Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ph.Ds From MIT, Berkeley, and a Few Others Dominate Top School's CS Faculties

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the not-all-colleges-are-created-equal dept.

Education 155

An anonymous reader writes "A Brown University project collected the background information of over 2,000 computer science professors in 51 top universities. The data shows a skew in their doctoral degrees, "Over 20% of professors received their Ph.D. from MIT or Berkeley, while more than half of professors received their Ph.D. from the [top] 10 universities." For those professors, fewer work in theoretical computer science and there is a growing trend of recent hires in systems and applications. The original data is also publicly-editable and available to download."

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So the conclusion is... (4, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#47088123)

...if you want a low paying job in your field after you graduate, get your doctorate from one of the best schools in the country.

Got it!

Re:So the conclusion is... (3, Interesting)

roger10-4 (3654435) | about 4 months ago | (#47088713)

A Comp. Sci. professor is not low paying position - especially at a top university. Some of these places pay more than the private sector. You also have the added bonus of possibly getting tenure.

Re:So the conclusion is... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#47088743)

how do you have 51 top universities? and if they're so top - how come 20 of the profs come from 2 of them?

Re:So the conclusion is... (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 4 months ago | (#47089687)

If you understood statistics, you'd be able to answer your own question.

Re:So the conclusion is... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#47088781)

...if you want a low paying job in your field after you graduate, get your doctorate from one of the best schools in the country.

Wow. As someone else posted, these are certainly not low-paying jobs. And that's just the salary. I take you have absolutely no clue how much some of these guys can demand for consulting gigs???

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088131)

Ivy league academia is a circle-jerk

Re:No surprise (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47088221)

Ivy league academia is a circle-jerk

Except that only three of the "top ten" schools in the list are in the Ivy League, and none of those are in the top five.
Here is the list from TFA:
MIT
UC Berkeley
Stanford
Carnegie Mellon
Univ of Illinois
Princeton
Cornell
Univ of Washington
Georgia Tech
Harvard

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089637)

Ivy League isn't a qualifier for top CS schools. That's more liberal arts. Aside from Harvard, those might not be the top schools for producing erudite professors who can quote Shakespeare or Chaucer and shun Webster's dictionary in favor of the OED, and they might not field the best rowing team crews. But the point is whether the students can code and innovate algorithms.

dream on (-1, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#47088185)

I'm the CIO of my company and we don't hire rich kids. They're spoiled, self-important, arrogant assholes who don't listen to instruction. So if mommy and daddy sent you to a $50,000 a year college, good fucking luck getting a job with someone like me who is wise enough to avoid you. You're automatically disqualified. Unfortunately, most of the world is too stupid to see things the way I do. I got 2 degrees from a local but extremely good technical school. Immediately after that I won several programming competitions and on a national Tek Systems/Aerotek exam I beat 88% of their programmers worldwide. So I'm one of the best programmers anyone could hope to hire. Unfortunately, I'm CIO now instead because NOBODY would hire me as a programmer without a degree from a more expensive school. That's right, they ignored my actual proven ability to do the job in favor of someone who went to a better college because their parents had more money. What a load of shit.

Re:dream on (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088223)

At least you haven't let it make you bitter.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088501)

Or let anything go to your head.

Re:dream on (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47088249)

So...how come that "actual proven ability" didn't translate into founding your own company?

Re:dream on (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#47089167)

I work 25 hours as CIO of a 150 person landscaping company with 50 PCs and 3 servers and work 27 hours at a computer repair company that I started myself and currently solely own. I put most of my competition out of business by being faster and better and simply keeping up on the latest virus and hardware trends. Why didn't I start my own software design company in the middle of Wisconsin? Maybe because I'm not an idiot. I did complete a paid project on my own for a software suite to dump XML data into 3 proprietary Access databases for dog agility trial scoring and ranking management right after college and loved the project. It still didn't lead to a job though despite the software being flawless and needing zero patches for years. So considering I'm 26, I'd say things works out appropriately but I'm still pissed that nobody let me work in software programming because of their inaccurate misconceptions about colleges.

Re:dream on (2)

magical liopleurodon (1213826) | about 4 months ago | (#47089537)

middle of Wisconsin?

That might be half your problem. Still, I see where you're coming from. On the other side of that, many technical schools are just degree mills. Lots of candidates come out of technical schools that look good on paper and then when you hire them, it's like they never attended a day of class or learned anything. I think companies have gotten burned there, which really sucks for the students that come out that are good, and it sucks for the technical schools that are good because now 'technical school' has a stigma.

Re:dream on (4, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47088255)

I'm one of the best programmers anyone could hope to hire.

You sound so much better than those egotistical rich kids.

What a load of shit.

You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088451)

You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.

If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.

Re:dream on (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088499)

If a candidate is not smart enough not to understand simple concepts about the nature of interaction of social species, he are too dull to warrant employment. If he understands the concepts but ignores them, he is immediately declaring that he rejects the importance of established standards, and would make a substandard engineer. Either way, a person who does not communicate well with a goodly proportion of people is always the worse choice when pitted against someone who communicates well with many people. And engineers are a dime a dozen, while good communicators are rare.

Re:dream on (-1, Flamebait)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088589)

If you think being an engineer is about mindlessly obeying illogical social conventions, then I doubt you even understand what an engineer does. Obeying illogical social conventions is not important to being an engineer at all. And let me tell you, being an engineer is about logic.

