What positions are you applying for? Roughly how many places have you applied to? How far do you get in the interview process? What do you think is the reason for not getting the offer?

Did you have any kind of exit at your startup?

most jobs aren't advertised; think of your search like shopping for a job that suits you; see how you are solution/resource for some problems; and what silent questions interviewers want answered, or should want. In order: why us? can you do the job? what's special about you? will you fit with us? can we afford you?

There's a lot of encouragement in it, especially extensive sections taking inventory of what you have to offer, your knowledge, skills and especially what engages you.

When I am asked how many people I managed I can only honestly say two interns and am then told my skills are not enough.

When I am asked to take home a programming assignment or whiteboard something the end result is that my skills aren't good enough.

It is a mystery to me because I built a system that currently processes 80 to 150 million emails a month. It encrypts them, it stores them, it makes them searchable. There is even functionality to encrypt outgoing emails as well! To be fair the core component was already built prior to me joining the company: the PKI api. But as needs grew I built around that. I built the web interface (not the design: I'm not a god). I wrote code to process incoming/outgoing email. I created an ES cluster that scales itself (probably not very well and search is astonishingly slow, but the customers don't seem to mind given the low price tag). I programmed in php, perl, ruby, javascript, and then eventually heavily used golang for its concurrency. The system is not perfect nor am I.

I too thought that people would be super interested in working with me, but I haven't found that to be the case at all. I guess am not good at networking so here I am. If you want to see what I have built in my own time recently, the url is in my description. It is a tragic example of my design skills and the code is all my own. Interestingly - or not so - it is entirely written in golang (+ gopherjs).

Regarding the coding challenges, could it be that your code structure / cleanliness has atrophied from not working in large groups?

How good are your algorithms / data structures skills? If not already good, would you be able to develop them from practicing leetcode? Many people complain about fang style interviews but the nice thing is that if you are capable of doing those kinds of problems there isn’t as much other weirdness in getting a job. With your yoe you would qualify for going straight to phone interview with pretty much any company on interviewing.io if you do well on a few practice phone interviews there first. (I’d also be happy to provide referrals to a couple companies if you can do leetcode style problems.)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will keep your offer of a referral in mind thank you. Where would these companies be based out of curiosity?

Sometimes it concerns me that American class structure is so stratified that it's impossible to have social and class mobility like this without an elite education.

I'm sure he would have had similar outcomes had he gone to UMD, but would he have if he had gone to UMBC?

I intentionally decided not to attend a university and instead work hard and learn in the field. Instead of CS classes I read the core works and learned concepts through building things and working with experts around me. There are amazingly smart people in every company who love to teach others what they know.

Over the course of 20 years I worked at fortune 500s, tech giants, and startups, learning and building every day.

Eventually I was given the opportunity to build small teams and learn to effectively lead people. Through lots of help from those around me and research about effective leadership, I was able to move up as I demonstrated execution and results.

Today I hold the title of VP of Engineering at a growing startup in the enterprise space. We're doing very well and I'm continuing to learn every day.

The message here? It's not for everyone, but a degree is a piece of paper. It may get you in the door, but so will a track record. You may find you need both, but you certainly need the last one to make a successful career in any industry.

I started my career in 2000, literally at the tail end of the dot com boom. I got my foot in the door right right before the door slammed shut for a little while. While I DO have a degree, it's not in engineering, math or any hard science. I got in because "Linux Systems Administrator" was so in demand, even during recessionary times, that it was easy to get in the door someplace. Then I was in a busy metropolitan area with an industry that relied on Linux/Unix (finance). For what it's worth, my state school cost under 6K a year, as well, with no aid.

Would I have the same luck today? I'm not so sure.

If it makes anyone feel better, your luck flips somewhat as you get older, the funnel gets tighter and you have to compete with hipster tech that people with 4-5 years of experience (and engineering/science degrees) have. Hipster technology (defined as buzzword tech) includes: some of the latest JS frameworks, Kubernetes/microservices, and more. However, in the enterprise world us oldies do quite well for ourselves as wisdom is recognized -- AS IS, circling back -- being able to learn new tech quickly. Proprietary environments with very complex systems appreciate those people and aren't deterred by degrees or hipster tech missing.

I have just started my career in development in Brazil, without a degree. However, I was considering getting one in order to improve my chances of finding work in the US or Europe. Would I be better off using that time/energy working on projects and studying on my own (and accumulating work experience, of course)?

Dev work is generally very lax on academic credentials. Most of the time a great work record, open source contributions or other easily referenced work counts waay more than any degree you might hold.

Some startup gigs can even scoff on degrees, because it might indicate complacency rather than entrepreneurial spirit :)

Once you've held a job for a couple of years, it's easier to find new jobs, because the experience will speak for you.

