Why are so many musicians computer programmers?

[Lee Flier]

LOL... Scott just curious, where'd you go to school for electronics, and did you find that it actually helped you in your goal of building effects and such? Seems like a lot of electronics courses are dealing with a whole other animal and that audio people would only benefit from a small portion of it.

 

--Lee

[Kris]

Musicians are generally smart and have a knack for figuring things out.

 

In the computer related fields you need to be smart and have a knack for figuring things out.

 

It is a relatively new, promising field with a big payback if you're good.

 

Most musicians are pressured by their folks to have a fall back plan...

[stratman_dup1]

Thanks for all the help and encouragement guys and gals, I really appreciate it. Still not sure exactly what I'm going to do but I will certainly keep all the comments in mind.

 

I am rather curious about how many of you in the tech related fields have degrees. I know that in my area it is VERY hard for someone without a degree to get any type of tech position. I have a couple of friends in tech related fields that do not have degrees and have seen first hand how many times they have been passed up for someone with a degree, even though they were far more qualified with real world experience.

 

I know that Lee has made quite a life for herself, and highly respect her for it. But, sorry Lee no offense is intended here truly, I have to wonder if she isn't the rare exception not the norm. But of course, we all know that Lee is both a rare AND exceptional person http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif .

 

Or are my perceptions wrong and many people make in tech fields without a college degree?? I have taken some basic computer courses in college and I found what they were teaching to be completely outdated.

 

What are your thoughts about that.

[MusicWorkz]

Originally posted by Kris:

"...Most musicians are pressured by their folks to have a fall back plan... "

 

 

That's why I finished my degree. My folks would have killed me if I told them after my third year I wanted to pursue music more vigorusly. We had too many conversations about music being "..only a hobby and that I should always have a fallback plan." I finally decided to ignore all that and follow my passion, and now, as much as possible,I am making up for lost time.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by MusicWorkz on 05-02-2001 at 09:01 AM

[Calfee Jones]

That's why I went ahead and got the degree also, cause it opens more doors. It's not as if you are learning anything special, and there is a lot of stuff that you have to go over that is relatively useless to you. But I always kinda viewed the degree like a union card. For many companies you have to have it to get in the door...

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Stratman:

Or are my perceptions wrong and many people make in tech fields without a college degree?? I have taken some basic computer courses in college and I found what they were teaching to be completely outdated.

 

Bingo. That's the whole problem. Why go into a monstrous amount of debt and waste a monstrous amount of time learning stuff you're never going to be able to use?

 

I think people like me who are working in the tech field without a degree are not exactly the norm, but not exactly the rare exception either. I know lots of other people without degrees in my field. Partly it depends on what area of technology you want to go into. If you want to work in aerospace, you are probably going to need a degree. If regular business software is your bag (as it is mine), businesses appreciate someone with good communications skills more than anything. If you have good reading, writing and especially oral speaking skills, you will probably be considered over the studious geek who has trouble communicating plainly to people.

 

Part of the problem your friends without degrees may be having when they apply for jobs is that they're applying for the wrong jobs. If you don't have a tech degree and you march into a company saying you want a tech job but you have no degree and no experience except designing your web site at home, they'll laugh. But there are other jobs that are close to the tech field which might enable you to make a "lateral move" once you are exposed to the technology and can prove you're good at it. Quality control, technical writing, business analysis, even accounting. If you get in good with a company and work hard at your computer skills, you can learn what you need to know to get into the IT department and the company may even pay to train you if you prove you have initiative and aptitude.

 

My sister is 29 and has an English degree, and is much less technically minded or self-teaching minded than I am. Yet she is working in IT now. When she got out of college she got a job as a customer service representative. But she made a habit of talking to the systems people a lot (not because she even thought at the time that she wanted to get into IT - she didn't). She had to use the company's order entry system every day so she would tell the programmers if something was wrong or if she had any suggestions for improvement. She soon got to where she was training new reps on the system, and people started to notice she was good at training, good at quality checking a new feature of the system, and good at documenting the business procedures. So they eventually promoted her into the IT department where she is in charge of systems implementation and quality control. She's not a programmer and doesn't want to be, but if she did want to be, she's now in the department and is getting exposed to all the technology on a regular basis. The company says they'll send her to classes on database administration if she wants. In other words, if she wanted to be a programmer she could easily at this point.