What this is is someone trying to control the very use of language by arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently 'bad.' This is religious fundamentalist-level garbage.

And engineers are a dime a dozen, while good communicators are rare.

You have that backwards. Good engineers are extremely scarce, while people capable of communicating well enough with others aren't hard to find at all.

And no, someone isn't a 'bad' communicator just because they use words that you have some irrational hatred of. In fact, you used the word "communicating," which I hate. Therefore, you're bad at communicating with others.

Now fuck off.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088637)

Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen". Let me quote for you

"And engineers are a dime a dozen"

And this is true. No one said anything about good engineers.

And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.

Now fuck YOU.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088677)

Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen".

I actually was aware of that, and corrected it myself. I do not think it is fair to compare just "engineers" to "good communicators." People who are good at whatever it is they do are usually more rare than people who just do whatever it is in general.

And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.

You know, even if I had gotten that wrong, these sentences would still be idiotic. Being an engineer isn't about perfectly interpreting every possible sentence and never making a single mistake in language; it's about intelligence and logic. Do note that you don't have to be perfect, and that no one is perfect.

Re:dream on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088779)

Obeying illogical social conventions is not important to being an engineer at all.

If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short. It is common for dullards to reject as stupid or illogical observations that they do not understand. Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge. Psychology is a less mature science than engineering+mathematics, and sociology is very much in its infancy. But there's nothing supernatural about any of it. A human is as "logical" a system as a slinky, and 7 billion people no less so.

You have that backwards. Good engineers are extremely scarce, while people capable of communicating well enough with others aren't hard to find at all.

No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction. That said, I deliberately compared a good communicator (in demand in all non-peon positions) with an average engineer (good enough for most work - the average engineering task simply isn't that hard).

Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.

And no, someone isn't a 'bad' communicator just because they use words that you have some irrational hatred of. In fact, you used the word "communicating," which I hate. Therefore, you're bad at communicating with others.

I don't "hate" swearing - I just take a more rational approach to communication than you, and part of that is to avoid non-productive language. If you find the very word "communicating" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself. You're a bit more complex to understand than a few nuts, bolts and wires, so you may have to spend some time on this. Good luck!

Re:dream on (0)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088891)

If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short.

Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.

Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge.

No, it's not. No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction.

Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.

Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.

Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.

If you find the very word "communicating" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.

If you find the very word "fuck" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.

If you find the very word "shit" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.

You could apply it anything. But maybe you knew that and it's irrelevant.

At any rate, you seem to be going the extra mile to defend the status quo, despite it being irrational. I wonder why that is, and why you're doing nothing more than saying that it's logical and attacking me. Hm...

Re:dream on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088971)

Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.

You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords, and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them. When you engage in debate, try not to cram your opponent's answers into a mental box you've built from your own prejudices - it's a common enough fallacy, but it'll invariably result in your dismissing everything you hear as "illogical".

Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.

Modern school mathematics education is poor - it's not just that the curriculum is designed to create robots, but that the communication (that word again) skills necessary to be a good educator are lacking. Modern education in grammar, rhetoric, logic (the original trivium) and psychology (adding a modern scientific basis) is nearly non-existent. Yet a good autodidact or someone benefiting from a good communicator of mathematics will quickly grasp a number of proofs for Pythagoras. They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.

At any rate, you seem to be going the extra mile to defend the status quo, despite it being irrational. I wonder why that is, and why you're doing nothing more than saying that it's logical and attacking me. Hm...

I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit. There are fundamental problems with education in the modern world, as I've hinted on above, but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong. In particular, I fully understand why good communicators are in greater demand - and will always be in greater demand - than good engineers.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089127)

You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords

Fortunately, I did not mention you. At least, not in the sentences you quoted. Looks like the straw man is yours.

and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them.

But because others are offended by them.

Modern school mathematics education is poor

Indeed, but that still doesn't mean they have the aptitude to understand such concepts.

They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.

Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.

I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit.

I'm too old to go for this, "Go with the status quo because... it's the status quo, man!" bullshit.

but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong.

Then, rather than focusing on me or vague things like "communication," please make an actual attempt to justify why it is rational to have a hatred of certain words.

In particular, I fully understand why good communicators are in greater demand - and will always be in greater demand - than good engineers.

The ability to communicate is a basic skill you'll need just about everywhere.

But communicating 'well' has little to do with allowing others to control the way you use language.

Re:dream on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089299)

You're still tilting at the same windmill. The main reason for avoiding swearwords in professional discourse is not because some people "hate" swearwords - although sometimes that's relevant, and when it is, there is nothing irrational about avoiding those words. The main reason for avoiding swearwords is the lack of useful meaning in those words.

The second reason is that the meanings which are conveyed by crass language tend to descend a conversation to ad hominem. For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.

Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.

If your argument is that psychology is a pseudo-science, you might as well just pack your bags and go home to your church. Psychology is an immature science when compared to, say, physics, but as long as it studies an aspect of the natural world using the scientific method - and it usually does - it is a science. And I say this as a mathematician who understands perfectly well the gamut of rigour in academia.

But communicating 'well' has little to do with allowing others to control the way you use language.

Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.

Words have meanings, and the choice to speak has consequences. Welcome to reality. Handle it!

Re:dream on (0)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089413)

The main reason for avoiding swearwords is the lack of useful meaning in those words.

Lots of things people say have no useful meaning. Most of it is just filler.

