What the Head of Hiring at Google Doesn’t Understand About Skills(chronicle.com)
chronicle.com
What the Head of Hiring at Google Doesn’t Understand About Skills
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/05/28/what-the-head-of-hiring-at-google-doesnt-understand-about-skills/?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
129 comments
in fact, the author attempt to tear down an argument completely of his own invention:
'But then I read Bock’s rationale, and that’s when I nearly lose a mouthful of Cheerios: Unlike English—and presumably other non-STEM fields—computer science “signals a rigor in your thinking,” an ability “to think in a formal and logical and structured way.” He said what?'
from this the author decided to read that ONLY CS majors can learn logical thinking, but Bock's statement was really that CS inherently signals this because CS is entirely predicated on this type of thinking no matter where you learn it.
I'm getting sick of these whiny stupid articles popping up on the front page, like there is a decline of logic in the site votership itself. The amazon tantrum yesterday and now this eesh
'But then I read Bock’s rationale, and that’s when I nearly lose a mouthful of Cheerios: Unlike English—and presumably other non-STEM fields—computer science “signals a rigor in your thinking,” an ability “to think in a formal and logical and structured way.” He said what?'
from this the author decided to read that ONLY CS majors can learn logical thinking, but Bock's statement was really that CS inherently signals this because CS is entirely predicated on this type of thinking no matter where you learn it.
I'm getting sick of these whiny stupid articles popping up on the front page, like there is a decline of logic in the site votership itself. The amazon tantrum yesterday and now this eesh
This would be a legitimate critique if Bock were saying "Here's how I screen through 100,000 resumes". Your interpretation would serve as a good heuristic. But that's not what we're talking about: he implied that, all things being equal, he would hire a B student majoring in CS over an A student majoring in English because of "signalling" when comparing two candidates he had to choose from.
But that's exactly what "signalling" means - and Bock has decided (presumably based on experience and statistics) that the positive signal of CS is and B student is stronger than the positive signal of A student of English.
Define "all things being equal", because unless the CS major and English major have both taken exactly the same courses (in which case, why aren't they both double CS/English majors?), things aren't equal.
If you've got your two students, and they're both applying for a software development position, wouldn't you rather have the person who's taken formal CS courses? Even if the English major has worked on some software projects on the side, the CS major probably has some experience with data structures and algorithms, and being able to think about those.
I'm not saying an English major can't do the same things, or that because someone studied CS they're better than anyone else. What I'm trying to get at is that your average B student who studied CS is probably a better candidate for a technical position than your average A student who studied English.
If you've got your two students, and they're both applying for a software development position, wouldn't you rather have the person who's taken formal CS courses? Even if the English major has worked on some software projects on the side, the CS major probably has some experience with data structures and algorithms, and being able to think about those.
I'm not saying an English major can't do the same things, or that because someone studied CS they're better than anyone else. What I'm trying to get at is that your average B student who studied CS is probably a better candidate for a technical position than your average A student who studied English.
I'm assuming this is about engineering hires. If they both interviewed well they'd both get hired. Of course, getting past the resume screening is not equally likely, but I'd expect an English major applying for an engineering role to have something more than their not-entirely-relevant degree on the resume to make up for it.
How true and ironical. The author manages to prove exactly his inability to think logically by misunderstanding what Block was saying. And then he goes on being reactive instead of providing any meaningful arguments, even against his straw man...
I see this mode of thinking very often in people that I call "mud-minds" (shortly, people incapable of clear, cold, abstract and detached thinking, or at least incapable of performing thinking in a way that exhibits all these 4 attributes simultaneously, without loosing their intuition while they do this), even the well educated ones with probably high IQs: they totally fail to understand the real meaning of a message, and attack strawman ideas or follow dead-end reasoning paths, even if they do this with great skill and intelligence and the arguments they use may actually be very logical.
