annoyed me to no end. Not so much anymore. Programming is a well-paid profession with relatively few barriers to entry. The degree is (usually) one of them. Treating it as just another thing you need to get past in order to get to a good career is fine. Good even. Probably saner than my younger self's "I love this and it will consume my entire life for at least a decade" approach to the subject.
The older me kind of wants to have more people like this on my team. There's a certain ruthless logic and economy of effort here that really earns my respect. It might help counterbalance the tendency to get carried away and over-engineer things that many of us "CS is my life's calling" people tend to exhibit.
All across Europe you could generally get somewhere from 10-40% of your credits through "recognition of prior learning", although few students actually take these offers as they either don't know about them or are shy about the admin.
Most European education also is very affordable, e.g. Germany with generally less than 1000€/year for (excellent but crowded) public universities, and many side benefits such as free public transport.
If you talk to many recruiters, depending on the field, the older person's work, supervisorial/managerial experience, and any references can be much more of the deciding factor. Don't get me wrong, degrees and certifications are very nice decorations, but there is no getting around who you know and doing well on the interview.
That a working adult who has already established themselves professionally gets the degree in their later years, can be more about personal pride and dedication to their field, to make sure there isn't any gaps in their knowledge. And perhaps that's where the emphasis should be, showing personal growth and development. Someone taking the time to become better at what they do.
I went to NYU Gallatin for a bit and really wondered what in the world anyone seeing that on a cv would think.
For world record, a few geniuses finished them in a year.
Fastest for someone I know personally: three years from one of the top universities in the US. This is realistic. Can't say they got much out of the program, though. All-in-all, it seemed like a waste of time.
I spent a __long__ time in graduate school, taking interesting courses, travelling the world, and just on learning and intellectual exploration. If you want that, get a Ph.D. Just realize your advisor is just that -- an advisor, and not your boss. You don't need to do what they tell you to do. If you want a slip of paper, consider why you want it, and if you wouldn't be better served by an MBA, MS, or something else. A Ph.D is not all that important, career-wise.
Rushing a BS makes complete sense to me. A Ph.D? Not so much.
I wonder how that gets weighted?
At competitive schools, most likely negatively. Just apply to the graduate program. Getting a WGU degree is not some sign of academic prowess that would rate one highly at an elite university — maybe the equivalent of perfect GPA in a college-bound HS curriculum. Being a big fish in a small pond is not exceptional.
At large state schools, they would just treat it like a CC and let you transfer in a certain number or credits (mostly non-major).
At most other schools, they won’t care as long as you pay them.
> He did not have much intention of actually learning anything.
It’s sounds more like you read this paragraph without much intention of actually understanding anything.
Because of that, most people assume college to be the natural course of progression, even if it isn't a good fit.
A shady online degree is just four clicks away at CGNU online e-niversity.
Most colleges take four years to complete.
At CGNU, one year equals one click.
I just really like computer science, and if I didn't have to work for money, I'd probably spend a substantial portion of my energy learning and playing around with it.
(You're probably right about the average person though: most of my ex-classmates don't care much for computer science, they just wanted well paying jobs—or else didn't know what else to do and went, "Well, I guess I'm good at computers, so...")
I'm not very good at formal education though, so my approach is basically to learn everything before I go back to university, via https://teachyourselfcs.com/
Though at that point I question the value of the actual university, especially as the ones I've been to do not really teach the things I'm interested in, let alone in the way that suits me... heck, even MIT (my benchmark for "a good university") dropped SICP! So I might just get one of those online degrees instead.
If teaching yourself everything before going to university seems odd, consider that university expects you to self-teach anyway -- the university just provides the external motivation (you paid a lot of money and people will judge you if you fail), along with its own complications (poorly designed/scheduled courses, depressingly unmotivated classmates/project partners, sleep-inducing (and sometimes) mandatory lectures).
Much like any other tool or instrument, a degree is invaluable if you have something in mind to use it for. If not, sure, it's just 4 years of trivia but it's pretty clear that's not the fault of the degree.
It saddens me when people don't value a well-rounded education. I find curiosity and learning to be a fantastic thing for all of life.
If this were true, college giving programs wouldn't get funded. Here's how college giving works:
1. call up an alum
2. remind them what a great time they had during college
3. ask them if they would like a future student to have that kind of experience
4. take down the credit card number for a donation, because that's all it takes to get the wallets to open.
If college were really a credential mill, reminding people of their time in college wouldn't inspire them to open their wallets to give us money for nothing in return.
Many WGU students HATE these types of articles, because they undermine the legitimacy of WGU.
WGU was not designed for traditional students, it was 100% designed for working professionals, where WGU will only admit you with a reasonable amount of experience in your field.
WGU is regionally accredited, not nationally, and it's a non-profit. So it cannot be compared to University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, DeVry, etc.