Swear words do have useful meaning, depending on what you mean by "useful"; you're being extremely vague, here! Is showing emotion not useful? Is adding emphasis not useful? What is "useful"?

And you're kidding yourself. In a grand majority of cases, people just have a childish hatred of certain words. I don't know why you're trying to claim the opposite. The fact that television shows have to censor these words or face penalties, and the fact that people are sometimes hit by fines for using them, etc. all demonstrates this. It very much is about control and being offended.

The second reason is that the meanings which are conveyed by crass language tend to descend a conversation to ad hominem.

Define "crass language" in a non-subjective way.

For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.

You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.

Psychology is an immature science when compared to, say, physics, but as long as it studies an aspect of the natural world using the scientific method - and it usually does - it is a science.

If you want to get technical, it is a "science." But that's a really low bar. I guess I should say it's almost always bad science.

Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.

Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.

Also, you are once again equating using certain words with not being "productive" at communicating, but you've never justified this. Also, "pleasant" is subjective.

Words have meanings, and the choice to speak has consequences.

Wow, you're a genius. You're not doing much in the way of justifying all this widespread irrationality, though.

I sure am glad my workplace doesn't have people like you, just as you may be glad yours probably doesn't have people like me.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089505)

Uh oh, ladies and gentlemen, I present you the next autistic mass shooter: Bill!

Re:dream on (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 4 months ago | (#47088841)

Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things. The rest of us are trying to do our jobs and you are IN THE WAY.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088919)

Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things.

I don't have an "inability"; just a lack of desire.

Also, your overwhelming focus on promoting the inability to survive in the real world if other people are allowed to use words you don't like is a good signal of your inability to use basic logic. You seem quite controlling. Either that, or you're defending an irrational authoritarian status quo.

And while we're stating arbitrary nonsense without proof, the fact that you said "on on" proves that you're unable to do anything complex.

So yeah, do you have any proof that the inability to "chose" one's words does indeed mean that you're unable to do other, seemingly irrelevant, things? Or did you just arbitrarily decide that it is so, and state your opinion as a fact without a shred of evidence?

At any rate, no one has offered a valid justification for controlling other people's language. They've either attacked me, made baseless statements, or muttered something about how human communication is complex. No actual justification for why the hatred of certain words isn't irrational.

Re:dream on (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47088967)

Or it means you don't understand the words and the full meanings behind them.

'Shit' is a simple vulgarity. By using that word, you are implying that the the listener/reader is worthy of no better (or that you are yourself worthy of no better). Was that your intent? If not, consider what precision means to an engineer.

Re:dream on (0)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089097)

The word "shit" can be used for many things. It is you who doesn't understand human language. Not every use is an insult.

Furthermore, it's utterly subjective. No word is inherently 'bad,' and any claims to the contrary are religious nonsense.

Re:dream on (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47089113)

Did I say 'bad'? I believe I said vulgar.

Continue in ignorance if you will, perhaps the parenthetical part of what I said does apply after all.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089245)

You don't need to explicitly say "bad." The implication is that in many situations these words are considered "vulgar," or "inappropriate." Yes, I know. That's the sort of irrational nonsense I'm criticizing, so I'm well aware it exists.

Re:dream on (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47089281)

Vulgar = common with (for the last few centuries) the implication of poor quality when used in English.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089369)

Indeed. That's the sort of thing I'm criticizing. The idea that certain words are inherently 'bad'. I'm aware that lots of people believe that.

Re:dream on (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47089471)

You'll never get there. Connotation is not only nearly ubiquitous, it is the part of our language that allows it to be used to communicate with precision. It has existed since the beginning of language.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089519)

Well, okay. But I know plenty of people who don't give a fuck if someone uses swear words, and I know plenty more exist, so it's far from just me.

The world is moving forward in some ways. Atheists are less afraid to 'come out.' It's becoming less popular to have an irrational hatred of homosexuals. It might one day become less popular to believe that certain words are inherently bad. Or maybe the 'bad' words will just change.

Re:dream on (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47089685)

The words are NOT inherently bad. If what they imply is what you want to say, they're just perfect. If I think someone is unworthy, I will use vulgarities. If something truly does deserve to be cut off from all that is good and burned for all eternity, I will damn it.

Don't use them in an interview for the same reason you don't call the interviewer 'butthead' or 'garbage breath'.

You may be confusing the value judgement based on children being forbidden to use them. That is not because the word is bad, but because the parents don't believe the child is yet mature enough to properly understand what they are saying (at least that is the original reason). If a child doesn't grasp that death is final, how are they to understand eternal damnation (even as a metaphore)?

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089541)

And you don't need to explicitly say "shit". You can assume the listener is at least as smart as you and is able to infer implications just as well as you. To do otherwise is irrational.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089629)

You do realize that your reply had nothing to do with mine, and didn't debunk a thing, right? That's because you didn't actually respond to my real argument. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but I'm getting tired of fake 'nerds' roaming about on Slashdot. Damn, and there are almost no True Scotsman left.

To do otherwise is irrational.

Using a particular word is no more or less irrational than using other words.

Re:dream on (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47089283)

What this is is someone trying to control the very use of language by arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently 'bad.' This is religious fundamentalist-level garbage.

It's also the world you live in. Whether you like it or not, people make impressions based on their interactions with you. These impressions override most everything you claim about yourself. Just ask yourself how many times a well dressed and respected person gets off with less penalties than the guy who shows up to court for the same charges acting like a street thug while trying to convince the judge he is an upstanding pillar of the community. There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.