 

Anyway sorry if I'm rambling, but I think if you take a cookie-cutter approach to finding a job you'll get a cookie cutter response: "Sorry, you need a degree". If you show that you think creatively (by going through the "back door") and can communicate well with people (which most musicians can), you don't necessarily need the degree.

 

Also if you do decide you want a degree, I would recommend checking out the DeVry schools. They aren't cheap, but they teach current skills and they have a two year degree program. I know quite a few grads of DeVry in both computer science and electronics, and they REALLY know what they're doing.

 

Just my 2 cents... well I guess it was a little more than 2 cents... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

field which might enable you to make a "lateral move" once you are exposed to the technology and can prove you're good at it. Quality

 

It would seem this is the way to do it, based on observing friends. It would appear bozosity is rather high in many IS departments, and it's easy enough to become "integrally useful" by doing stuff on the side. Before you know it, they're in the IS department.

 

Schools are a bit silly from my perspective... I keep running into people in CS who are learning the strangest assortment of information. A friend's GF one day announced she was learning Unix... ok... So I look at her textbook: 400 pages on using XWindows/Gnome interfaces, like a "Win98 Startup" book for Unix. She wouldn't even know what "ls" does by the end of the course (she was most of the way through it).

 

Tech schools seem to be a more efficient route: go and learn a specific language/app and be done with it.

 

But most people I know fell into it. One friend was a hacker from grade school, now does web developement; another guy played video games a lot and learned how to get around computers well, he's doing the same; another guy wrote an app for landscaping golf courses and is now retired at 35; another guy (big Yngwie freak; no rhythm whatsoever) now runs his own web company that he started before he actually went to school to learn C; on and on....

 

What's really funny is that I've had a couple of students I've halfway tutored in computers that have ended up going to school, like they're supposed to, only to drop out to take lucrative jobs. So they didn't drop out to become musicians, but productive citizens....

 

Musicians have the ability to be self-motivating and autodidactic to an extent - it's how you *become* a musician for the most part. In that same way, you can go out an buy a book and basically teach yourself anything in computers, probably faster and more efficiently than at a school. That self-taught/reward system, combined with possibilities outside of the normal avenues of academia, makes an enticing target for musicians.

 

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Bingo. That's the whole problem. Why go into a monstrous amount of debt and waste a monstrous amount of time learning stuff you're never going to be able to use?

 

This gets leads to the age old training vs. education debate. Training teaches you a particular technique or skill that you can apply immediately. Education give you an appreciation of the big picture, enabling you (hopefully) to (a) apply the lessons of your training wisely, and (b) adapt as times change and those initial skills become obsolete.

 

I'm sure that there are self-taught recording engineers who can compete with the best Berkeley grads, but sooner or later, the Berkeley guy/gal is going to be able to resolve a situation that baffles the self-taught person. If this only happens every so often, is it worth it to spend all of that time and money on a degree? There's no easy answer, but the value of the breadth of knowledge that a degree provides is going to come through sooner or later.

 

This of it this way. You have a heart attack, and you're rushed to the emergency room. You have a choice of two doctors, one who went to med school, and one who kind of figured out medicine for himself. Both of them treat successfully most of the patients that they see. But the med school grad had probably seen a wider variety of complications during his years of study, internship, and residency. Even if there's a one in 200 chance that this added dimension will be apply in your case, is it worth the risk to pass on this added knowledge base? This is why companies will offer more to the applicant with the degree (or turn away the non-degreed applicant). That extra level of qualification is not necessary in all circumstances, but it does make a difference, often when you need it the most.

 

If you or someone you know have taken classes that seemed irrelevant, keep this in mind. Think of them as technical cross-training. I had to take electrical engineering and math courses. I don't design circuits or solve differential equations on a daily basis, but these course have helped me to appreciate the inner workings of computers and computer systems in a way that I could not have learned from programming classes alone. As I said, the difference is not ALWAYS critical, but it is often enough to make it attractive enough for employers to pay for it.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

This gets leads to the age old training vs. education debate. Training teaches you a particular technique or skill that you can apply immediately. Education give you an appreciation of the big picture, enabling you (hopefully) to (a) apply the lessons of your training wisely, and (b) adapt as times change and those initial skills become obsolete.