It was founded by a group of governors out west, hence the name. They realized that there were many working adults who possessed a great depth of knowledge, from long working in their fields, yet they had no paper credentials to show for that knowledge.
Their model is competency-based, so you must demonstrate you posses knowledge in any given domain. If you can prove you do then you can test out right away, if you fail to then they offer a variety of resources to allow you to get up to par. In many cases classes are tied to obtaining industry certifications.
It's not for everyone, but it is a far cry from a "degree mill." Does it really matter if a person that has knowledge got it from sitting in a seat, paying ungodly amounts of tuition, or if they got it from life experience? As long as a bar is set, and you can meet it, then that should be what really matters.
Just my personal experience, from having attended the university. Unfortunately life sidetracked my completion, but I hope to return one day soon, and complete my program.
The author learned a lot independently. There's a question of what to do with that knowledge. A system like WGU does a few things:
1) Identify gaps and help fill them. Independent learners almost always develop gaps. One benefits from bringing that knowledge to a uniform "undergrad CS degree" level
2) Provide a certification once that's done.
A traditional university degree takes 4 years, costs $200k, and has mixed quality. Being able to do 75% of that independently, and having an institution gap-fill for a few grand? That sounds awesome.
For brand recognition, I don't see WGU as any better or worse than the 4500+ other random universities and colleges in the US. It doesn't match the top few hundred, but that's okay. Most don't.
I'm not sure who would compare it to Phoenix, ITT Tech, DeVry, or other scams like that.
I'd much more place WGU as more a competitor to ASU. ASU is awesome, and is really trying to pioneer models of innovative, quality, low-cost, scalable education.
I hope one of them succeeds.
By the way, yourself being a former WGU student, would you recommend WGU to a super-gifted kid? E.g. having someone start college there at e.g. age 13? That, plus CMU OMSCS, seems like something they could finish by age 17. Socially, I'm not sure they'd do well starting traditional college early. Academically, middle / high school seems like a waste of time.
Speaking as someone who went to university at 13: Socially I fit in better with my intellectual peers than my chronological peers. Which isn't to say that I fit in well... but at least there was a level of mutual respect. Few educators appreciate the social distance created by a large IQ gap, probably because they haven't experienced it themselves.
As for recommending it to a super-gifted kid - I don't think the program is setup to allow that. You have to have a high-school diploma and at least a bit of work experience to even be admitted. I also think that one drawback of the program is that you can graduate without having written a ton of code, which is fine for someone who's been doing it for a long time, but less ideal for someone who hasn't?
I think that goes for any leanrer, independent or traditional. Ask a random sample of college graduates to lecture for an hour on their degree focus and you will see the evidence of this.
I have no personal experience with WGU or Phoenix or other online unis. But I've met a few folks who graduated from lesser schools (outside the top 200) on traditional campuses. Unless those kids were preternaturally bright and took the initiative to teach themselves (fill the gaps), they often face an uphill battle to recover from the poor preparation that an undemanding and incomplete academic program can inflict on 1) their ability to compete in those skills on the open market and 2) their passion for learning. IMHO, that's a high price to pay.
My advice: don't cheap out on your education.
>That, plus CMU OMSCS, seems like something they could finish by age 17. Socially, I'm not sure they'd do well starting traditional college early. Academically, middle / high school seems like a waste of time.
Apparently even high school is a waste of time. What's not a waste of time for you? Are you to be put directly as head of engineering at Tesla so that someone as gifted as you doesn't "waste" their precious time?
Jesus. Is this how much CS degrees cost in America? I thought that price was only for Medicine :headexplode:
It's pretty disingenious to imply the only thing traditional degree-holding grad students have over somebody with only industry is a "piece of paper". I say this as a former grad student who (with a degree) came out of industry. There are plenty of underwhelming students with only academic experience, but if you had industry-credit and a few terms, where would you get the other skills that I'd argue are far more important than practical experience?
Just want to point out for those that may not know, 85% of universities in the U.S. are regionally accredited [1]. Regional accreditation, which WGU has, is the most prestigious and widely-recognized [1]. Some folks may mistake that nationally is "better", but, as you'll see from the link below, that simply is not the case.
[1] https://www.online.drexel.edu/news/national-vs-regional-accr...
What is "these types of articles"? How does this one "undermine the legitimacy of WGU"? Even a cursory skim-through of the article would show that the author worked hard and learned all of the material that they then passed exams on at WGU. They don't make it out to be a "degree mill" in any way whatsoever.
So the headline makes it sound like "look, here's an easy way to get a piece of paper that says you have a CS degree" when the reality is that they'd already done a lot of the work before enrolling and as AviationAtom notes, WGU works off demonstrating that you have the knowledge.