As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution. It's a basic reason behind TPS reports and various other forms one has to muscle through while actually getting work done. It standardizes the communication process somewhat to make up for poor communication. Those who communicate better and are around better communicators, are likely to excel more so than those who do not communicate well. With the exception for foreigners for whom English is not a first language (for some reason, they are excused), not to many fortune 500 companies employ people with poor communication skills unless it is for some quota or to fill low level jobs that aren't really relevant to the operation. Those jobs are the lower paying jobs in the establishment too. It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.

Re:dream on (2)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089461)

There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.

Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.

When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.

As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution.

I guarantee, I can communicate with my fellow workers, and yet they feel no need to try to control my language, or claim that some words are objectively 'bad'.

It seems I'm lucky to be in a non-hostile work environment, huh?

It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.

That's not how change happens.

Re:dream on (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47089529)

Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.

This is a free world, you can think anything you want about the courts or even people hiring others to work for them. It just doesn't change reality much.

When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.

Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.

That's not how change happens.

but change is how bigotry happens. So either you hate them or they hate you. Or both happens. Either way, I'm willing to bet that there will not be much codependency on each other for quite some time.

Re:dream on (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#47089179)

On the other hand, if he doesn't give a fuck because this is the internet and actually has exceptional interpersonal skills, especially for an IT workers, in normal day to day operations then you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?

Re:dream on (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 months ago | (#47088531)

If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.

The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment. Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.

And I'm not buying the "CIO" thing at all, unless it's a one or two person operation functioning out of a garage someplace. There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this. He sounds more like a guy who is jealous of those who were able to attend schools like MIT. I'm sure he feels his personal experience added to his Associates degree is more than equil to 4 or 6 years at MIT, but I'm not buying it.

Re:dream on (0)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088623)

The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.

If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.

Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.

Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.

If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.

Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.

There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.

Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.

So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088697)

We will not be hiring you where I work. Your loss, the money is good and the work cutting edge and exciting. Your loss, stupid motherfucker.

Re:dream on (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089003)

The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.

If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.

Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.

Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.

If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.

Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.

There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.

Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.

So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.

People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations. Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult). Labeling someone as "uptight" or "razor thin" just because they value the accepted professional behavior norms in the work environment shows an extreme lack of social intelligence and inability to see the world from other perspectives. You would be a liability at any respectable tech company. You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.

You certainly wouldn't ever be hired at my company. Yes, sometimes there are sensitive people or people who get upset over things we may feel are silly. However, these people can still be very productive employees. When you don't respect that you are preventing these employees from being productive. You create drama that prevents people from focusing on work and getting the job done. If you worked for me or my company (and you wouldn't, btw), you don't get paid to be buddies with me or your coworkers. You get paid to work as part of a team. You also won't get coddled to feel like you can roll into the office and feel like you're back at the frat house.

Re:dream on (0)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47089159)

People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations.

Indeed. I think you'd find my workplace is far different. We don't hire irrational people who think some words are inherently 'bad', or whatever.

Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult).

"professional" is subjective.

What's unacceptable and uncomfortable to me is when others try to control other people's language, and deny them the opportunity to speak casually. What a stressful, hostile work environment.

If you're so understanding of 'diversity', then realize it works both ways.

You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.

No, I live in reality, and I realize that zero tolerance policies are almost always dumb, with the exception of having zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. All this effort to avoid offending people is in itself offensive to me, but that doesn't stop people from being morons, now does it?

You also won't get coddled to feel like you can roll into the office and feel like you're back at the frat house.

What about the oversensitive, controlling people who feel that they can control other people's language? They're being coddled more than anyone. People who just want to be themselves and speak comfortably are denied something so basic, because of irrational prejudices against certain words.

Re:dream on (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 4 months ago | (#47088657)

I'm afraid you have it backwards. If an employer, or employer, is too petty or stupid to use language politely, they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards and all their work will require constant review and repair before publication.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088753)

You seem to be defining "polite" to mean whatever it is that you like. The word is, in reality, completely subjective.

I can't fathom why anyone would think it's objectively "polite" to not hire someone merely because of your irrational hatred towards certain words. This is like religious fundamentalism; utterly irrational. Such bigotry, this desire to control others' language at such a basic level.

they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards

What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.

Besides being a non sequitur, do you really not see the problem with such arbitrary, irrational nonsense? Many of our problems are caused because lots of employers are idiotic bigots, like the ones you're defending now.

I honestly don't see why anyone on Slashdot, a site that's supposedly for nerds, would cheer on such authoritarian, irrational garbage.

Re:dream on (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#47089175)

All IT workers swear. If they don't, they're probably a sociopath and serial killer.

Re:dream on (2)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | about 4 months ago | (#47088627)

I find "what a load of shit" to be a very apt and useful expression in many circumstances. Rudeness and eloquence are not incompatible.

I also think the CIO's point is valid, and fear that whatever percentage of CS professors received their training from MIT may still lack a college education, as I do. (Certainly MIT does not offer a college education, instead diverting people into excellent technical training.)

I've often wondered what the results would be of a poll that compared long term outcomes for students who matriculate at a given university with students who were accepted but went elsewhere. To my knowledge, no such poll has ever been conducted.

Re:dream on (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#47088855)

I also think the CIO's point is valid, and fear that whatever percentage of CS professors received their training from MIT may still lack a college education, as I do. (Certainly MIT does not offer a college education, instead diverting people into excellent technical training.)