The sad thing is that seeing someone with a CS and math background think this way destroys my hope that exposing children early on to technical, abstract and logical thinking can prevent them from becoming "mud-minds". This even makes me pessimistic about humanity's future :(
I see this mode of thinking very often in people that I call "mud-minds" (shortly, people incapable of clear, cold, abstract and detached thinking, or at least incapable of performing thinking in a way that exhibits all these 4 attributes simultaneously, without loosing their intuition while they do this), even the well educated ones with probably high IQs: they totally fail to understand the real meaning of a message, and attack strawman ideas or follow dead-end reasoning paths, even if they do this with great skill and intelligence and the arguments they use may actually be very logical.
The sad thing is that seeing someone with a CS and math background think this way destroys my hope that exposing children early on to technical, abstract and logical thinking can prevent them from becoming "mud-minds". This even makes me pessimistic about humanity's future :(
> They were simply unprepared for the torrent of proofs, deductions, tautologies, De Morgan's laws, etc.
All of which I never see used in a professional capacity for the vast majority of software developers.
What I do see used quite often is the ability to communicate to customers or other engineers in a clear, succinct and enjoyable manner using the English language.
All of which I never see used in a professional capacity for the vast majority of software developers.
What I do see used quite often is the ability to communicate to customers or other engineers in a clear, succinct and enjoyable manner using the English language.
Technical people often underestimate the value of good communication. Technical does not necessarily refer to programming, but also to other fields like statistical financial modelling (which I do). And complain about the fact that people less qualified than them are in management.
I'm not suggesting that communication should be the sole criteria for management - a lot of software companies need programmers at the helm (as advocated by Joel Spolsky), but there are situations where an analytical liberal arts major with maturity and leadership skills will do much better than someone whose primary skills is technology.
>>Technical people often underestimate the value of good communication.
Not just underestimate, even outright condemn. Like the people who defend Linus's form of "communication" on the kernel mailing list as "to the point" or "efficient". Anyone who thinks that's an acceptable style of communication from/to any human being is wrong and a perfect example of why the tech companies in general should probably make their engineers attend a speech and/or social relationships class. Somewhere along the line, "engineering culture" decided any communication protocols outside of TCP, UDP and syscalls are a waste of time.
Not just underestimate, even outright condemn. Like the people who defend Linus's form of "communication" on the kernel mailing list as "to the point" or "efficient". Anyone who thinks that's an acceptable style of communication from/to any human being is wrong and a perfect example of why the tech companies in general should probably make their engineers attend a speech and/or social relationships class. Somewhere along the line, "engineering culture" decided any communication protocols outside of TCP, UDP and syscalls are a waste of time.
Linus excels at communication. He makes it crystal clear what he's trying to convey and the standard he's setting, and has coordinated the development of the most widely-deployed kernel on earth entirely via email for decades. He communicates perfectly well.
He's an asshole on occasion, but that's not the same as communicating poorly.
He's an asshole on occasion, but that's not the same as communicating poorly.
Completely disagree. I don't care how popular his kernel is; his communication style is ridiculous and the fact that there are so many devs that have no problem working for him isn't a sign that his communication is good.... it's a sign all the people working with him don't realize, or ignore, or accept his ridiculous behavior and is just an example of why the tech industry needs a communications/social relations course for a lot of engineers.
Are you judging by results or by your own subjective taste? Because I find results more interesting (and persuasive).
Even if maximum efficiency is achieved by his style of communication, I still don't agree with it. Efficiency is not more important than being civil.
"Ends don't justify the means" kinda thing... but I know I'm not going to convince you in this thread; and you're definitely not going to convince me otherwise. There are too many rude people in tech that don't know how to communicate properly with people. Rudeness has somehow become acceptable in the tech-industry so they can't see the problem they have.... and it _is_ a problem.
"Ends don't justify the means" kinda thing... but I know I'm not going to convince you in this thread; and you're definitely not going to convince me otherwise. There are too many rude people in tech that don't know how to communicate properly with people. Rudeness has somehow become acceptable in the tech-industry so they can't see the problem they have.... and it _is_ a problem.
