This is a very misleading article. Many of the people they use as examples come from an earlier era when college was much less common. Of the recent founders they mention, most did go to college; they just didn't graduate.
My advice would be: college is valuable, but what's valuable about it is the experience, not the degree.
My thoughts exactly but i am having tough time conveying that to others. I am not sure if it is inherent human "thing" to like titles or it will slowly fade away like having finished high/elementary school.
See it's not that I wanted to go to college. What happened was, I turned 18, and what do you know I wasn't yet a billionaire entrepreneur.
College is a back-up option that lets you get a job and make 60k a year to support yourself, just in case you don't go IPO before your parents kick you out. In my experience it's pretty tough to get a job without a college degree, but if you're a brilliant hacker you'd probably get hired regardless.
It is difficult for a brilliant hacker to get hired, especially for what they are really worth, with no track record. Going to a good college and excelling is a good starting track record.
Also, you must continue to live in your parent's basement, who else would guard the fort?
Build your own track record (by writing code). After all, having a 4.0 GPA isn't much of a differentiator, and GPA is a poor indicator of programming ability anyway.
It's possible to get a good programming job without a college degree as long as you've done enough interesting coding projects outside of school. I didn't have any trouble landing interviews after I got kicked out of college, and I chalk this up almost entirely to the fact that I was able to fill out my resume with hobby projects I'd done previously. With a barren resume I would've been dismissed at the first filter, regardless of what I claimed to be able to do.
4.0 GPA shows the other side of you: discipline, be able to set your priority, focused and of course, intelligence. You wouldn't get 4.0 if you're not smart, except if you go to Podunk college.
Of course it doesn't necessarily translate to good programming ability because one has no 10 years programming experience. But it's what people perceived to be "RAW talent".
By the way, there are people who are good at programming but not great at solving complex problem. There's a reason why Google hired PhD and MSc to build the search engine. Compare that to Reddit people. Reddit people can code I give them that, but they can't write a site "search" feature.
A 4.0 GPA just shows that you can do all of the rote busy work and that you care about your GPA. It shows that you can memorize enough of the crap to regurgitate it on the test. Smart people can do that too, but you don't need to be smart to get a 4.0. You just need to give the professor whatever (s)he expects. If you want to do well in school, you'd do best to not think and just do exactly what you're told. This is the secret to earning a 4.0 GPA.
I agree that a 4.0 GPA shows "discipline", so if you're looking to raise an army of robots, you probably would do best to reject anyone who doesn't have a 4.0 GPA. I disagree that it indicates your "priorities" are straight -- all it shows is that your priorities are aligned with the priorities that are socially prescribed, not that you have your priorities figured out. Why should someone place a high importance on GPA? Isn't it just a waste of time and effort? Aren't happiness, learning, and curiosity more important?
"By the way, there are people who are good at programming but not great at solving complex problem."
I fully agree. But I think the implication here is that people with a 4.0 are good at solving complex problems. If so, that's total bullshit. You can get through a Computer Science degree never solving any hard problem nor thinking at all. You have to copy the example the professor gives and follow his recommendation as closely as possible. If you show any creativity or thought, you will be punished.
People with a 4.0 who solve hard problems aren't able to solve problems because of their 4.0s -- they are able to solve them despite their 4.0s. They were able to get a 4.0 GPA without turning into a robot, now that is impressive!
If I was hiring programmers, I wouldn't dismiss someone for having a 4.0 GPA, but having a 4.0 doesn't tell me anything useful about them at all. They still have to prove themselves to me, from scratch. Having a 4.0 would put up one barrier though: they'd have to also show me that they didn't have a robot's personality.
/if it isn't already obvious from the acerbic tone of this post, yes, I had a bad time in the school system :)
Is there any substantial point to institutional higher education today? The only possibilities I can think of are:
1. Research that isn't tied down by practical concerns.
2. Professors can help people learn the material faster than on their own.
1 is good, and from my very limited knowledge seems to be fairly strong, but fading, in academia. 2, of course, depends on the person, and the emphasis on grades can slow a person down, as you say. I'm churning through the busy work right now in my courses, since grades still matter at least for their appearance.
In my opinion, our educational model needs to be majorly revamped, or augmented. I know a couple people here went to Amherst, and I quite liked what I saw on their website.
I think we need a cultural shift that places less emphasis on grades and college, and more emphasis on results and direction. I think most people will still go to college, but there need to be socially endorsed options for people who don't want to go to college, or can't handle college. But yeah, I agree that the educational system needs to be fixed, majorly.
My mom still wishes I had a college degree so that I would have the stamp of being a bona fide "educated person". She knows I am doing fine and that I have options in life, but she thinks it'd be great if I went back and finished my BS. At least she gave up on the idea that some day I'd grow up to be a neurosurgeon... :-)
What happened these days is that company like Google and Microsoft higher smart and experienced students.
If you have 3.2 GPA and have experience with open source, you're qualified to be interviewed.
If you have 4.0 GPA, you're also qualified.
If you have 4.0 GPA and have experience (internship), you'll get an offer :).
It's both. Everybody wants the best talent available. For students coming out the school, GPA is what differentiate them the most because companies do not expect them to have tons of experience. They're hiring talent.
I don't know why we need this huge cultural shift and stuff like that because clearly our current systems are working fine.
There are outliers (people who have 4.0 GPA but sucks at coding), it's unfortunate but everybody has to deal with outliers everywhere and anywhere.
My advice would be: college is valuable, but what's valuable about it is the experience, not the degree.