This isn't "go from zero to CS degree in 3 months". This is "if you already know a lot of your CS stuff, you can work really hard filling in the remaining gaps and showing that you know what you're doing and get a degree in 3 months." Between the associate's degree, a semester at Concordia, and the pre-WGU online courses, they'd probably spent 2-3 years learning.
I think the issue is that the title makes it seem like it's easy. It probably isn't the hardest program, but a decent amount of the author's ease comes from the fact that they had already filled most of the requirements - and just needed to demonstrate their competency. Which seems like it's part of the point according to AviationAtom.
That said, those that have ample available time, and are driven, can benefit greatly from the flexibility of the model. You only pay for the amount of credits you enrolled in for the semester, but when you complete those classes you can accelerate your other classes, without paying extra. It must be done with care though, as you could find yourself with all the classes you were versed in already knocked out for the next semester, and only tougher classes left over. I found that out the hard way.
It is a degree mill.
The difficulty and material of the courses does not in any way compare to what you would get at a real university.
> Their model is competency-based, so you must demonstrate you posses knowledge in any given domain.
The guy took courses at college, online, and worked in the field for over a decade before speedrunning WGU. It seems to me he’s the exact model of “demonstrating competence” that you mention - I don’t see how that makes WGU out to be a degree mill.
What's crazy to me is that it wasn't always the case that you had to go through the formal process of school to achieve credentialing. If you were truly exceptional, and could prove that, you could then get the required credential.
For example it used to be the case that you didn't need to go to law school to take the bar exam. You still don't in a few US states. Law school might make it a million times easier to learn the law and pass, but if you already know it why not go straight to the test?
Another, admittedly extreme, case was Ludwig Wittgenstein getting his PhD from Trinity College. He had already written the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus on his own, then basically showed up and presented it as his dissertation, defended it, mocked his friend Bertrand Russel during defense and got the PhD.
What's crazy to me is that if Wittgenstein was alive today he would not be able to achieve this anywhere. There are plenty of people out there who have done ground breaking work in their field, but because of the orthodoxy today, have zero chance of getting a PhD without going through the entire process.
There's such a huge difference between schools saying "you technically don't need us to get the credential, but it's going to be much, much harder to go it your own way" than "it doesn't matter what you do, if you don't sit here and play by our rules you will never be recognized".
This is where it's hard not to get pretty cynical about the state of higher education today.
> What's crazy to me is that if Wittgenstein was alive today he would not be able to achieve this anywhere.
Not so. Cambridge still does it, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey in 2000.
I know this is tangentially related, but this was so demoralizing I kind of gave up on game dev altogether.
that's a big problem in software TBF. The bar is all over which ways and changes dramatically based on the domain. If we can't agree on a bar, there's not much point in the endless arguments that result while pointing to our own interpretations
> Does it really matter if a person that has knowledge got it from sitting in a seat, paying ungodly amounts of tuition, or if they got it from life experience?
well, the real life experience is much more preferable. But the general model of professional industries unfortunately require sitting in a seat for years and getting a piece of paper before resetting 80% of what you learned with imperfect realities.
I'm glad there is an option like this for a developer thrown out of the market without a degree to fast track their way to that piece of paper, but it's a shame that piece of paper is held in such high regards
Is that different in Europe?
I know American institutions can be very picky about what they accept, so they could be similar. Unless the standards are drastically different I feel any institution failing to recognize an education from another seems wrong, but that's a whole different rant.
I think the education system everywhere has much catching up to do with modern society. It used to be that much professional knowledge could really only be obtained in the classroom, now anyone with a desire and access to the Internet can learn much outside a classroom environment.
- A live human proctor watches your screen and webcam the whole time.
- You need to show a 360 degree view of your room, walls, ceiling, table, floor, ears, scratch paper, etc.
- You must use an external webcam elevated on a stand that can see both you and your screen at all times.
- You must show your face and your passport or ID card before each exam.
- You can’t talk, stand up, get out of view, or take a break during the exam.
Although I’m sure some people could find a way to cheat, they make it extremely difficult. I have taken over 30 online proctored exams from WGU, Study.com, Sophia.org, Saylor.org, TOEFL, and Georgia Tech’s OMSCS, and I can confidently say that WGU’s proctoring process was by far the strictest.
You also hadn't completed reading the article. The author covers all of your points in a positive way that in no way describes the institution as a "degree mill".
New headline incoming:
> WGU graduates HATE this! Learn their SECRET, how YOU TOO could GRADUATE IN LESS THAN 3 MONTHS FOR ONLY $5,000
These would not be acceptable in any CS department that I know. The material and exams are at the level of a high school education, nothing more.
You got a piece of paper. You did not get a CS education.
There are bootcamps that are much higher quality than this.
This comment comes off really strongly to me in the direction of gatekeeping.
> These would not be acceptable in any CS department that I know.