 

Well I don't agree. I don't think it's about "education vs. training", it's about "formal education vs. non-formal education". Often times people who are self educated or who learned through actual experienced are far LESS narrow minded than formally educated people.

 

I'm sure that there are self-taught recording engineers who can compete with the best Berkeley grads, but sooner or later, the Berkeley guy/gal is going to be able to resolve a situation that baffles the self-taught person.

 

True, but the reverse is often true as well. An "uneducated" engineer is often more able to think of solutions that fall outside the scope of formal training. That is why I'm glad there are both types of people in the world, and a smart employer will hire both. Between the two types of thinkers you are more likely to come up with the true best solution.

 

This of it this way. You have a heart attack, and you're rushed to the emergency room. You have a choice of two doctors, one who went to med school, and one who kind of figured out medicine for himself. Both of them treat successfully most of the patients that they see. But the med school grad had probably seen a wider variety of complications during his years of study, internship, and residency. Even if there's a one in 200 chance that this added dimension will be apply in your case, is it worth the risk to pass on this added knowledge base?

 

This is totally prejudiced thinking, because again, it assumes that with formal education you gain everything and lose nothing. M.D.'s gain a lot of valuable education in certain areas, but there are other areas in which their training falls pathetically short. "Alternative medicine" practitioners can often take up the slack in these areas, but the medical profession does its best to exclude this type of thinking from the equation. Again, it would be ideal if patients could have access to BOTH types of education.

 

Also, it's not necessarily correct to assume that a college education will get you more "hands on" experience. Someone who learns by WORKING IN THE PROFESSION is by definition going to be getting more experience than the college student. They will have seen more "real life" situations because they ARE in the "real world".

 

Companies who refuse to hire people without degrees or value them as much, are idiots. Fortunately there are plenty of non-idiotic companies out there. The world needs formally educated people AND informally educated people. Sure, an unmotivated person who doesn't attend college will be labeled as a slacker, but there are an awful lot of slackers with degrees, too. Just as a piece of paper doesn't guarantee that you actually learned anything, not having the piece of paper doesn't prove that you didn't learn exactly what you need to know, either.

 

--Lee

[coyote]

So many musicians are programmers for the same reason so many actors are waiters! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[dansouth]

Let's put it this way, Lee. You have years of experience gigging, recording, playing, writing songs, etc. Let's imagine that we can make two clones of you. They have exactly the same amount of raw talent and ability.

 

We'll send one of them, Clone A, to guitar lessons and engineering classes for a year, then turn her loose to work on whatever music projects come along for the next three years. The other one, Clone B, goes to Berkeley for four years with a double major in Performance and Engineering.

 

At the end of the four years, they're going to have similar, but somewhat different skill sets. Clone A will know some things that Clone B doesn't know, and vice versa. But if I had to select the one who could perform at a higher level in the widest number of circumstances, I would bet on the Berkely grad.

 

Granted neither clone is going to be as good as the original, but the one who learned her craft in a structured environment (that also supports a lot of gigging) is PROBABLY going to outperform the one with the haphazard background. Probably. Not every time or in every way. And if we did this experiment repeatly, Clone A would turn out better sometimes. But a GOOD education - not just ANY education - is the fastest and most reliable way to ramp someone up for a career, regardless of the field.

 

And think of the FUN we'd have with three Lee's on this forum. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

This message has been edited by dansouth@yahoo.com on 05-02-2001 at 03:09 PM

[Lee Flier]

Well Dan, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, because I don't agree. I've always learned far more outside a classroom than in one. Probably for some people, the reverse is true.

 

I also don't think "being able to perform in the widest variety of circumstances" is necessarily a Holy Grail of education. If I had a rare heart condition, I'd want the one doctor who knows everything there is to know about MY condition, not one who could "perform in the widest variety of circumstances". And if by all reckoning he was "the man" in that situation, and he wasn't an M.D., I'd still rather go to him.