You have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about, none.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088293)

I'm the CIO of my company and we don't hire rich kids.

So when is your mom going to kick your "company" out of the garage?

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088295)

So, you aren't competent enough to be a programmer, but you can be CIO. I don't think most people would be complaining about having what is usually a much higher paying position.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088363)

So, you aren't competent enough to be a programmer, but you can be CIO.

Not only is he the "CIO", he's also the "CEO" and sole employee of a "company" located in the plush accommodations of his mother's basement.

Re:dream on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088325)

a national Tek Systems/Aerotek exam

I have no idea what this is, but I once studied for an MSCE but decided the exams weren't worth the entrance fee. In trial exams I got 100%, which must make me some sort of computer janitor god.

who went to a better college because

You know how I got into a £30k/year private boarding school? By winning a scholarship, so my parents had to pay £0/year.

You know how I got through a top tier UK university? By winning a place on merit, then making use of govt assistance.

You know how I funded my MSc? By winning another scholarship.

You know what you are? Bitter.

There are a bunch of arrogant cunts out there with wealthy backgrounds. There are also a bunch of arrogant cunts out there from modest backgrounds. if you think you can judge someone on their parents, you're engaging in the basest, oldest prejudice.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088489)

It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.

You know what you are? Bitter.

I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.

But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088601)

. It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships.

For the scholarship I took, the mathematics papers were most heavily weighted, followed by general reasoning tests, followed by English language, followed by foreign languages, followed by humanities. The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique, and widely recognised as being particularly tough. If they'd been evenly weighted, I'd have got top place that year, but I did relatively poorly on one of the mathematics papers (but still well enough!).

I don't know what US scholarships look like, but in the UK, scholarships to private schools comprise a set of exams written by that individual school, so the best schools will test potential - and, in any case, rightly ignore any uniform learning outcomes that the government imposes for state-funded schools.

It's just a huge waste of time and effort.

Every profession is one part memorisation, one part technical skill, and one part social skill. If you don't know a lot of stuff, it doesn't matter how great your potential - you're too slow when shit and fan are in alignment. Perhaps this is more obvious in medicine or law, when life and/or liberty are at stake. I agree that way too much emphasis today is put on memorisation, but it is still essential to make you useful in academia or commerce.

Re:dream on (1)

BilI_the_Engineer (3618871) | about 4 months ago | (#47088647)

The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique

That's the same thing. You learn to spot certain patterns.

What I speak of is actually understanding the reason *why* the math even works. To have an intuitive understanding of it such that you know why it can't be any other way.

That's not to say that you don't have that understanding. And I haven't seen the specific exams in question, but I have seen exams described exactly as you described yours, and they involved rote memorization.

Every profession is one part memorisation

No one said that memorization is never necessary. Without the ability to retain some amount of information, we'd be useless.

With that said, 99% of the time, things don't need to be memorized, but it does depend on the field.

and one part social skill.

Depends on the profession. In some professions, you can get away with having terrible communication skills quite easily.

I agree that way too much emphasis today is put on memorisation, but it is still essential to make you useful in academia or commerce.

What's also useful is intelligence and understanding. And sadly, those are in short supply.

But yeah, way too much emphasis on memorization. Far, far, far too much.

Re:dream on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088353)

Welcome to Slashdot, Mr. Donald Sterling!

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088421)

Simple to understand. We as a species simply don't need that many people employed. That's the whole point of technology, to make us all so productive!

So what happens next? We go back to the historical mean of how humans behave: nepotism, cronyism, favoritism as we head back to a feudal society.

Re:dream on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088473)

Jealous much?

I had *no* fiscal support from my family for MIT: I was an emancipated minor at 16. Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet. MIT is *filled* with people whose parents didn't or couldn't fund their full costs: they have a "needs blind" admission program that is very helpful to kids, and families, who struggle with the costs.

So you can take your jealousy and put it somewhere else.

Re:dream on (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#47088839)

Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet.

Not to mention the few who were so determined to do it no matter what, that they lived in the student center. God, I had money difficulties, but at least not that bad.

Re:dream on (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#47088515)

good job CS is not IT and at some schools not even being able to do most of the real world programming work.

Re:dream on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088599)

What a bitter shit you are! Nearly all PhDs at top-notch schools are supported by fellowships, teaching or research. You don't need to be a rich kid at all, but you do need a brain to get into a competitive program like that.

Re:dream on (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 4 months ago | (#47088617)

People hire people who are like themselves.

Those who went to second class universities will be hired by those who went to second class universities.

Re:dream on (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 months ago | (#47088723)

You don't need to be rich to study at Princeton. They have generous financial aid packages, and most students leave debt-free. If you're smart enough, and work hard enough to get in, they will make sure that you can afford it.

http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/aid/pdf/1213/PU-Making-It-Possible.pdf

You'll meet plenty of smart poor kids at Princeton, who have public education. You'll also meet plenty of smart rich kids, who had the luxury of the best private education.

Any rich dumb kids don't make it through the first year. They have a "Dean of Temporary Bye-Bye", who makes them take a year off, and a "Dean of Permanent So-Long", who kicks them out for good.

Re:dream on (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#47089185)

Yeah, I looked into financial aid. I got partial coverage because I was poor but unfortunately I was born a white male so there goes everything else. It's a shame I'm not a single parent black female or I'd have a free ride. Good grades and being incredibly intelligent don't get you a damn thing when it comes to scholarships.