Personally, some of the courses I'm taking now are just as hard as those I took during undergrad at a brick-and-mortar university.
I would say that the promised scope & depth of my undergrad courses at my brick-and-mortar university was greater, with interactive lessons, feedback, etc.
On the other hand, to learn that breadth of material takes two interested parties. Often I had professors who wanted to research, not teach. Sometimes the course was taught entirely by TAs after hours. Usually the pace was so fast that I never had time to learn one thing before we moved on to the next.
There were students who did the bare minimum, while others went beyond. That piece of paper symbolizing their "CS education" means much more to some than others.
> You did not get a CS education.
Hard to argue since you haven't defined "CS education", but I'll read it as "..the CS education that my university provides."
I believe it, and acknowledge that not all CS educations are equal.
> There are bootcamps that are much higher quality than this.
I think the goals are different. WGU allows me to study at a slow pace, go as deep or as shallow as I please (while passing a minimum bar) and will grant me a B.S. at the end of it. I already have a job; what I'm missing is the degree.
Perhaps I wouldn't feel such a strong need to get the degree, if it wasn't a prerequisite to even higher education!
The minimum bar is too low.
> Personally, some of the courses I'm taking now are just as hard as those I took during undergrad at a brick-and-mortar university.
I can't argue with your lived experience. But I can tell you, as someone that teaches such courses, the ones offered by WGU are woefully inadequate. The material they cover, the depth in which they do it, the rigor of the problem sets and exams, are all wildly out of tune with what is offered in any CS department that I have ever seen.
> This comment comes off really strongly to me in the direction of gatekeeping.
I don't care about gatekeeping. If WGU wants to offer a CS degree, that's great. Let's get everyone involved. But! Then they should offer a CS degree with the same level of rigor that is expected of any other student in any other CS department.
It is very disingenuous of them to say they provide CS degrees, but then target the courses to such a low level.
> Perhaps I wouldn't feel such a strong need to get the degree, if it wasn't a prerequisite to even higher education!
Except that a WGU degree will not open the doors to even higher education. I cannot imagine a single CS department admitting a PhD student based on their credentials from WGU. The effort required to convince someone that you know what you're doing, is so huge compared to getting the WGU degree, I don't think it contributes much.
Just look at this reddit post from students taking this class and you'll learn everything you need to know https://www.reddit.com/r/WGU_CompSci/comments/maty9w/c950_da...
They are talking about learning about hashmaps (how, at this point in their education???) and it looks like the class can be completed by doing a single project. So yes, this is very unimpressive.
Example DS&A course at Utah: https://www.cs.utah.edu/~miriah/teaching/cs2420/ Following Algorithms course: http://theory.cs.utah.edu/fall18/algorithms/
More than half the classes in the CS BS degree at WGU look like filler too: https://www.wgu.edu/content/dam/wgu-65-assets/western-govern...
imo... bootcamps are much higher quality than most universities. I've interviewed at least 1000 engineers at this point, and I've interviewed a ton of top tier university graduates that are essentially useless and need to be trained up, but most bootcamp graduates can "hit the ground running" (but lack foundational skills). The idea that software engineering is some academic endeavor is so flawed. It's a trade, and should be taught in trade schools.
(note I'm speaking of developers / software engineers. If you want to do computer research (etc) then I lean toward academic backgrounds)
If you're looking for engineers that can code a fullstack application in Typescript/React or a Backend/Front architecture in Python / Go / etc with a JSON API + a swift frontend; bootcampers will probably have a leg up. After all, they learned the specific knowledge to get them there.
If you need an engineer that can do audio dsp programming, embedded bare metal and/or firmware bootstrapping + development, OS design, compiler/VM design, etc; you'd be hard-pressed to find a bootcamper that could do the job without extensive training, let alone hit the ground running.
But ultimately, it's a moot point. After about 4 years, if they care more about the field than just as "a job" or "to pay bills" (e.g., they have a genuine interest and drive), either one will have enough experience to branch out and fill in their gaps.
Who was that said there's a sucker born every day?
They are not, pay $5k, click some shit, adds some water...instant degree.
You're comparing gold to turds.
He was able to do this because:
1. Only foreign language classes and lab sciences had class-participation requirements
2. All classes published a syllabus so where possible he could start the major projects early
3. Most of the lower-division classes were a joke to a smart and motivated person anyways.
4. He convinced an academic advisor to sign off on it (this was arguably the hardest part).
If you're capable of completing 5 semesters worth in 2 semesters, you're probably capable of passing several of those tests with only a little studying over a Summer.
There were other classes without any official CLEP, so the process was to convince a board of professors to orally examine you on a day that they'd rather be with their family on vacation or doing research.
That, in my opinion, is how a merit based education should work. Instead, our system asks: Do you have the support system to and finances to enable you to spend 4 years without earning an income to complete a degree program?