 

By the same token, my clients really don't give a shit if I can fix an air traffic control system. They want somebody with real business experience. The fact that I've spent my time in the real world being a real user is what makes me valuable as a programmer. Yeah that means, because I didn't go to college I might not be able to get a gig programming air traffic control systems. But guess what? I DON'T CARE and neither do my clients! And if I cared, I'd just go to school at an accelerated program like DeVry.

 

I'm not trying to knock formal education. If it's for you, it's for you. But I hear a lot of bias in your thinking that isn't true. It is not a GIVEN that you have to have formal education for certain jobs, OR that it will make you a better performer at your job. It really depends on your personality, and the kinds of opportunities you can create for yourself, vs. the opportunities that are available at whatever schools you're able to attend.

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

I think that the bias is pretty evenly spead in this thread. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

My brother-in-law is a self-taught techie. He knows lots of stuff that I don't know. I'm not putting people down for not having a formal education or for going to tech school instead of a four-year program. Many positions don't require a B.S./M.S. level of knowledge. To pay an overqualified candidate to fill these positions would be a waste. I'm simply stating that a degree DOES make a difference. The difference is not always important. There are situations when a degree is overkill and other situations where it's a minimum requirement. But anyone who thinks that they can "just go to DeVry" and get the same level of education as a four-year degree is kidding themselves. This is an important point to illustrate, because people who have not been through a degree program often fail to realize how significance a difference exists between these levels.

[Lee Flier]

Dan, my statements about DeVry are from experience. I deal with programmers who have 4 year CS degrees from universities who don't know shit about what we're trying to accomplish. I mean they are totally clueless. The DeVry grads tend to know all the current, real-world stuff. That's just the reality of my experience.

 

I think there are OTHER benefits to a 4 year degree that may well serve you in other areas of your life. My sister, as I mentioned, has a 4 year English degree. It doesn't mean squat for her job, but she's glad she did it. She didn't think it was going to lead to any big career goal and that's a lot of why she benefited from it.

 

Lots of unfortunate young people park their butts in a university assuming they HAVE to be there or it'll be flipping burgers at McD's for them. They don't really have a clue why they're there, don't get much out of it that pertains to their chosen career (if they even HAVE a chosen career), and they may end up in a mound of debt and very little to show for their experience. There are other people for whom college is a CHOSEN thing; they feel they will benefit from the degree in a personal way and they are really glad they're there.

 

If you think you will like college and really benefit from it, by all means go. But if you're one of those butt-parkers, or if you don't really want to go to college but you think you have to in order to get into a technology field, my only point is NO YOU DON'T HAVE TO. And don't waste your money unless you REALLY want to be there!

 

If my posts sound biased, it's only because I've heard YOUR argument a thousand times over and there are not many advocates for mine. People who are making a decision about going to college have certainly already heard all the "pro-college" arguments about as many times as I have, to the point where the question is only "which school?" and "which degree?" as opposed to "is it really a good idea to even go?" I am not trying to talk anyone OUT of going; only to CONSIDER the question carefully and not blindly assume you have to.

 

If this is a decision you are considering, I'd really highly recommend a book called "The UnCollege Alternative: Your Guide to Incredible Careers and Amazing Adventures Outside College" by Danielle Wood. It gives a lot of alternatives to going to college, including some "wacked out" careers you can get into that you may not have thought of, and which might well be good for musicians. There's a whole chapter on getting into the IT field, too. Even at my age I found it a very helpful and eye-opening read - there's a lot of stuff in there I didn't know existed.

 

Well I'll shut up about this now. But it is definitely something I feel strongly about and have seen too many bright young people get screwed up by choosing a university education when it wasn't the right thing for them. That doesn't say anything bad about a university education for those who benefit from it; it just says that everybody is different and one person's trash is another's treasure, and all that.

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Lots of unfortunate young people park their butts in a university assuming they HAVE to be there or it'll be flipping burgers at McD's for them. They don't really have a clue why they're there, don't get much out of it that pertains to their chosen career (if they even HAVE a chosen career), and they may end up in a mound of debt and very little to show for their experience.

