The biggest joke maybe is that studying Software Engineering will not make you a Software Engineer. You will learn 100s of other things but developing software. Welcome to the 100-year-old curriculum.

  • 4
    Ye. They, also dont teach you how to make tags in devRant.

    Ur tags should be divided by a comma and not by a hashtag.

    Welcome to devRant though!
  • 1
    Once you finish your Software Engineer g degree, everything you've been taught will be years our of date anyway.
  • 3
    The point of studying engineering is not completing a curriculum.

    It's learning how to attack problems and solve them, which includes keeping up with new tools and methodologies and applying them correctly.
  • 1

    While I completely agree with that, that was not my experience through 3.5 years of a computer science degree. I didnt feel at all confident to get a job in the industry until I went to a 4 month intensive boot camp that I paid for myself. It was only after that that I felt like I knew how to learn rather than just knowing what I had learnt.

    To this day I keep telling people that. Most of my skills come from being able to read docs of brand new things quickly and understanding them without being overwhelmed.
  • 1

    Well, I don't know in other parts of the world, and this is gonna sound asshole-ish, but...

    In my country, there has been this movement pushing *everyone* to try and get a degree. CS/SE gets *so much* people because it barely has any entry barrier, only to

    A) find out they aren't cut for the job. Because some people are simply not cut for being engineers.

    B) cause the general quality of the degree to plummet, because they have to cater to people who aren't qualified for it.

    C) not provide enough resources to universities, making it hard to attract good teachers, or update their curricula.

    So yeah, in the end it's always gonna be on you, because it's a field that moves at a pace public universities can't follow.
  • 1

    I'm in the UK and that's my full experience of it. Its not asshole-ish to say what your bad experience has been, nor is it asshole ish to say you've had a good experience IMO. It's just what your experience has been. It wasn't your choice to have that life experience.
  • 0
    No one can teach you how to follow a single sentence of plain english instructions, such as the one in the tag bar. If you find someone willing to teach you to not be an idiot for $45k, chances are their business model isn't teaching people.
  • 0
    @cmarshall10450 I studied in the UK too and paid international fees for it.... Regret it quite a bit and I don't think university taught anything I couldn't have learnt on YouTube online, (most often did). It was also extremely theoretical, not fully job capable after it.

    It did teach how to become a researcher etc though, I think uni degrees teach more about the actual theory and logic over languages and tools that boot camps will teach. Also UK has apprenticeships which I regret not knowing about and taking before
  • 0
    @joewilliams007 thank you! they really dont teach that lol.
  • 1


    I've seen way to many times the terms "IT worker", "computer scientist", "software engineer", "programmer" (and others); used interchangeably.

    This couldn't be further from the truth. While some overlap does exist, some people can be excellent engineers and terrible programmers, and viceversa.

    Much in the same way as architects design buildings and builders build them.
  • 0
    @CoreFusionX yeah ++ exactly
  • 0
    @CoreFusionX But builders' job is to repeatedly execute the same operations reliably. If the architect is any good, the role of a builder doesn't exist in programming (or rather, it's fulfilled by the computer). In programming, if you can accurately describe what needs to be built it is already done - that's what you did by describing it. Of course there's also some typing and translation, but if you planned the system right it's just that, typing and translation. 1/2
  • 0
    Usually when tasks are divided in programming effectively, the design of the outsourced component is completely opaque, which is closer to a lead and assistant architect's relationship than an architect and a builder, or even an architect and an engineer. There are different roles in creating software, but because there is no separation between blueprint and execution like there is between an architect and a builder, every role works on the same level and therefore the more they're separated the more everything suffers. This is the core motivation behind Agile.
  • 0

    It was an oversimplified analogy. The point still stands.

    Different aspects of IT require different skills.

    In your concrete example, it's why CASE exists, but it's not up to the point you can avoid programmers altogether, and probably never will.
Add Comment