I'm trying to draw a distinction between effective communication and not being an asshole. They are different problems. One is a problem of ability and the other is a problem of temperament.
Conversely to Linus, someone can be perfectly polite and pleasant but fail to communicate effectively because they don't convey any meaningful information. Such a person would have poor communication skills, but not be an asshole. Linus has good communication skills, but is an asshole.
Conversely to Linus, someone can be perfectly polite and pleasant but fail to communicate effectively because they don't convey any meaningful information. Such a person would have poor communication skills, but not be an asshole. Linus has good communication skills, but is an asshole.
> All of which I never see used in a professional capacity for the vast majority of software developers.
Anecdotal irony: not 24 hours ago a colleague and I had to reverse engineer a hairy mess of deeply nested if/then/else clauses that should not exist that turned out to be composed mostly of tautologies. I definitely wish to throw books at some people, preferably of the steel-bound, razor sharp edged kind.
Conclusion: you're not drawing Karnaugh tables daily in front of you, but having manipulated the fundamental rules of logic has trained your neural net and makes you much more effective at solving logic problems in a wink and not write crap code, and also simply able to debug stuff efficiently, if at all. I am regularly aghast at people drawing completely invalid conclusions from broken "common sense" logic propositions (A=>B therefore B=>A, or various other syllogisms).
Anecdotal irony: not 24 hours ago a colleague and I had to reverse engineer a hairy mess of deeply nested if/then/else clauses that should not exist that turned out to be composed mostly of tautologies. I definitely wish to throw books at some people, preferably of the steel-bound, razor sharp edged kind.
Conclusion: you're not drawing Karnaugh tables daily in front of you, but having manipulated the fundamental rules of logic has trained your neural net and makes you much more effective at solving logic problems in a wink and not write crap code, and also simply able to debug stuff efficiently, if at all. I am regularly aghast at people drawing completely invalid conclusions from broken "common sense" logic propositions (A=>B therefore B=>A, or various other syllogisms).
I feel, that no amount of manipulation of fundamental rules of logic can help the people you are aghast at. The ones who infer the broken "common sense" logic propositions(a=>b implies b=>a). Also, I know a lot more of non CS people who have excellent analytical skills than the ones with a CS background.
It's easier to find CS majors who can communicate effectively than English majors who have the logic skills to read, write, and debug code. Especially at the level demanded by a company like Google.
If you're a consultancy that writes CRUD apps I can see emphasizing communication skills over technical skills but you're not Google.
If you're a consultancy that writes CRUD apps I can see emphasizing communication skills over technical skills but you're not Google.
> It's easier to find CS majors who can communicate effectively than English majors who have the logic skills to read, write, and debug code.
Is it? I've met quite a lot of coders who think they're good communicators but really, really aren't.
Is it? I've met quite a lot of coders who think they're good communicators but really, really aren't.
That is simply because the top of the stack in our field is full of application developers and not computer architects. I fail to see how quantity becomes more important than quality.
What is your point exactly? It sounds like what you're suggesting is simply not practical (that all developers should be well-versed in all facets of software development, even those skills only employed by a minority of developers).
A screaming example of academic signaling, but where the "signal" is only _just_ stronger than the noise.
Karnaugh Maps: While I love vocab as much as any other kid out there. We're not calling them " colored-truth-tables " which is what the fuck it is. You're advocating that one is more rigorous than the other. However the only thing which is actually being conveyed is usage OF A TRUTH TABLE!
Academics gleefully accept this more specific vocabulary as a proxy for context knowledge.
Its a (fucking) shit workaround.
Karnaugh Maps: While I love vocab as much as any other kid out there. We're not calling them " colored-truth-tables " which is what the fuck it is. You're advocating that one is more rigorous than the other. However the only thing which is actually being conveyed is usage OF A TRUTH TABLE!
Academics gleefully accept this more specific vocabulary as a proxy for context knowledge.