 

If all they do is "park their butts in a university," they are going to END UP flipping burgers. This is the equivalent of going to college as a piano major and neglecting to practice. If you're motivated to learn and to work hard, and if you get into a good program, college will teach you a ton of useful information. If you're in it for the parties, you WILL end up "in a mound of debt [with] very little to show for it."

 

A big problem in the United States is that education is viewed as an entitlement. If it were more DIFFICULT to get into college, people might try harder. Nevertheless, hungry students from all over the world come to American universities to study the tech classes that American students find to difficult or too boring. And then these kids walk off with six figure salaries. Americans need to wake up. Success doesn't come on a silver platter. You have to make smart decisions and work hard if you want to get ahead.

 

Yes, lots of people get tech jobs without going to college. But that's a factor of demand. If and when we experience a downturn in demand, it's going to be much harder for the non-credentialed to get into these jobs.

 

There is NO viable argument against getting an education: two-year, four-year, masters, whatever. Spending time in a qualified program will ALWAYS add a significant dimension to your life, professionally and otherwise. Some people reach levels of success without an education - Bill Gates comes to mind - and some people simply can't afford it. But the notion of "I've always learned better outside of the classroom" is bunk. You can learn all of those same things while you're taking classes, working on assignments, doing internships, etc. PLUS, you have access to many more facilities and you're being trained in the context of a well-conceived system. How can anyone believe that they won't profit from such an experience if they come prepared to learn and to work, rather than just parking their butt waiting for the next party to happen?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

If all they do is "park their butts in a university," they are going to END UP flipping burgers. ...If you're motivated to learn and to work hard, and if you get into a good program, college will teach you a ton of useful information. If you're in it for the parties, you WILL end up "in a mound of debt [with] very little to show for it."

 

Dan, I'm not really TALKING about people who just want to party. I'm talking about people who are LOST, who don't know what they want, and whose parents insist they have to go to college in order to have a life (or who believe that themselves). That describes a LOT of young people.

 

Then there are those like myself who simply DO NOT DO WELL in a structured education format. More on this below.

 

A big problem in the United States is that education is viewed as an entitlement. If it were more DIFFICULT to get into college, people might try harder.

 

I agree, it should be harder to get into college and then maybe people would consider their decision more carefully. A failure to gain acceptance in a college will perhaps motivate more people to seek other paths that they probably ought to seek anyway.

 

Success doesn't come on a silver platter. You have to make smart decisions and work hard if you want to get ahead.

 

Yep, and formal education is not the ONLY way to do that.

 

There is NO viable argument against getting an education: two-year, four-year, masters, whatever. Spending time in a qualified program will ALWAYS add a significant dimension to your life, professionally and otherwise. ....the notion of "I've always learned better outside of the classroom" is bunk.

 

BULLSHIT!! Bullshit, bullshit and again I say BULLSHIT! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif This is EXACTLY why this issue pisses me off so much. Do you presume to know my life experience and what is best for me? Not only me, but everybody else in the damn world? What about all those poor kids who have been diagnosed with "Attention Deficit Disorder" and are given DRUGS so they can become good, manageable little ZOMBIES when the fact of the matter is they are simply BORED to death! They could be perfectly happy and productive if they were given opportunities outside of sitting in a classroom. Instead they have to spend YEARS in a totally damaging environment, slowly getting dulled and turned off to learning until they either have a breakdown or end up at a menial job (and then maybe have a breakdown).

 

There are serious numbers of young people who suffer major DAMAGE - emotional AND educational - from the formal education structure! And if you don't believe that, you're living under a rock. For me, the damage is over and done, or as much so as it can be, and I've moved on. Others are not so lucky and it is for them that I pursue this argument.

 

There are a hundred ways to live a life and to learn what you need to learn to make a good life. School is only ONE, yet it is presented as if it's the ONLY one and as if it CAN'T POSSIBLY HURT ANYBODY! If you think there are "no viable arguments" against schooling you would be very wrong, and you really don't want to go there with me. If you really do, I'd be happy to forward you some essays written by a friend of mine who is even more on the lunatic fringe about education than I am, and whose arguments are far better stated than I could ever state them. But I really can't believe I'm hearing this argument on a forum made up primarily of ARTISTS. If anybody doesn't fit in the box, it's us. Or I guess, SOME of us.

