I don't think its that universities are dumbing it down for $$$. It's that they are teaching and testing on skills that are not related to 99% of software development.

I went to University of Texas, and managed to do really well on all the tests and projects without learning how to code. But that wasn't because anything was easy. There were a lot of very tough math, and logic classes that some of my class mates who had been working on open source projects since they were 16 did terribly at. It's not easier skills, it's just different skills.

99% of software development challenges are how do you write/maintain large projects without getting totally crushed by the complexity. This is a skill that no one tries to teach, and is also very hard to teach. Similar to being a good writer, it is very subjective, and CS professors are very uncomfortable grading subjectively. It's also harder to create homework for students than just building out toy projects.

I'm of the opinion that it's both problems in many ploaces.

Is this really true? At Berkeley and other UC schools, the programs are often "impacted", meaning they are looking for reasons to kick people out (or, more likely, deny them entry in the first place). A bad early semester with a C in physics and B- in calculus (not at all uncommon at places with less grade inflation) can spell the end of your CS major. People get bounced from this degree all the time.

Just for the record, I don't approve of this. I'm all for standards, glad they exist, but I think some UC schools are pretty callous in how they treat students. I admire those who get through, but there are plenty of people who would have made wonderful contributions if they'd had just a bit more understanding and breathing room. I think Berkeley wastes people because they know there will always be another 10 lined up to take someone's place.

Can't say I love privates in every way, but really, it's a good thing to try to work with someone who is new to college and struggling rather than kicking them straight to the curb.

"A bad early semester with a C in physics and B- in calculus (not at all uncommon at places with less grade inflation) can spell the end of your CS major." Which is terrible because the amount of physics a software engineer will use is non-existent.

Cornell was the same way, our first semester weed-out calculus class MATH 1910 was "curved" to a B- median grade.

At the end of freshman year, everyone who wanted to major in CS had to apply to gain entrance into the CS degree program.

If you got a C in weed-out calculus, you were in troubled academic standing, and you would have to retake MATH 1910 until you got the B-, otherwise you wouldn't get accepted into the CS major.

Other majors had similar, and often less-stringent, degree requirements.

I'm on the job market (I do a lot of contracting so I'm perpetually so) and I've seen a slow increase in job listings that specify a degree and exclude "or equivalent experience". Decision makers need to double check what their HR people are posting or they may, emphasize may, end up with a degreed (not in Chrome's dictionary), homogeneous group of type swappers.

Perhaps ironically, don't academic types feel they are enlightened by their education? So requiring a degree for doing the same job one has done for several decades, an exclusionary act; seems to me to be at odds with their open, enlightened views.

I was contacted yesterday by a recruiter for a startup. He said, "you have over two decades of experience doing exactly what we need but our founders are graduates of <fancy place 1> and <fancy place 2> and I think they probably will require someone with a degree.".

I thanked him, I couldn't even remember applying there, I guess he just wanted to reach out and let me know how he felt.

It's pretty silly to require a degree. Like, you only get so many job applicants, and you have to filter them down somehow into job offers, and everything that isn't "how good is their code" ends up hurting how good of a programmer you wind up with.

Granted, sometimes you want to make the tradeoff - there are some truly toxic people with zero professionalism and beautiful code, after all. It's just obvious to me that I'd rather have better code than someone with a piece of paper from a university.

>It seems true even for the higher tier degrees too. It seems even a masters degree isn't a good indicator. In the past year alone I've watched several guys with masters enter and then promptly leave our startup due to having just absolutely no idea how to write software. :(

is this a problem with degrees or the interview process? How did they get the job without ever proving they knew anything about software?

Having a degree doesn't necessarily mean you have a clue about the architecture of software, how to separate data from the GUI, or even have a full grasp of a simple language. I do not have a degree but having worked with degree holders who came to the company fresh from University, I can safely say that some of them hadn't a clue about how to write software (this was C++).

The skills required for writing software only truly come about if set your own project at home and work through it and write it fully.

Well, it's a problem with the degree as a signaling device and a problem with the interview process if it repeatedly produces false negatives of a similar type.