Its a (fucking) shit workaround.
how so?
CS is rooted entirely in the qualities he is looking for. English isn't.
CS is rooted entirely in the qualities he is looking for. English isn't.
> you don't hear CS folks claiming they're well suited for writing poetry.
It may be technically true, but the dismissive "english/humanities is easy" narrative that is (or, in my day, was--it seems it still is) extremely popular in the STEM undergraduate community carries a kind of implicit claim of exactly that sort. Stating that something is easy necessarily implies the person making the statement thinks he could, with some relatively lesser effort than he applies to his current focus, achieve comparable results to those who focus on that something.
It may be technically true, but the dismissive "english/humanities is easy" narrative that is (or, in my day, was--it seems it still is) extremely popular in the STEM undergraduate community carries a kind of implicit claim of exactly that sort. Stating that something is easy necessarily implies the person making the statement thinks he could, with some relatively lesser effort than he applies to his current focus, achieve comparable results to those who focus on that something.
I was with you until the last sentence, which packed a low and somewhat unfair punch. There's plenty to do with an English degree besides writing poetry. Law is a typical exit path. So are lucrative positions in media, entertainment, publishing, journalism, and public policy. To excel at these fields, one needs to be pretty smart. It's a different kind of smart from the kind you need in technology jobs. No question about that. But one is not inherently superior to the other. And practitioners of one path are not incapable of pursuing the other.
There's a trend towards convergence, however, and formal logic has had a profound effect on the English curriculum in the last several decades. Hofstadter, Tarski, Quine, Levi-Strauss, et al., are becoming required reading in forward-thinking English curricula. Your typical English course isn't going to touch the type of logic discussed in your typical CS course. But advanced linguistics is, more or less, formal systemics. Unfortunately, you can encounter a fair amount of fluff on the way there.
English education is in need of an overhaul, and it's starting to get one. But there should be no battle between the humanities and the sciences. Instead, we should do a better job bringing the average in the humanities up to par and rigor.
We should also do a better job coaching students on career paths before we ask them to choose majors. If you're studying English because you like reading books, and you have no clue what you want to do when you graduate, you're in for a tough road ahead. If you're studying English because you want to get into Yale Law School, or write for the New York Times, or become the next Michael Lewis, that's great. (But in that case, you'd better be good.)
Ultimately, what matters isn't the content of the two paths, but the application of them. CS is a directly practical degree. You can put to work what you learn almost immediately and unambiguously. You can trace a more or less direct path between the input (education) and the output (skill). English is more indirect. You can learn extremely valuable skills in an English program, but those skills aren't immediately applicable to any particular job. That's because English is a really old curriculum, which predates the modern job market. If you want to make something of an English degree, you'll need to develop skills above and beyond what you learn in the classroom. Generally speaking, schools don't do a great job teaching those ancillary skills. And so the English degree is not, in itself, sufficient for positions to which it's very well suited.
There's a trend towards convergence, however, and formal logic has had a profound effect on the English curriculum in the last several decades. Hofstadter, Tarski, Quine, Levi-Strauss, et al., are becoming required reading in forward-thinking English curricula. Your typical English course isn't going to touch the type of logic discussed in your typical CS course. But advanced linguistics is, more or less, formal systemics. Unfortunately, you can encounter a fair amount of fluff on the way there.
English education is in need of an overhaul, and it's starting to get one. But there should be no battle between the humanities and the sciences. Instead, we should do a better job bringing the average in the humanities up to par and rigor.
We should also do a better job coaching students on career paths before we ask them to choose majors. If you're studying English because you like reading books, and you have no clue what you want to do when you graduate, you're in for a tough road ahead. If you're studying English because you want to get into Yale Law School, or write for the New York Times, or become the next Michael Lewis, that's great. (But in that case, you'd better be good.)