 

Let me know if you want those essays, if you dare! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

Overprescription of anti-depressants, anti-biotics, and a thousand other drugs is a serious problem, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you can better yourself with education. The key is to find the right program in the right field.

 

If you want to learn to make floral arrangements and you can't bring yourself to harm a spider, then going to Army is going to be a big mistake. You're going to end up humiliated, possibly damaged. But if a school exists that (a) teaches floral arrangement, and (b) matches your temperament, you're PROBABLY going to learn more by taking classes there than by trying to figure it out on your own.

 

For some people, apprenticeships are the right way to learn their craft. For others it's a four-year degree or a tech program. For others, it may be a non-traditional school, on-the-job training, military school, or field work under the tutlage of an expert. Regardless, if you find the RIGHT program, you'll advance faster than doing it on your own. That was an is my entire point. I'm not talking about the K-12 system, which is far from perfect in the United States, and I'm not talking about prescription drugs or straight jackets or shock therapy. I'm talking about the relative value of participating in an elective educational experience.

[michael saulnier]

In my work, I see the degree / non-degree issue every day.

 

IMHO a 4 year degree in Computer Science does not guarantee that the developer will be any good. In fact, recent grads are still viewed as "newbies' because they're not experienced in the "real world".

 

However, companies who hire recent 4-year grads are hoping that the person has "learned how to learn". It's no secret that technology in the programming world is moving so fast that whatever "tools" you know today will be replaced by others within 1 to 5 years. So... people with a demonstrated ability to "learn" are always going to be attractive.

 

I would also say that in many cases the "good" CS grads have learned good programming habits that some "hackers" do not. This is one of the few "universal" things a slow changing college curriculum can teach and most schools do a decent job with it. It may be easier defending your code in a code review meeting if you've got the same frame of reference as others you work with... knowing common naming conventions, OOD principals, and other design theories aren't needed to write code that works, but it can be an important plus if you're developing apps in a group setting or expect that others will have to maintain code you've authored.

 

I also see many "Associate Degree" or even "self-taught" developers have successful careers. But they typically have the extra hurdle of "proving" they have the intellectual horsepower to succeed on the project or job they're hired for. The best ones build a "portfolio" of successful projects... ideally with the ability to do a "show and tell" for the prospective employer. This can go a long way to eliminating any concerns about the lack of a 4 year degree for all but the most narrow minded employers.

 

For anyone thinking about programming as a career, I'd say investigate the college programs and decide if it's the right path for you... but if it's not... do whatever it takes to get some practical experience under your belt. For example, volunteer to write an application for your current job, church, local Red Cross, kids school, or whatever... Make sure you do as good a job as you can, and retain the rights to "demo" the app and "source".

 

I also like Lee's suggestion to get in a company and grow your way into a programming position. I call it the "fungus" approach to career growth. In most companies, if you fill a need, people will notice... and reward you with more responsibilies. Just don't forget the "Peter principal"! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I can assure you, in today's market, if you can "deliver the goods" with skillful code and timely deliverables, you'll be able to find someone to pay you to do it.

 

...And some music playing headhunter may help you on your way! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

guitplayer

[Michael Riehle]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Granted neither clone is going to be as good as the original, but the one who learned her craft in a structured environment (that also supports a lot of gigging) is PROBABLY going to outperform the one with the haphazard background.

 

Not in my experience.

 

In my experience (a little over 20 years of programming) the level of formal education a programmer has is completely irrelevant. Neither good nor bad. It just isn't part of the real equation.

 

Talent and motivation matter far more. In fact, talent and motivation often matter more than experience although I wouldn't go so far as to say experience is irrelevant.

 

I was a hiring manager a few years ago. The structure of the organization was such that my manager and I had to agree on who we hired before an offer was made. He wouldn't hire anyone without a degree. We lost a lot of good talent because of his degree snobbery. We also hired some major losers.