The best I once did was only 48 credits (with the baseline for full-time study being 30 per semester, "normal" class giving 6 credits, european university so only a 3 year bachelors degree) and I was very tired after that semester :D
That sounds like a dream come true honestly.
https://www.coloradocollege.edu/academics/curriculum/
See timeline here: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/academics/curriculum/calenda...
for when each "block" (their term for a single course) start and end
> An audit by the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General, released on September 21, 2017, "concluded that Western Governors University did not comply with the institutional eligibility requirement that limits the percentage of regular students who may enroll in correspondence courses" and that "at least 69 of the 102 courses were not designed to offer regular and substantive interaction with an instructor and, therefore, did not meet the regulatory definition of distance education."
They later kept their federal loan eligibility but it sounds like it might have been a case where they skated by due to a lack of clear guidance.
I think outside of the most elite schools this holds true no matter what. Most people just go through the course motions and that’s that, even engineering students
I wonder if places like RenTech would hire someone with a degree from rentech. I think that the DoD hires folks with degrees from UoP, so I'm not surprised they would. I saw a few folks on Linkedin work at Amazon with degrees from WGU and on their website they list that a few students got accepted to grad programs to Harvard etc. [1].
https://www.uopeople.edu/ WGU reminds me of the uopeople which is in the process of earning regional accreditation.
1. https://www.wgu.edu/alumni/career-support/education-and-prof...
What WGU is though, is mostly self guided learning, you don't have a traditional professor, you have advisors and pooled resources and group study to drive learning and for asking questions. It does work, if you're a very motivated person and learn well without professor / teacher guidance like you would get at a traditional state school.
Is it perfect? No, its definitely not, but its not a diploma mill, and I'd argue its of higher quality than University Of Phoenix and the like.
It's not even structured as a for-profit enterprise.
WGU filled the gap as a working professional. They're extremely affordable too. Would I advise someone who say, is just graduating high school and can get into a state school or good college with scholarships to pivot over to WGU? No, I wouldn't, but they wouldn't benefit from WGU the same way either at that stage of life IMO.
Most federal government jobs that require a degree only require one from an accredited university.
The quality of the degree is not relevant for any but the most sought after positions (e.g., certain state department jobs, federal judge clerkships, etc.).
I think some military folks and some GS folks who want to move up to higher jobs but are prevented by the degree requirement often go to places like WGU. Same holds for masters and doctorate degrees.
From our experience a degree is a mild indicator of performance when hiring at entry levels. We get some great candidates with no degree, and many poor candidates with degrees. Above entry level, the correlation pretty much disappear. I'm really curios what kind of difficulties OP was facing for not having a title.
I don't think we have completely removed a title from our job posting requirements, but it usually uses one of those silly conversions (CS degree or x years of experience).
That makes me wonder, what value would Universities provide if a degree wasn't a signifier anymore? what if all tech companies hired purely based on interview performance and ignored titles even for filtering? I imagine a future where all the knowledge and material is open and free on the internet, and University staff acts more as coaches and mentors, helping people who needs it in a 1-1 fashion. One can dream.
Interview performance is about as low a correlation with job performance as having a degree. (i.e. none) https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-...
If we actually had some way of accurately evaluating performance, it would change the industry.
The internet is a revolution in information availability and communications capability. People can, right now, learn anything they want, anything at all, for free, all they need is interest, dedication and to prioritize setting aside time for it. The business world still largely operates on the old paradigm though: signaling capability through credentials. But as companies find time and time again that the two don't always (or even usually) correlate, they're creating interesting interview processes to assess capabilities. The credential is largely a legacy requirement in environments like this.
The pace of this change is accelerating. I think over the coming decades you're going to see less importance placed on credentials in technical fields, and people will begin to just learn what they're interested in, what can get them ahead in life, on their own time, and try to work in those fields on their merit and capability. I do believe that one day people won't need credentials, they'll only need to prove themselves. This is easier for honest people but harder for grifters and phonies.
Of course, there are jobs for which mindless obedience, willingness to waste hours of your life and capacity to eat shit are defining characteristics for success. Hopefully those jobs go away, but as long as they exist, they'll have senseless requirements like credentials that people will go through the rigmarole to get. Jobs built out of red tape will have red tape.
People will not apply for a job because it wants 10 years of experience for an entry-level job, or some other such nonsense. I have found many employers list a dream sheet, but realistically they are open to accepting candidates with less qualifications, especially when they end up getting very few applicants (due to the hefty qualifications they asked for).
Some of it was stuff I knew really well and only spent an hour or two on, some of it was filler (I now have ITIL v4 and Project+ certifications that were annoying to get and mostly useless?), and some of it was new and interesting (Discrete Math, Computer Architecture, etc..). Overall, it didn't feel like markedly different curriculum from the in-person courses I took at other schools.