While I'm not an executive, I am a senior engineer being groomed for management at a FAANG currently. I have no doubt that I could move to being an executive or carve out a career in management if I want based on my track record.

While having better paper credentials help you earlier in your career, I'm a firm believer that the paper doesn't guarantee a successful career, and that there is no substitute for executing.

He went to University of Wisconsin which was #25 out of the top 25 schools. Because it was in the top 25, he claims he got many more lucrative offers at graduation from friends who were in schools that were just out of the top 25 but were just as if not more qualified.

There are two ways to look at this:

a. School prestige matters

b. Prestige doesn't mean you have to go to the #1 school

Personally, I find a to be a bit depressing in the sense that lots of factors outside your control influence where you go to school. However, b is very encouraging and a good reminder that there is always a "hack" that gets you the same result for less effort. (Or it's good to be "lazy" in the Perl sense of the word).

(Kind of the complement to "intersectionality"; how to discuss people who have an advantage on one axis but not on another?)

When they realised I didn't have a degree - they reacted like I had leprosy, IBM also had the same reaction.

Ironically I am further down the track to Ceng status than many who have a CS degree.

the question is would you want to work for these companies anyways? the rigidity is usually representative of systemic issues that will result in employee unhappiness anyways. the bean counters don't care about you and factor in time to you leaving and design policies around that.

The average HR person in Spain wouldn't have a clue about CIT and probably though I was a car mechanic.

In the UK, a metric ton of politicians, financiers, business magnates, artists, you name it come from OxBridge. It's been like that since forever, but things are getting better.

In the country I grew up in (Scandinavian country), the vast majority of business people came from two different schools - even though we had two-digit amount of colleges and universities.

Some industries and firms still put a lot of weight on your pedigree - and will mostly hire from a select number of schools. But IMO, things are getting better.

1) Kids from poor / lower-working class families - compared to their peers "higher up" in the socioeconomic chain - simply do not know the importance of a good school. Further, they do not even know the jobs that will follow, or even require such an education.

Even regular college is a long-shot for many, and to them, college == college.

If you're a upper-middle class kid, with parents working as bankers and consultants, then I can promise you that they'll push you to aim high (academically). Hell, they'll probably plan your (academic) life long before you can walk or talk.

In fact, having educated parents seems to play an important role on the chances of your success. If you're poor, chances are that your parents don't even have a HS diploma.

2) Getting into a prestigious school isn't just about getting good grades - you need to show skills and drive far outside that scope. Lots of poor kids can not afford that luxury, like volunteering, getting GOOD at extracurricular activities (sports, instruments, etc.), etc. Some families _depend_ on their kids working after school.

When I grew up, I thought bankers where the people/tellers you actually saw behind the counter. I had never heard of consultant. Silicon Valley SW devs? Had no idea.

None of my parents went to college - they worked menial factory jobs, and we lived out in rural nowhere. 10% of my HS class went to college, and in that case, a no-name rural state college. No big companies _ever_ came to career fairs, so we had zero exposure to them.

If by chance you were exposed to the world of Silicon Valley tech, New York banking, etc., you were told it was too late - that train had left the station before you even enrolled college.

For many of us, the absolute pinnacle of (professional) life was to become a local gov. worker, engineer at the local utility company, a store owner, farmer, or similar. Maybe a doctor if you were deemed very, very smart.

So even if you see some success stories here and there, they are so incredibly rare. Show me one poor (minority or not) kid on scholarship at HYPS, and I'll show you hundred others going absolutely nowhere.

Can't upvote you enough for taking on this point, and wanted to specifically call this one out.

There will be lots of anecdata from people out there who have pushed entirely by themselves, but the data across the world shows that social mobility is limited as much by aspiration as it is by solely grades. It isn't solely parental (although most of the time it is), but also driven by the school environment.

If you're unlucky enough to be in a shit school, with shit teachers from primary to 6th form, and lack of support or knowledge of education and career paths at home, you're essentially fucked unless some stroke of luck comes out of somewhere.

Part of the problem with this narrative is that it makes it seem like these universities are unreachable bastions of the elite, and not things that a kid from a mining town could go to. These institutions are accessible, and part of changing cultural norms is changing this perception.

It will open your mind about how people like Nick Caldwell(author of the article) or Bill Gates got to the top.

It is very, very hard for people on the lower class get up, even with IQ particularly high.

I remember my Mum saying that if we had stayed in Brum (Birmingham UK) they would have tried to pull strings to get me into king edward's one of my gradparents was a headmaster :-)

For non Uk people that's Tolkien's old school and regularly is ranking 1 or 2 in the Country.