Re:dream on (2)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#47088831)

Wow, you are really an arrogant fool. First, MIT has never been a "legacy" school. The vast majority of students there get significant financial aid because their middle- and working-class families cannot afford the full price. (The Ivies have also been moving away from admitting the sons of sons of sons, and focusing more exclusively on merit.) Second, you obviously have no idea how much work it takes, how competitive and hard-working students have to be, just to get into these top tier schools, much less stay in them and graduate. So your bullshit about spoiled kids is just laughable--I've hired from these schools, and what I got was highly-motivated, smart, hard-working employees.

...I beat 88% of their programmers worldwide...

Which probably translates to an ability to beat 0% of CS students at MIT. Seriously. The majority graduate in the top 1% of their high-school class. And 25% of this year's incoming freshman had perfect math SAT scores. (Of course that doesn't prove what they'll do in the real world...)

So I'm one of the best programmers anyone could hope to hire.

I've known plenty of people like you in my career, and I sure as hell hope to not hire anyone like you.

Re:dream on -- silicon valley perspective (1)

volvox_voxel (2752469) | about 4 months ago | (#47089091)

In Silicon Valley, what you've accomplished matters more than where you went to school. Open source recognition will get you far if you want to be a programmer. At my company, we hired a guy from Tunisia who's an expert in computer vision.. They did not even give him a programming test, as it was clear from his open-source project what kind of code he was capable of writing.

One thing that managers often really dislike are people that are overly arrogant. I've seen good people turned away because of this.

Silicon valley is a metetocracy. Pretty much my entire team are from Ivy league schools, where I am not. Not everyone that goes to an Ivy leaguge school is rich..All the people I worked with who graduated from Ivy leauge schools are from middle-class families, the sons of teachers and farmers, etc. With few exceptions, they just seemed like normal people. The one's I work with seem driven and foucsed, and wise beyond their years.. I think it's easy to have a good team dynamic despite their degrees.

No faith in thier own. (4, Insightful)

sir-gold (949031) | about 4 months ago | (#47088215)

It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.

If I had just gotten a PhD, and it ended up being so worthless that even my own school wouldn't accept it, I would demand a refund.

Re:No faith in thier own. (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47088291)

It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.

Many universities have policies that forbid or discourage directly hiring their own graduates for faculty positions. The reasoning is that it inhibits fresh thinking and the cross fertilization of ideas.

Re:No faith in thier own. (1)

ender06 (913978) | about 4 months ago | (#47088423)

I was auto companies would follow that logic. Most people recognize that having diversity of experience is beneficial to the company or workplace, but apparently in the auto industry, being a 20-30 year veteran of the same damn company makes you a saint. Most of those people have never held a different job, it was their first after college.

Re:No faith in thier own. (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 4 months ago | (#47088605)

Hiring everyone from the same 10 schools (and mostly the same 2 schools) doesn't exactly make for fresh thinking either.

Re:No faith in thier own. (1)

ranton (36917) | about 4 months ago | (#47089209)

Hiring everyone from the same 10 schools (and mostly the same 2 schools) doesn't exactly make for fresh thinking either.

It would still instill 10 times as much fresh thinking as hiring from within though. If you agree with the argument that hiring from other schools introduces fresh thinking that is.

No faith in thier own. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088301)

The reality is that there are way more PhD produced every year than there are academic positions available. The best job candidates on the academic job market each year tend to come from the best programs. When those candidates were entering graduate school a few years before, they were likely to be the best applicants at that time too. Fortunately, for Computer Science PhDs there are a lot of excellent job opportunities outside of academia, so there's not really an overproduction issue like in many other fields. In my experience, a lot of the top 50 schools also have a lot of foreign graduate students who end up getting faculty positions back in their home countries too.

Re:No faith in thier own. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088557)

+1 to that. I've applied for 10 post doctoral research positions from the University that awarded me my PhD and have never had an interview. I'll never work again after graduating. They just wanted my grant funding to use on ski'ing holidays (I mean "conferences"). My doctorate is as worthless to them as it is to me. Thanks to the tax payer who funded it though :)

Re:No faith in thier own. (1)

linearz69 (3473163) | about 4 months ago | (#47088597)

It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.

If I had just gotten a PhD, and it ended up being so worthless that even my own school wouldn't accept it, I would demand a refund.

Could it be that after going through all the BS to get a post graduate degree, the graduate ends up with little faith in their school?

I'm a lowly holder of a B.S. degree, somehow that has worked out well for me. I have friends that went on to get PhDs rom very good schools, some on this list, and except for one exception, all of them distanced themselves from academia as soon as they could. Something about finding out how the sausage was made.

Re:No faith in thier own. (1)

guacamole (24270) | about 4 months ago | (#47089133)

Most departments in most fields are reluctant to hire their own graduates. Hiring your own graduates will simply lead to rehashing of the same old ideas and intellectual stagnation. The same type of discrimination against own graduates is observed in graduate school admissions. I often see the pattern that at many competitive schools they don't really like admitting their own graduates into PhD programs. It happens, but not that frequently.

Shagging someone else's sister (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#47089557)

Your school is unwilling to employ you, but that guy's school is unwilling to hire him. It sort of evens out.

News Flash! (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 months ago | (#47088241)

Top professors dominate top positions at top school!