Aside from a few terrible classes (the AI course is just a horrendous waste of time), most of them were decent and I felt like I learned something from them. The overall curriculum is a little odd and probably not ideal for someone who has little programming experience. For example, the very first "scripting and programming" course uses C++ to build a simple command-line application, but then you never do anything with C++ again. What is the point of that? I understand how C++ can be useful in a learning context, but I don't think a brief introduction to it really does any good. Two of the biggest courses are big JavaFX projects, which ughh.. fine, but I think there are probably more useful things to teach.
I understand that a CS degree is more about theory than getting job-related skills, but a few of the decisions made serve neither very well. So if I had one knock on the program, it is that someone who comes in with little programming experience is probably going to come out of it without having written much code that resembles what they'd be doing in a job.
Overall, it was a really good experience and it feels good to finally finish up after all these years. I am currently applying for the Georgia Tech OMSCS program, which is a common route for WGU graduates. That one is fairly rigorous and cannot be sped through, so looking at several more years for that, but at the end of it all, a BS + MS in Computer Science in around 5 years and under $20k total seems like a decent result?
First, I realized I wanted to dig deeper into CS topics. I love this field more every year I am in it and wanted to round out my knowledge in some areas. Getting a master's degree and the courses that are part of that seemed like a good way to accomplish that - I've taught myself a lot over the years, but that route leaves some areas untouched. You don't always know what you don't know, plus having deadlines, goals, etc helps keep me on task even when something feels like it isn't immediately relevant. So, getting a BS was the first step in that goal.
Second, as I progress more through my career, there are some interesting positions that require, or at least favor, some kind of degree. I feel like having one or both gives me more options and flexibility.
No normal college can afford that many warm bodies calling. That tells you that either their profit margin per student is MUCH higher, or their student volume is way higher (they take everyone).
It's a valid red flag.
An example of a non-clickbait title for this article:
"I already knew computer science; here's how I got the piece of paper in 3 months"
The title is written in an intentionally vague way to entice a potential viewer into clicking it.
If the title was: “I Got a CS Degree in 3 Months for Less Than $5000 from WGU”, that’s not clickbait because it tells a more complete story.
(But telling the whole story from the title means people won’t click, so that’s why it’s written like that)
I wanted to complete a CS degree there, since I already have a lot of credits from elsewhere, which I officially transferred to WGU. But then they told me I can't be in CS because I don't have pre-Calculus completed. WAIT WHAT? Right there on my transcript, there are completed 'MATH 460 Math Modeling' and '696 Applied Math Project' and 'MATH 394 Probability and Statistics', which all obviously cover pre-Calc, but no - the appraisers think I might not be able to handle Calculus I so they won't let me go to CS (but I'm welcome to do some IT course).
I’m in the same situation, self taught, dropout, been working for a nearly a decade—except no one has ever given a fuck.
More info is in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYU_Pathway_Worldwide
...and https://www.byupathway.org/
That first semester especially. These people are all very familiar with the various iterations of CES, from early-morning and release-time seminary to the BYU religion curriculum and Institute. So on the one hand they had an idea what they were getting into and even welcomed it somewhat. But none of them expected it to be as heavy-handed as it was.
If the religious content feels that overbearing for active, committed Mormons, I don't know that I could in good conscience recommend this route to non-Mormons.
Time is money, if they force you to take more time they are increasing the total actual cost of education.
I was wondering if getting the degree translated into any professional benefits? The conventional wisdom is that degrees don't matter, but the author in this blog post says otherwise and they unfortunately have not written a follow-up. I personally have a degree, so don't have perspective.
In government you often get higher pay for having a degree, so it ends up being a box that must be checked if you want to advance further up the pay scales.
... this is not a CS degree. The author is crazy motivated, but this is more a reflection of the crumbling foundations of higher ed in the US.
It looks like someone can come out of this program and not know what big-O is, and what it is of major algorithms in computer science. Sure you can get by day-to-day, but a Computer Science degree should entail:
- algorithmic complexity
- turing machine vs stack machine vs state diagram
- computer organization
- programming languages
You come out of that with a circuits-to-programming language awareness of how things get translated and executed to the lowest level along with algorithmic complexity and estimation and awareness of "what a computer can calculate".
This looks like it falls short, but the devil is in the details.
Wait, aren't Canadian universities very affordable? Is the problem lack of university spots for students?
Personally, the problem was time, not money. I couldn’t find a single university in Canada that would let me complete a bachelor’s degree online in less than 2 years, let alone 3 months. This is despite having 3-4 years of post-secondary education in the field (equivalent of an associate’s degree, plus a semester of university credits).
Now that remote learning is ubiquitous due to COVID-19, I suspect there might be more options for Canadians seeking accelerate their education.
