I don't know; there is the issue of when you try to find your next job that is not a straight continuation of your last. Without a CS degree if your first job is like a front-end ReactJS worker-bee then all you have told your potential next employer is that you can do what Figma's AI can do, just for more money. I agree that as you gain experience, the significance of the degree is lessened by the wait of your experience but if you took your same resume and deleted the education section, and never mentioned it in interviews, I think there would be some difference in outcomes.
Even for someone with a degree in philosophy I think the last couple paragraphs are over-thinking things a lot here. I have never heard university described that way. The Rumsfeld thing about "unknowns unknowns" is clever I guess. :)
I take issue with your idea that it is "tier 2+" that are the only programs that are worth it. When you make statements like that, or prognostications of that nature, you have to think about how it actually is in reality and not as the kinds of base opinions that are found in Reddit CS careers subs. I think this varies widely for employers and even within teams of large employers, depending on who is the person doing the hiring. Even at a simplistic level having a degree from a regionally accredited institutions will decide whether you pass the first HR screen, so it cannot be equivalent to no credential at all.
This just fails a basic real world sensibility test. Are you saying a CS grade from Montana State University that is a hiring manager at FAANG (maybe even the most famous one) is going to consider someone with a degree from Stevens or Florida Institute of Technology to be equivalent to someone without a degree? I don't know if you are aware but there many people employed CS grads that did not attend the top 3. Also, I don't know about tiers, but these rankings are largely based on research and not quality of undergraduate program or outcomes.
The idea of telling someone that doesn't have a degree that wants to know of if attaining a degree could likely help their career that they should not go if it is not "tier 2+," whatever that is, is just kind of malpractice. Georgia Tech is not the only school that offers such a degree that is equivalent to their in-person program. I would agree that you should choose a school that has a traditional program for which this online program is just a different modality, rather than one of these online-only predatory type of schools.
The competitive landscape in 2025 is not like it has ever been before for CS grads - and I graduated in 1996.
It would be “malpractice” to suggest anyone waste time on a CS degree from anything less than tier 2+ school. My degree is from a no name state college so I’m definitely not looking down on anyone.
It’s not “conjecture” that today’s job market is worse for CS grads than it has been at any time since I graduated and you need every competitive advantage you can get. Doors aren’t going to open for you because you got a degree from WGU, Devry or some no name state college.
I can't tell whether this is intentionally or unintentionally hilarious because you add an additional conjecture with no evidence immediately afterwards. My experience would lead me to think that any accredited degree vs no degree would be an advantage, but I don't present it as fact, as you just did.
Is that actually true that you cannot to university after 25 in France? You could do Open University from the UK online; I think it is quite a credible program. It's open to almost anyone in the world as far as I know. If you are diligent, you can probably finish in 3 years even with a full-time job, but this depends on the person.
I'm curious why you think it would be worse for everybody? This argument seems to depend on the assumption that if something makes AI less viable then the situation for human beings is worse overall. I don't think many actual people would accept that premise.
I hear you ... but I think you are massively downplaying how much many creators are earning a living largely off of YouTube monetization. You are right about that for some portion of creators but there are many that are earning most of their income off monetization (both from ads and premium).
HN has this very unique and strange type of reasoning. You’re actually asking why would mathematics be any different than woodworking because CNC machines? It’s like aby issue can be reduced to the most mundane observations and simplicity because we have to justify all technology. Professional mathematics requires years of intense and usually, i.e. almost always, in graduate schools and the entire machinery of that. You’re comparing something many people do as a hobby to the life’s work and f others. of course you can have wave all this away with some argument but I’m not sure this type of reasoning is going to save the technocrats when it he majority of people realize what this app portends for society.
No Im not — I’m comparing two fields that range from hobby to professional, both of which I’ve worked in professionally. But for which automation occurred at different times.
> You’re comparing something many people do as a hobby to the life’s work and f others.
You’re denigrating the talents and educational efforts of artisanal woodworkers to make a shallow dismissal of my point.
I think you might be on to something. I heard Google Gemini has a best in class system for depicting historical figures accurately, it is extraordinarily unphased by “modern audience” political bias.
The cost of robotics is coming down, check out Unitree. A couple of robot arms would cost about the same as a minimum wageworker for 1 year right now. But of course they can go virtually 24/7 so likely 1/3rd the cost
It's quite telling that these discussions often end up at conclusion that we are becoming a developing (or 3rd world) country again, and not Star Trek society.