Who would have ever guessed.

Same was true at places like IBM Research (4, Interesting)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 4 months ago | (#47088303)

Overheard at lunch there around 2000 (paraphrase): "We hire the most competitive candidates from the most competitive top three schools and then we wonder why they have trouble cooperating and getting along..."

I hope the policy has changed since... It also seemed like they were passing over a lot of interesting people and thus limiting their cognitive diversity.

See also Scott E. Page book "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies"
http://www.amazon.com/Differen... [amazon.com]

Google probably suffers to a lesser extent from a similar problem as I suggest here:
http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org]

stats with no background = useless (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088319)

Many schools did not even have a CS degree program until recently, so there might be a bias there. What you would really want to see is "what fraction of CS PhDs from this school wind up being professors". Maybe Cal and MIT created more than 50% of the total CS PhDs (they've been cranking em out a long time) and they're actually under-represented.

As for "even my own school wouldn't accept it": This is a perenial problem: schools generate far more PhD people than there is a need for them in academia. Nobody expects to get a tenure track job at their own institution, and, in fact it is discouraged. Historically, for instance, UC would not admit graduates of the same campus to the graduate program at that campus, feeling it was important to get some diversity of experience. When enrollments in colleges were rising (e.g. 50s, 60s, 70s) this oversupply wasn't so bad. Now we have the non-tenure track "adjunct problem". There have been grumblings in the Halls of Academe on this for decades (see old copies of the American Scholar, or Chron of Higher Ed).

As for "I wouldn't hire those entitled rich kids": There are such things as scholarships, of course. And a PhD isn't meant to be a "trade school" or "professional qualification", it is intended to be training for future professors (notwithstanding that in engineering, it has never been so.). A distinction similar to that in Germany between Doktor and Professor might be useful, but will never happen in the US: the hegemony of the classical humanities educational ladder is as fixed as if it were graven upon tablets of stone.

I will say that given a typical industrial setting (let's get that application or new hardware developed) I'd rather pick someone with a 2 year degree and 6 years industry experience of good quality vs a 8 year PhD whose sole work experience is working in their advisor's lab. OTOH, I'd also hope that the 2 year degree included freshman composition and language skills.

The number of jobs where one needs the finely developed knowledge in the narrow area that represents your PhD work is very, very small. However, as a signal or marker that you can slog through 2-4 years of seemingly capricious and arbitrary process imposed on you, it's not bad. However, so would decent work experience in a shop that wasn't at CMMI level 0 maturity. Experience at the latest cowboy hacker company who's going to make millions, if not billions, isn't all that valuable, and will create unrealistic expectations and long term unhappy workers when it gets past the thrill and fun of working 120 hour weeks to get that release out, and you're into the more common projects like "let's change the account number field from 8 characters to 10 characters across the company" or a even a Y2K remediation or regulatory compliance. There it's just the long slog to build a pyramid over 20 years.

genocidal ruler's greatest fear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088413)

the poor might one day rise up & eat them http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rulers+history+of+being+eaten one reason we must provide them with layers of armies to defend themselves against us & the spirit of fearless freedom in general

Slashdot only allows censorship including but not limited to when the sponsor's message is compromised &/or when it's you again,, mynuts won; too cruel for school... between a rock & a heard place https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVyvqFYJTxDsA2cNXNyoA?p=rulers+fear+poor&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-901 some things almost never change...

Surprising Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088445)

Given that the #1 source of professors is CMU and the #2 is GIT, the title of the post calling out MIT and Berkeley is surprising

Surprising Title (1)

imjustatomato (998948) | about 4 months ago | (#47088525)

I think you just misread the data. The ones near the top are about the make-up of the departments, so CMU and Georgia Tech simply have a lot of professors. The tables at the bottom are about sources of professors (placements).

PhD or not Phd? (2)

xfizik (3491039) | about 4 months ago | (#47088603)

So basically, if you wanna be a prof, don't bother getting a PhD outside the top 10. If you don't wanna be a prof, don't bother getting a PhD at all.

Re:PhD or not Phd? (1)

roger10-4 (3654435) | about 4 months ago | (#47088683)

No, that's not it at all. The article didn't say they *only* hire from those schools - it's just skewed that way and you have a better chance if you do get your PhD from one of those schools. I'd venture a guess that a top 10 school will probably consider an individual that has done some exceptional research as well. Furthermore, there are hundreds of other universities, the private sector, and consulting jobs for people that don't get their PhD from a top 10 university.

Re:PhD or not Phd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088865)

Pretty much. Take a look at where professors at research schools got their PhDs. Unless they've been there forever, it's generally from a school that far outranks the one that employs them (except at the very top, where there is no such school). The top universities look like they form a little inbred network, but it's just simple statistics. Each Top 50 school graduates at least 5-10 PhDs per year. Each such school hires MAYBE one faculty member each year, often only every other year, and sometimes less. The top 10 schools really have enough graduates to stock the entire crop of Top 50 research universities, even more because not all hire every year.

Combine that statistic with the fact that professors at top tier universities have better funding that allows them to fund their students and send them all over for conferences, rather than locking them to waste 20 hours a week teaching material to undergraduates that they probably should have learned in high school, like at research state schools. No surprise that Top 10 graduates come out with better research and thus get the best faculty jobs.