While studying at WGU, I also tracked 100% of my computer/phone/TV usage with ActivityWatch.
I wrote a paper showing that over 80% of my learning sessions could be accurately detected and classified from my computer usage logs:
https://miguelrochefort.com/Rochefort_2021_Academic_Time_Tra...
Sure, yes, general education is important. And this is what secondary education should be for. The idea of consuming a year (or more!) of someone's time while pursuing a STEM degree on such coursework is, in my opinion, deeply misguided.
This is particularly true in a systems where a student is paying from $30K to $60K per year for this education. Sorry, but, if I have to spent $50K per year the last thing I want to do is burn it on course work that is utterly irrelevant.
Taken a different way, this means that a STEM Bachelors in the US could be completed in three, rather than four years. That is huge. That means higher graduation rates and people available to work faster.
That does not mean that nobody would or should take these courses. If someone is interested in sociology, history or political science, by all means, provide the courses as electives --not as graduation requirements.
Let's be free market and let the market decide. You can stipulate that a student must take five electives to graduate. These electives are not on forced subjects. You can take more STEM courses or choose to go into non-STEM classes (geography, world history, business, whatever).
Yes, this would likely reposition some of the stuff nobody cares about. And that's the right way to do it. If you have to pay back $200K to $300K in student loans, the system should not force you to burn 1/4 of that cash on bullshit no company is ever going to pay you for.
I truly think this is one of the great injustices, and maybe even the tyranny, of a system that, in my opinion isn't connected to reality at all. These non-STEM courses are cheap (in terms of the cost of offering them) courses that universities stuff into the student's shopping cart. The profit margin on these is probably outstanding when compared to some of the other subjects (for example, Chemistry requires labs; Robotics requires machine shops, tools, etc.).
From a competitive perspective, any nation that can focus their STEM degrees strictly around STEM to graduate people with the same capabilities as the US in 3 years rather than 4 is going to have an advantage over the long run. Not only are out graduates absolutely saddled with ridiculous debt, they have to invest another year or more for the same job-relevant education. Like I said above, no company is going to pay someone for that shit.
Sadly, I don't think this will ever change. There is no political value in going after this issue. If politicians can't use something to their benefit, it gets no attention at all.
Additionally, he transferred in a bunch of credit from elsewhere, and had watched multiple MIT lectures, so it's hardly 3 months of effort.
I spent months trying to get my brick-and-mortar to allow me to complete my B.S. remotely; I had dropped out after junior year for startup reasons.
Long story short, the idea that an adult working full time might want to complete their degree without dropping $65k wasn't acceptable (of course COVID forced the university remote.)
Then my partner began a WGU Master's program and told me about it.
Although I wasn't able to transfer in most of my courses (older than 5 years), I was able to transfer a chunk of gen-eds. Now I'm slowly but surely working through the degree, diving much deeper into math topics than I ever did before.
I have the time to actually understand things instead of passing by the skin of my teeth. I also have the choice to skip a topic entirely if I know its contents.
It can be a slog, and there are times where it appears a gargantuan task. But I'm learning, and the challenge of doing it while working full time gives me great confidence.
Make sure you match with an excellent mentor to cheer you on while holding you accountable.
Now, some things to consider:
* I value the friends and shared experience I made @ brick-and-mortar university. This doesn't replicate that at all.
* Prices, although relatively low, have risen.
* Self-motivation is critical.
* No detailed feedback on projects.
I appreciate it for what it is: a self-motivated, self-paced escape hatch for those who want to earn a degree, where your experience is valued, and your bank account is respected.
What I would like to have is a topic approach one. It should be fully online with facilities for student communication such as Discord and online assignment/project submission.
One example: let's say I want to learn OS. The course chain will look like this: Programming class, Comp arch using C and assembly, Data structure, and then straight into OS.
In modern universities you can apply as independent students but the process is often a bit tedious. Also you have to go through a lot of red tapes just to remove some pre-requisite, e.g. as a Math student I don't need Discrete math, and as a Data Engineer I don't need the basic programming class at least, but in reality it's really difficult to get these done easily, if at all.
Of course I can just go to say Berkeley and download their course materials and learn for free. I figured I'm not smart/persistent enough to go through it on my own, so paying some $$ to get a proper learning platform is a better option. Really wish universities such as MIT or Berkeley has such options but I know it's too much for them. Once they open the gate there will be too large a demand to handle.
I've had another job since then and am earning more still. I would say at least for IT degrees WGU is worth it. It gives you the sheet of paper HR needs to let you in through the door for cheap, plus a bunch of certs that helps your resume stand out. Not a bad deal if you have any autodidactive capability.
I created a career in IT by getting a job (2000) and working full time over the years. I got certifications on my own that I transferred in for credit with WGU.