Sure, there is a chance for everybody. But why make it a chance that will certainly remain unfulfilled for a significant majority?

Let's assume we're talking about Georgia, a place with a low cost of living and access to a high quality engineering school.

Year 1: Work in the state, securing in-state tuition costs Year 2+3: Go to Georgia Perimeter College (2 year tuition cost: $4600) Year 4+5: Attend Georgia Institute of Technology on the transfer program (2 year tuition + fee cost: $12,400)

Total cost of tuition is now $17,000 over 4 years.

To get at your point about information logistics: nothing has ever been more useful in my life than being surrounded by intelligent people going through the same grueling process that you are, supporting each other and working together for the single point of trying to learn material and complete assignments under unreasonable deadlines.

There's also difference between access to the best instruction on the planet and having direct communication to some of the best instructors doing some of the most interesting work on the planet.

Oh, come on, people tend to survive university.

I am thinking of models for educational institutions here, not golf clubs.

Of course the environment is important but that is not an argument for artificial exclusivity and if only in context of the material given.

Pay for the direct line if you wish to do so since information is more widely available today, the difference between formal and "guerilla" education will get smaller.

And there should be a vast economic interest to decrease this distance. With the exception of business interests of universities of course.

The environment isn't important, it's the deciding factor in the quality of your education. A good environment with the right curriculum is the single most effective way to learn a difficult subject, develop the habits that help you learn, and have the conversations that lead to retention.

There is a vast economic interest to decrease the distance here. You have a ton of eLearning resources at your disposal. They just don't work as well for most people.

I would also like to mention that the UC system is one of the more open, impactful universities when compared to the privates.

So more or less access to a country club. Isn't it?

That's probably because reading/watching materials isn't everything what education is or what brings its value. Just the fact that the system manages to get 8-18 year olds to read those materials and learn them makes a start difference, not to mention allows access to mentors and peers doing the same thing.

1. Value of a service is how much the market is willing to pay.

2. In the times of abundant, easy access to service X, a high price tag is indicator of quality and rarity. I.e., it's a feature, not a bug.

So ...

> How do you explain the cost of education

... was more of a rhetorical question.

I think you'll agree that, if everyone followed your plan, only I tiny fraction would get into the top ten.

Given that, how do you know that tons of people are not trying your approach and failing right now?

I think there's a pretty significant outcomes difference in terms of social class in the top of the class at my school and the top of the class at say UWashington or UWaterloo

Not healthy

you just have no option but to squeeze in a salad,hug and a pushup(or two) in between.

Should get more sleep though.

It seems to me that, as a corollary, I can consume 2,000 cal at supper instead of 2,500 at breakfast and still hold my fat reserves steady. The calories from supper are used with greater efficiency.

So, given that I can choose freely how many calories to consume at any time, aren't calories consumed later in the day actually _better_ on a lot of dimensions?

Also, the breakfast depicted in that article looks delicious.

Seems like good fit given his PowerBI background and Looker is prettt fantastic.

>led the major initiative to redesign and re-architect the 13-year-old site.

The redesign that everyone, including me, hates with a passion? I continuously have to revert to the old design, the new design is horrible.

Standardized testing gets a lot of flak for being too rigid or biased, but I think its rigidity serves an important purpose. You may be living in an unjust society, but if you can score X on this test, you will get Y. There's plenty of information on the test as well as resources anyone can use to score well enough (online, public library or school library). It's an easier sell to many disadvantaged groups and present a clear way out, whether it be a magnet school or university.

In an unusual society, those who are disadvantaged will also be disadvantaged on this test if it becomes important enough to predict one's future prospects. Think private tutoring, specialized schools, summer camps, all focused on teaching you to get a good score on the test, and all expensive as ever (ie inaccessible). And now, your education system develops you for the test, not for life or jobs.

It's an easier sell, but it's a lemon and not a well designed and performant product.

The same template was used for a few other schools, till the rich white schools wanted a piece of the "smart" kids and got their own program. Now the IB schools at the black schools floundering and are suffering (I think mine closed down)

Although most of my classes were different from the rest of the school, I shared some classes and of course extracurricular activities. The IB program gave me a more diverse education due to being around a population of people I woukd never be around.

They also then bus in the kids from elsewhere in the greater district who purposefully chose the magnet school due to the IB program, as another way of helping these same disadvantaged kids. I'm not sure quite how effective it is, but I understand the logic.

But then again this is America and we love struggle pr0n. Tons of people work 16 hour days in and out that don’t get the same success. The survivor bias is real.

So good, this reminds me of this article I forgot the source that says kids don't get enough playtime anymore because of Youtube and co.