It's not different from what you see in industry except that there's just sooo much fewer spots available in academia. If MIT, Berkeley, and the like could provide enough graduates for Boeing, Lockheed, Microsoft, Google, and 50 other companies, you can bet that's all that would be hired. As it takes far more than 10 schools to fuel all of industry, people who didn't win the admission lottery to Stanford can get excellent jobs.

I realized that I didn't stand a chance in academia long before I considered graduating. I went to a school ranked about 40 in my field; all my professors came from Brown, Princeton, Columbia, etc. I saw that you should always expect to get a job far below where you did your PhD. Much to the disappointment of my advisor (although he has never quite said so), I went to industry. My reward was a normal life that involves a 40 hour work week (instead of the 60 a professor works), no need to chase my own funding, and starting salary that was higher than a slew of long-tenured professors who taught me. Plus, I get actual vacations and live free of the guilt that I should always be working on my research.

Agree with "dream on" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088615)

I'm not a PhD or even Masters. But the arrogance of candidates coming out of "top" schools with PhD really does imply PiledHigherAndDumber.
Example: my group interviewed a PhD grad, but in his mind, we were uninteresting, and merely a "checklist" item. Solely because of attidude, we declined to make him an offer. And at the time, we were bleeding edge. Personally, I'll choose a hard-worker from a "B" or "C" school if they are focused and passionate about the pertinent sub-field. Additional points to candidates with actual relevant experience.
Enormous minuses for collosal egos.
And I can (and do) make/break interviewees.

Re:Agree with "dream on" (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 4 months ago | (#47088875)

Someone with a PhD from a top school would not want to work for someone with only a bachelors and with a colossal ego. He would not have accepted your offer, he would rather be working elsewhere.

Re:Agree with "dream on" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089203)

Someone with a PhD from a top school would not want to work for someone with only a bachelors and with a colossal ego. He would not have accepted your offer, he would rather be working elsewhere.

Umm, sure. That attitude might hold for a little while, but sooner or later he'll grow tired of the low pay, hellish hours, minimal benefits, and zero job stability of postdoc purgatory. Then he'll realize just how difficult it can be finding a non-academic job that doesn't hold his PhD as a black mark against him. At that point, he'll probably be willing to work doing anything for anyone--and he'll still probably start out in a better position than he left.

(Full disclosure: I'm a PhD dropout (All But Dissertation) currently making more money than the rest of my entering class combined).

Re:Agree with "dream on" (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#47088889)

...PhD really does imply PiledHigherAndDumber...

Uhm, no. The old joke is that PhD stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper", as in the depth of pile of bullshit. What a pathetic AC, criticizing PhD's but unable to even get the classic joke about them correct ;-)

It's about research, not just education (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088625)

Professors get hired for their research work. And while many schools give a good education in CS, research is mostly done at the top 10% schools.

This is fairly standard for all departments (1)

west (39918) | about 4 months ago | (#47088725)

This phenomena is also why large-scale paradigm shifts in a field only tend radiate outward from top universities. As a professor, you disseminate wholly new ideas via your graduate students, who then take positions at other universities and influence others.

It's pretty much impossible to fundamentally change minds once they're established in the field - after all, who wants to embrace something that makes much of their past work irrelevant?) So paradigm shifts tend to occur by seeding your graduate students into lots of different departments and waiting for the older generation to retire.

As for why hire from top universities? Well, that's easy. Given any field where there's lots of uncertainty, human beings naturally gravitate to any metric we can. And a PhD from a top university is about as solid a metric as one can get. Of course, it helps that the secondary metrics that are used (papers published, cited, etc.) are also established by editors and readers who also use the same metric to judge whether something is worth publishing or reading. Like so many things, we *make* in-built biases become truth by our actions.

Elitism and trust in the elites is a completely human reaction to uncertainty. Doesn't mean it's optimal, but it is human.

How many PhDs are awarded by other schools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47088777)

PhDs in computer science are probably rare, since advanced degrees are not typically worth the expense for normal careers in technology. So how many PhD candidates are there who graduate with degrees who want to go into academia? Big-name schools like MIT would attract the people who are hardcore about becoming professors, right? Is this study just a Captain Obvious thing of big-name academic schools self-selecting the people who want to go hardcore into academics? A fifth of the sample being from a big-name academic school seems low. If you're going to look for a computer science professor for your school, the pool of potential professors is probably small and you'll be looking at people from a few major academic schools. It's not like when you give a successful businessperson an honorary degree and have him teach management classes. You have to know your stuff to teach computer science.

What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089153)

As a comp. sci. grad student, I often read papers originating from many sources. Generally, the best research comes from top professors at top universities - plain and simple. They are the best of the best and therefore got hired at the top schools and get the most funding. With this funding, they attract the best students in larger numbers which often translates into better research and the cycle continues.

How can these obvious and natural facts be controversial to anyone?

You think because you attended 'a' college somewhere that this entitles you to any position anywhere? Just because you play community baseball does not entitle you to the majors.

Time to wake up to reality. There is a vast difference between an education at a top school and the other colleges. Did you know that the average bachelor's graduate (4 yrs) in the US is about at the same level of proficiency as the average Japanese high school student? If you'd like to know more about how low the average college education in the US is, read:

http://skills.oecd.org/skillsoutlook.html

You will be shocked. But you probably will only read a bit as it will make you feel poopy inside your feely feelies. Then you can continue with your delusions of all the injustices of a system which keeps you from your well-deserved tenure at Stanford.

Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47089171)

Within the US maybe.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>