I have now been teaching full time in an IT program at a community college for 2 years and have also developed and manage 2 different MS level online classes for a traditional B&M university you have definitely heard of.
I can tell you, unequivocally, that what I had to do to complete my degrees with WGU was more rigorous than what I am requiring my students to do now (not my choice ... chain of command). The grading was harder at WGU than what I am permitted to do now with my students in the CC and B&M MS classes. I have now been on each side of the "WGU is not legit" argument. Anyone who thinks this is very wrong. No, it's not Stanford or MIT, it's not supposed to be ... though I'm sure grade inflation and special treatment happens at those places. There is no special treatment or grade inflation at WGU. You take a cert exam, take a test, or submit a paper to an unknown grader. You either pass or you don't. Simple as that. If you know your stuff, move on. If you don't ... learn it to move forward. It's meritocracy at its best. That is NOT the traditional University way.
I would included the OP in this ... he states in the end of his blog post that "The program is not the most rigorous." How does he know this having not attended other university recently? How does he know this not having developed or taught classes at other universities or colleges. He's right about the clear value that can be attained from combining knowledge, experience and work ethic to a WGU degree. He's wrong about the rigor.
IMO: WGU is not the place to LEARN, it's the place you PROVE WHAT YOU KNOW.
I prepared for a decade to graduate in CS in three months - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25467900 - Dec 2020 (374 comments)
You will get some CS knowledge working in the field, but its akin to any field where someone can get by learning how to do X without understand the theoretical underpinnings of X. CS is the theory and study of computation. A trained computer scientist should be able to understand computation and information in terms of abstract models, the mathematics behind those models, and reason with those models. CS can be seen as something only tangentially related to physical computers, it is the academic study of problems and problem solving.
This is not something you can learn in less than a year of study. Anyone selling you a CS degree without making you take a theory of computation is also really doing you a disservice. A lot of people have a degree in CS these days who really lack the fundamentals of the science portion of CS.
I will also say, as this person appears to be only a bit older than myself(I would say OP is no older 30) it doesn't shock me at all that they could have learned everything a degree would have taught you eventually just by reading things online. Other than some some algorithms(eg flow, more advanced trees) and some discrete math I can believe you'd hit on most of what a CS degree could offer, if you're willing to find it for yourself that is...
https://www.wgu.edu/online-it-degrees/it-certifications.html
I know this sounds really sketchy so here are my thoughts.
* Most undergraduate-level college courses (from any school) are stupid easy, especially 101-level classes. You could skip every lecture, spend 3 hours studying before the final exam and still pass with a B or better. This is what I did for 2 years at a traditional state school where I studied mechanical engineering. At WGU it is exactly the same, except you don't need to wait until the end of the term to take the exam. You can schedule the final exam on day 1 of the term and then move on to the next course if you pass.
* It's not that hard to get through a textbook quickly if you are disciplined. If there are 20 chapters, read 5 per day and you will finish in 4 days. On day 5 wake up early, take a practice test, review the questions you missed and re-read those sections, repeat 3-4 times and you should be scoring 80-90%, that's a pass so schedule the final exam for that evening. After these 5 days of studying you will be better prepared than the average college student, who generally fucks around all term, shows up for lectures but doesn't pay attention, and hardly reads the textbook at all, but somehow still passes.
* Lectures and videos are a waste of time, reading is more efficient
* It helps massively if you can study full time. I took out loans to pay the rent and tuition and didn't work a side job. I studied 9-5 every day like it's my full time job. I paid back my loans after 1 year of working.
* The hardest courses take 10-15 times as long as the easiest ones. Data Structures and Algorithms, Computer Architecture and Discrete Mathematics etc. are the big ones and this model lets you spend more time on that and less time on bullshit.
* Controversially, WGU makes sure you learn SQL really, really well and glosses over Linear Algebra. I find my SQL skills to be extremely useful on the job. I've since studied Linear Algebra on my own time, but I haven't found any uses for it outside of my game development hobby.
* No, you can't master a subject you spent 1 week studying. But that's true of all undergraduate courses, not just WGU, which is why new grads struggle with basic leetcode questions unless they grind leetcode outside of school. In my opinion the purpose of a bachelor's degree is to teach you the basics and bring you to the point where you can get an entry level job and study on your own, which WGU's BSCS absolutely does do.
* Getting a degree in 3 months might seem impressive, but it's not. The average college student might spend 4 years at school, but if you only count the time they are actually studying, it's not going to be more than a couple of months. And when they do study, it's not effective, it's not goal oriented, they study out of obligation and fear of failure which leads to procrastination and burnout and all-nighters before exam day that aren't very productive.
Can anyone suggest some other options good to get a degree with reasonable price? I really dont mind studying, but I certainly dont have several years and tons of money to go to traditional university.
Could someone elaborate on what this part means?