 

The one and only argument for formal education in my mind is to learn a specific skill. General education is a waste of time and money.

 

I look back on the education I've had and I'm just *so* grateful my parents insisted I learn stuff in spite of my formal schooling. My teachers did everything they could to kill my curiosity and fascination with the world, but my parents kept them alive. I was also fortunate in that I did have one teacher who actively undermined the efforts of the others and taught me some useful skills.

 

I won't dismiss as useless someone who has a degree in software development, but the degree does not impress me. Too many degreed programmers got the degree because they heard they could make a lot money programming computers.

 

There are basic skills that must be taught and I believe that's what grades K-12 should be (and aren't, at least not very well) doing. The rest of it is more or less getting a ticket punched.

 

 

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

Michael Riehle

Bass Player/Band Leader

fivespeed

CA Local Bay Area Music Webring

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

If you want to learn to make floral arrangements and you can't bring yourself to harm a spider, then going to Army is going to be a big mistake. You're going to end up humiliated, possibly damaged. But if a school exists that (a) teaches floral arrangement, and (b) matches your temperament, you're PROBABLY going to learn more by taking classes there than by trying to figure it out on your own.

 

...if you find the RIGHT program, you'll advance faster than doing it on your own... I'm not talking about prescription drugs or straight jackets or shock therapy.

 

I guess you still don't get it.

 

For quite a lot of people, "programs" themselves, that is, the system of formal education itself, IS a straitjacket.

 

And there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that people learn better by other methods than formal training, but never get a chance to exercise those methods because from age 5 or earlier they are consigned to give up their entire childhood and innate learning abilities to over 16,000 hours of school.

 

If you are one of those people for whom you feel the system of education has worked, GREAT. If you are not one of those people, not only will you be VERY slowed down and limited by education, but you may well be emotionally damaged and turned off by something that once fascinated and inspired you.

 

Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of the "program" or teachers. It has to do with the idea of "programs" itself.

 

If you don't get it, I guess you'll just have to take my word that many people's experience is different from yours. But please be aware of that and realize that the mantra "everybody needs an education" is simply not true.

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

THANK YOU Michael. You nailed it on the head.

 

--Lee

[D. Gauss]

to me it doesn't matter how you learn.....as long as you learn. the knowledge is what's important, not the method. in a way i kinda wished i'd had some formal training, but i ended up teaching myself a lot of computer stuff out of necessity. years ago i worked in television at a place that was dependent upon an obscure database program. problem was the programmer was located 300 miles away. when things went haywire, we were crippled until this guy got on a plane and came down! (how he managed to get that contract i'll never know) i got tired of sittin around waitin', started playing around, and eventually figured out how program the thing. a year later, i could run circles around our original guy and ened up doing outside work as well redesigning the company's whole system... but there's still tons of very simple concepts that i'm sure i don't know(i only learned what i needed to know at the time) because i never had a basic education on the subject.

 

-d. gauss

[Gator Wing]

I must be the exception to the rule.

 

I've been in computer operations, programming, and operating system software support. I've excelled at all endevors in the IT field.

 

However, my guitar playing is seriously bad. I'm glad I'm only trying to impress myself!

 

I love the sound of those six strings!!

[Gator Wing]

Edited because it was a double post due to time-out and refresh.

 

This message has been edited by gatorwing@aol.com on 05-03-2001 at 03:58 PM

[D. Gauss]

"yes, actually i'm an actress, but i'm studying to be a waitress"

-woody allen movie(forget which)

 

-d. gauss

[dansouth]

Educational institutions are not responsible for personal baggage. If someone has baggage, they need to deal with it. It's a separate issue. It has nothing to do with education.

 

True, baggage can complicate an educational endeavor. But it can also complicate a job, a marriage, a vacation, a family reunion, community service, even a bridge club. This is a separate issue. It has nothing to do with institutions of higher learning.

 

My point was that education is the fastest, most reliable, most thorough, most predictibly successful way to ramp up your knowledge in almost any area. An analogous statement would be to say that air travel is the fastest way to get to another country. If you counter and say, "Not necessarily, Dan. Some people have ISSUES with air travel. They could be claustrophobic. They could suffer air sickness. They could be terrified and end up damaged. They may never want to travel again." I would say that the airline is not to blame for these issues, and it's THEIR OWN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to handle those issues before attempting to get on the plane.