Ultimately, what matters isn't the content of the two paths, but the application of them. CS is a directly practical degree. You can put to work what you learn almost immediately and unambiguously. You can trace a more or less direct path between the input (education) and the output (skill). English is more indirect. You can learn extremely valuable skills in an English program, but those skills aren't immediately applicable to any particular job. That's because English is a really old curriculum, which predates the modern job market. If you want to make something of an English degree, you'll need to develop skills above and beyond what you learn in the classroom. Generally speaking, schools don't do a great job teaching those ancillary skills. And so the English degree is not, in itself, sufficient for positions to which it's very well suited.
I think you're reading too much into it. I took it to mean that writing poetry (or, at least, doing it well) is something that requires many years of practice, and that isn't something anyone can just pick up.
I didn't perceive a slight at all, it seemed like a very fair analogy to me. "Writing a novel" would be the same.
I didn't perceive a slight at all, it seemed like a very fair analogy to me. "Writing a novel" would be the same.
I read it the way you apparently intended to write it. In college, getting to where I could write and get published poems that weren't a personal embarrassment took more or less the same amount of study and practice as getting my CS degree. I think mastering either craft would be a comparable endeavor and accomplishment (though one would pay much better).
The nice thing about compilers is they tell you when your code has a problem. There's no equivalent barrier to posting awful poetry-drivel on Facebook ;-)
The nice thing about compilers is they tell you when your code has a problem. There's no equivalent barrier to posting awful poetry-drivel on Facebook ;-)
>>Not that one is better than the other, but you don't hear CS folks claiming they're well suited for writing poetry.
Just wait until you see the headline: "Join our startup to disrupt the poetry industry!"
Just wait until you see the headline: "Join our startup to disrupt the poetry industry!"
It is interesting article. But I think that it emphasizes one thing which hurts companies growth. Let's put Google aside - because this is not about Google.
The companies end up having hiring techniques and processes (and subconscious biases for hiring as result of these) which might work well before but they might do not work for today. This is very hard thing to solve and problems becomes obvious to outside world when companies try to get into new field / area.
Some companies have head of recruiting reporting directly to CEO to fix these kind of problems. Some companies will do acquisitions.
The companies end up having hiring techniques and processes (and subconscious biases for hiring as result of these) which might work well before but they might do not work for today. This is very hard thing to solve and problems becomes obvious to outside world when companies try to get into new field / area.
Some companies have head of recruiting reporting directly to CEO to fix these kind of problems. Some companies will do acquisitions.
I'm not sure about typical English majors vs. CS majors, but in a cognitive sense there is quite a bit of overlap in certain areas. Writing and high-comprehension reading involves the deep understanding and manipulation of language. So does programming.
All "language" is not the same. To be reliably and consistently machine executable, a language needs to facilitate manipulations that are logically rigorous. While in a language for general human communication, emphasis needs to be on manipulations that are more fluid and aesthetic in nature. Facility with one does not necessarily translate well to another. Particularly in the English -> Programming direction, which makes it doubly dangerous to assume it does, when hiring for STEM type jobs. Extreme aspies and savants aside, most good programmers can communicate well in English, in the sense they can formulate their intent precisely. While the converse is much, much rarer.
Yes, but CS majors come out of school with some level of understanding about how computing works... not just how to write code.
I sort of agree with your overall sentiment, but the reason you found the average student from humanities inept is because the good students generally opt for STEM courses - presumably because these courses allow you to make much more money after you pass out. I also happen to believe that the world would be a much better place if a larger number of bright students study humanities subjects - especially history and literature.
[deleted](1)
It's not that you can't learn rigor and critical thinking skills as an English major, it's that it's not all that hard to complete an English degree without learning those things. Hence the word "signals".
As former English literature and philosophy student (I am studying computer science while working for a startup now) I can tell you at that at my university you would not get an A if your reasoning and critical analysis were poor. When I was studying it was not uncommon for STEM students to get 100% for tests and exams but such a thing was unheard of in the humanities faculty. If an undergraduate got 100% for an English essay that essay would be worthy of publication in a literary journal which only happened once while I was there.
