No it isn't? It is necessary for some high paying careers, like working in medicine. But, I am certainly a software developer, for a very large company, pretty happy with my paycheck, and I have no degree. Nobody even ever asked me about it.
Whether or not it helps is another story, I am not claiming a degree is literally useless. I am however a little rubbed the wrong way by claims that you need a degree to ever have a job that pays good, that seems false.
Not surprising. If Target has that power in the market to demand that, why not? They are doing $60M/year in sales per store, plus employing 50+ in each store, so it makes sense they want the highest skilled workers to manage so much responsibility. Not saying you learn the necessary skills to do this job in undergrad though.
I know a SWE at Google who is <20 and does not have a degree. So it certainly is possible, and it implies that you don't need 10+ years of experience to break into FAANG without a bachelor's.
Totally agree, nothing in my comment suggested otherwise
I feel like you're pulling the HN staple "anti anecdata" card when my point wasn't "you're wrong because I exist" & was instead "you're wrong because your metric says people who skip post secondary, collect a meagre salary initially, & eventually end up at FAANG by age 30 should've paid thousands of dollars to attend post secondary until their mid twenties to end up there instead."
At the best paying FAANG-type firms, the vast majority of developers have a degree. The employees there that don't have a degree typically had to spend a large part of their career working at crappier shops building their resume before becoming employable at a more desirable company, whereas the college graduates could get the cushy jobs right out of school.
Not having a degree in CS certainly limits how far up the ladder you can go. For most jobs at FAANG companies the #1 requirement is a degree. You can be the highest level senior developer at a company but you'll never make director or vp without a degree.
This is completely false. If you have the strategic insight, networking, management, and communication skills to become a director or VP at a FAANG, I promise you no one in the C-Suite is saying, "Gee I don't know, they didn't finish their bachelor's degree." People who grow into those roles do so by establishing a track record over 10+ years. At that point no one cares what they were doing when they were 21.
The people who went to MIT didn't need to spend 10+ years "establishing a track record" before getting a desirable job, people took them seriously right out of college.
It isn’t a criteria for the promotion ladder at Google. True, it may be a hard requirement for VP, I can neither confirm nor deny, and I don’t care either. But this is moving the goal posts; I don’t know by what definition my job would not be considered high paying. Certainly pays good enough for me.
Those companies generally have a technical ladder that runs parallel to the management ladder.
High-level engineers can have more influence within the company and often earn more than directors and VPs, and most developers who want to move up the ladder don't aspire to become a director or VP -- they'd rather be a Distinguished Engineer, Fellow, etc.
Gates (and Zuckerberg) went to Harvard, and would probably have had a much harder time getting venture capitalists to take them seriously if they did not have Harvard on their resume. They aren't proof that college doesn't matter, they are proof that an elite college matters a lot, but graduating matters a lot less simply than attending and getting access to the network.
I agree with you on Zuckerberg since he was chosen as the winner among a lot of competitors by the VCs. I am not sure what criteria the VCs used.
Microsoft was generating cash by writing interpretors before they brought a VC on board. They only brought in a VC for advice and not money - so they still count. Although Gates' mother also had a lot of contacts in the Seattle upper crust. I doubt Gates needed Harvard outside of finding Ballmer.
Apple got VC funding though contacts made on the job not at school. Jobs went to a Liberal Arts college for less than a year. The Homebrew Club also had a big impact on early Apple. Several members of the Homebrew Club founded companies and they all kept track of each other.
Similarly with Oracle and Larry Ellison. Ellison spent some time at two Chicago universities but his contacts and training were largely on the job.
After thinking about this over night I do believe that the difference between Zuckerberg and Gates is telling.
It used to be that having Harvard on your resume did not mean much in tech since it was not considered a tech school. The feel of the valley changed when John Sculley took over Apple since he was not at all a tech guy. This is just based on my gut, but I saw more Harvard alums after Sculley then before Sculley.
So I looked up the top schools for tech CEOs. This is the ranking of schools with the most CEOs with first round of funding. There were a few surprises for me.
1. Stanford
2. UC Berkeley
3. U of Pennsylvania
4. Harvard
5. MIT
6. Cornell
7. U of Michigan
8. U of Texas
9. Carnagie Mellon
10. IIT
Stanford and Berkeley were not a surprise since I have worked at a bunch of companies founded by Stanford and Berkeley alumni. IIT and MIT were also not surprises.
One thing that skews the results is that a bunch of schools provide masters programs to already successful professionals - so it is not clear that they actually contributed to the success of the alumni.
Whether or not it helps is another story, I am not claiming a degree is literally useless. I am however a little rubbed the wrong way by claims that you need a degree to ever have a job that pays good, that seems false.