quote:
HOWEVER, a good university educated CS student is better than any good self taught programmer, because most good CS students ARE self taught programmers.

I disagree. Unless you have hard statistics to back this up, this is just your opinion. Do you not use textbooks in university? Of course you do. So why is it so hard to imagine that a self-taught programmer with minimal college couldn''t teach himself university level material by reading books? It all comes down to intelligence. I''ll admit that a well educated CS student might have a stronger theoretical background but the college/self-taught programmer is going to have more hands-on experience. As you can probably tell, I''m a partially self-taught programmer. I spent 1 year in college and decided that I wasn''t learning fast enough so started learning on my own. A year later I was hired by a large corporation and put to work. Having been there for almost 4 years now as a software/solutions developer I can say that I have learned a great deal. I''ve worked with both types of fresh-out-of-college/university students. The college students tend to know more.

Another reason I''ve done so well on my own is because I had (and still have) a chip on my shoulder for not going to university I had this opinion that people from university were really smart and well prepared - so I needed to ensure that I''d be better than them. So I studied like a mad man (going through 3-4 technical books every month or two.) I think it was that kind of dedication that got me where I am.

quote:
There are many self-taught people because programming is something that can easily be learned, and takes time and dedication to master, however I don''t know of any self taught robotics people, vision people, or graphics people.

Wrong. If I''m not mistaken, I believe John Carmack dropped out of college and I think we can agree that he is pretty damn intelligent and a leader in the graphics field.

--------------

Now, I will admit that I do sometimes regret not going to univeristy. I do miss the mathematical/analytical training that I would have received. That area of knowledge is harder to learn without a course outline (i.e. where do you start? etc)

Getting a university degree is an accomplishment; especially when the degree is in a technical subject. Just don''t assume that you are better than everyone out there because of it. There are people out there with intelligence, drive, and tenacity (some with and some without degrees) that will make you look ridiculous.

It is all in the individual.

Just my thoughts



Dire Wolf
www.digitalfiends.com

quote: Original post by Dire.Wolf


Wrong. If I''m not mistaken, I believe John Carmack dropped out of college and I think we can agree that he is pretty damn intelligent and a leader in the graphics field.

Carmack is a really good graphics programmer, but I don''t think many people *in* the graphics field would call him a leader. He implements known or mostly known algorithms quickly and efficiently. However quickly he can code a BSP tree, though, he wasn''t the one that invented BSP trees.

quote: Original post by Ataru
Also, I hate to break this to you, but a University''s PRIMARY objective is not to teach, but to develop reaserch. People who don''t want that shouldn''t be there. The problem is people are going to the wrong place, but then that wouldn''t make the degree usless, but the people.

Research is very very important -- its a good thing. I think we can all agree here. But that''s not what the ten thousand colleges scrambling to get butts in the seats are representing to the students. Most people don''t go to college with high-minded notions of forwarding the cause of research. They go to school to learn how to make a living. And if they shouldn''t be there then why don''t you see how long the university stays afloat with just the three or four out of a hundred who want to stay and do "research". There''s nothing special about Win32 -- it could be Motif for all I care. I don''t expect colleges to cover every possibility -- but some things are pretty big in this industry -- like Win32 -- and the schools could at least make an effort to introduce students to a few such technologies so they get a clue how to apply all the wonderful benefits of your research. Is that so much to ask? Or are the other 95% supposed to simply be satisfied with the warm fuzzy feeling of spending two decades paying off the cost of floating a college for the sake of research?

Ok, all of you people have told us how CS/SE degrees suck. Which degree should we be attempting to get a good start on not only game programming, but programming in general.

quote: Original post by Balkar
Ok, all of you people have told us how CS/SE degrees suck. Which degree should we be attempting to get a good start on not only game programming, but programming in general.

Software engineering. Your use of the word ''programming'' means a degree in software engineering.


And Anon, I''m quite happy that my Uni didn''t waste my time on C syntax, Win32, or any other API for that matter. Programming languages and API''s and even OSes, all come and go. It would have been a real waste of that 80K worth of tuition to have learned things that would be obsolete within years, if not months.

Instead, I learned about the structure of algorithms, and the fundamentals of computing and programming languages. It''s relatively easy to pick up a new programming language. I can do that on my own. I needed the lecture time to pick up complex topics like Ring theory or the fast fourier transform. And Ring theory doesn''t go obsolete.

You seem to be very concerned with gaining a marketable skill. And I''m first to admit, that a CS or even a SE degree is not the fastest, best way to a marketable skill. The best way to that is either through self study, or a certificate training program. But that trains you to the level of a housepainter, which is all you need for a job at most companies. I''d rather be an artist.

From the above posts, I''m getting the feeling that a lot of people think that a CS/SE degree is not directly conducive to getting into the game industry. What about a degree from a school like DigiPen? The various software engineering techniques that one might get from a SE degree certainly seem useful, but actually working directly on games at a university seems to be much more beneficial. Or am I just missing something?

um....yeah....

the purpose of going to college isn''t to "learn how to make a living", it''s to teach you HOW to think. unless you go to a trade school which is a different story all together. in a liberal arts school you learn logic, analytical skills, how to structure an argument, theories of algorithms, whatever...

get a CS degree. you''ll learn theories and alrogithms and math that aren''t so easy to pick up in the "real" world. or at least they are MUCH easier to learn in school b/c there is a whole infrastructure of people devoted to walking you through the difficult concepts.

-me

I''ll tell you why I am going for a degree in CS... it''s NOT for the money... it''s NOT for the piece of paper... It''s for the sheer accomplishment of getting it. I taught myself a lot of stuff and yea.. I could Bull my way into a job.. but I''ll wait and the the credentials to back up what I know.

I agree with most of the arguments involved here. Both sides have valid points. However, going through my BSc right now I''ve learned a few things. One is that a university degree, unlike a tech school degree, is more about appliability (?) and not marketability. Our professor has said time and time agian that the idea of our degree is that after our 4 years we can go to any developer, no matter what language, platform, etc... they use and still work there. This is very true. I''ve programmed in 8 different languages in the first 2 years of university and at this time I am certain that I could pick up any language within a weekend (maybe not be the best at it right away). The point is that at university you learn how to apply yourself and what you''ve learned. Anyone can learn how to code. It takes nothing to be able to learn a syntax and put it to use. However, the design of a system, the creation of new, faster algorithms and general progression in computer science don''t come from learning how to code they come from learning how to think.

We are here on Earth to fart around. Don''''t let anyone tell you any different!
- Kurt Vonnegut

quote: Original post by CheeseGrater

And Anon, I''m quite happy that my Uni didn''t waste my time on C syntax, Win32, or any other API for that matter. Programming languages and API''s and even OSes, all come and go. It would have been a real waste of that 80K worth of tuition to have learned things that would be obsolete within years, if not months.

You misrepresent my thoughts – perhaps I wasn''t clear enough. I still believe the majority of the curriculum should be "fundamentals" and "theory", yes. But I don''t think that is enough. I also think everyone''s snide assumption that someone that just learns how to program on their own is just a monkey using syntax is a gross oversimplification. You can''t just keep ignoring the number of CS grad''s who don''t get it. They bare some responsibility to be sure, but I think there should be some kind of transistioning demonstration of application of theory in relevant technologies somewhere in the mix. Does no one here think there is a whole volume of "theory" behind UI design? Nobody thinks there is a common "theory" behind the usage of D3D and OGL, or are those just lowly API''s that any monkey with syntax can make use of? I''m NOT advocating specific API''s – I''m advocating relevant areas of application. And believe it or not there a few Ph.D''s out there in CS who agree with me.