 

Keep in mind that I'm talking about elective education here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get a computer sciance degree, a music degree, go to law school, etc. These are things that people CHOOSE to do. If they CHOOSE a course of education that is poorly suited for them and that experience drives them nuts, that's not the fault of the university. If I went to law school, I'd go stark raving mad. That's not the law school's fault. The law school turns out thousands of successful lawyers. It's my fault for putting myself into a program that is a poor match for my personality and my aspirations.

 

Regarding degreed morons, yes, we've all met plenty of them. People who did the minimum to get by and get the sheepskin. People who don't have any real motiviation to be in the field other than to get a better job. And we've all met brilliant people who have taught themselves computer programming, sound mixing, etc. But if you look at the aggregate of ALL computer science grads and compare that to the aggregate of ALL people who did NOT study computer science in college, you'll find that the percentage of the C.S. grads who know how to program computers is MUCH higher than the percentage of non-grads.

 

No system is foolproof, but education DOES deliver the goods in the majority of cases.

[Lee Flier]

Educational institutions are not responsible for personal baggage. If someone has baggage, they need to deal with it. It's a separate issue. It has nothing to do with education.

 

Boy, you REALLY don't get it, do ya?

 

Suppose somebody starts out a perfectly happy, self directed, healthy human being and the educational system CAUSES them to be screwed up?

 

Not just AN educational institution (again). THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. Not because you're in "the wrong program", but because you're in "an educational institution" in the first place.

 

And suppose there are OTHER ways to learn to become very proficient at something which actually ARE faster and more complete than going to school?

 

And suppose most people never get to find out what these other ways are because everyone is too busy telling them that "education is the way" and that someone who doesn't agree with you must just "have emotional baggage" and that the educational system "has nothing to do with it?"

 

So if someone doesn't fit in with "the system" they must just be fucked up and need to get over it? ROFL THAT'S A GOOD ONE!! Geez Dan, what a perfect little slave of the establishment you are! They've got you trained TOO WELL! It's just too bad so many people have absolutely no self esteem because they actually listen to this kind of thing! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Oh yeah and another thing!

 

Keep in mind that I'm talking about elective education here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get a computer sciance degree, a music degree, go to law school, etc.

 

Yeah but most young people are all but forced into it by the pressure of parents combined with the previous conditioning of 16,000+ hours of school. By the time they get out of high school, most kids are already convinced by their parents and teachers that if they don't go to college they'll end up flipping burgers or dealing crack. It's not even really a question.

 

I am more inclined to feel that a kid should at least take some time off after high school graduation and travel or do something else besides school for a couple of years. Give them a chance for some self reflection fercryinoutloud, free of the influence of other people, where they can hopefully undo some of the conditioning of their past school experiences. If they then choose to go to college, great. But really there are so many people who are there because "that's what you have to do" and have NO real idea why they're there. So they just party and then get called lazy and unmotivated. Well DUH, of COURSE they are, somebody's been directing just about every hour of their day for their whole life, many kids really have no CLUE who they are when they start college. And the truth is they could find out at a lot earlier age than 18. That's just sad.

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Geez Dan, what a perfect little slave of the establishment you are!

 

Just which "establishment" am I a slave to. The American establishment? The Russian establishment. The German establishment? The Chinese establishment? The Korean establishment? The Kuwaiti establishment? The Israeli establishment? Education is highly valued in all of these vastly different nations. Why? Because there's a massive global conspiracy to deflate self-esteem and turn people into miserable robots? That's ludicrous, Lee. Education works (albeit not for everyone).

 

Prove me wrong. Please list some top notch surgeons, astronauts, engineers, opera singers, ballet dancers, novelists, and financial analysts who have reached their full potential and made a lasting impact on society WITHOUT the benefit of education.

[D. Gauss]

<>

 

don't limit it to kids. many adults have no idea who they are. then they have kids themselves and find out that what they've become are "parents" without a clue. ain't life grand?

 

-d. gauss