As the time of me writing this, it looks like you're being downvoted (which I don't think is fair), but I think your answer points to one of the problems. Grading in the humanities is more subjective. By analogy, Olympic gymnastic scores are subject to a lot more disagreements than 100 meter sprint times.
Let them downvote me: let them bring their slings and arrows! :)
I can't argue against what you have said. The humanities are subjective but that does not mean that they are not valuable but the greater problem is that there is very little demand in the global economy for essays on social contract theory and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and anti-industrialism. The best thing we can hope for is that the humanities plays a complimentary role in education. i.e. studying a humanities major like philosophy in addition to a computer science degree. In my "subjective experience" when building consumer facing apps for my company having a humanities degree has helped to make these apps better. Being able to code well is not a guarantee that your app will appeal to a consumer but knowing what people want in a product for instance, is an enterprise for the humanities because it demands introspection, divergent and subjective thinking which is a different kind of thinking altogether. That is why I am irked when people from the sciences dismiss the humanities too readily because the humanities does have something to give to the world. In short, tech + humanities = better products/ideas.
I agree with you. I think the humanities are important not only for what they teach, but also in that they attract people with a different view of the world (and way of thinking, perhaps) than is common in the sciences. From the perspective of the Google hiring manager, though, filtering based on degree type is probably one of the easiest cuts to make when you're operating at that scale.
> When I was studying it was not uncommon for STEM students to get 100% for tests and exams but such a thing was unheard of in the humanities faculty.
Does this mean that grading in the humanities is more difficult or more arbitrary?
Does this mean that grading in the humanities is more difficult or more arbitrary?
I did a Math and a History degree simultaneously, and I believe that a 4.0 in history is much harder than a 3.0 in math with respect to critical thinking skills.
At one point during the pursuit of my BA in History, I was reading about 1000 pages of primary and secondary source material per week.
Reading primary source material is comparable to reading mathematical exposition in that you have to proceed slowly and carefully.
Then, I had to analyze the material using the various methods of historical analysis/criticism. You are not going to get an 'A' if you just regurgitate facts. You're also not going to get an 'A' if the analysis/argument is sloppy.
Math didn't really get that hard until the proof-based courses, and math degrees usually require only two of those (though I did four). The “computation courses” just consisted of exercises that are only difficult until you discover a small set of tricks.
Now, I'm not sure about what it takes to be a very successful English major, but my anecdotal evidence indicates that the high achievers are pretty smart: One did a math double major, one went from being a LaTex whiz to handling most of the IT at a mathematics journal, and the other is a better-than-average DBA.
At one point during the pursuit of my BA in History, I was reading about 1000 pages of primary and secondary source material per week.
Reading primary source material is comparable to reading mathematical exposition in that you have to proceed slowly and carefully.
Then, I had to analyze the material using the various methods of historical analysis/criticism. You are not going to get an 'A' if you just regurgitate facts. You're also not going to get an 'A' if the analysis/argument is sloppy.
Math didn't really get that hard until the proof-based courses, and math degrees usually require only two of those (though I did four). The “computation courses” just consisted of exercises that are only difficult until you discover a small set of tricks.
Now, I'm not sure about what it takes to be a very successful English major, but my anecdotal evidence indicates that the high achievers are pretty smart: One did a math double major, one went from being a LaTex whiz to handling most of the IT at a mathematics journal, and the other is a better-than-average DBA.
Also, grades don't have a lot of signal in the humanities because there's such a wide spectrum of easy vs. hard grading. Some English professors give one A every 5 years. Others give 75+ percent A's. I don't think it's as common as people make it out to be, but there are students who game the system, and the crass pre-professionals (though a minority) fuck it up for the rest of the students who haven't yet been corrupted by the corporate world and genuinely want to learn. Gaming the system is a lot harder to do in, say, linear algebra or real analysis or quantum mechanics.
The corporate world is deeply negative and anti-humanistic and will typecast you to the lowest calibre of person consistent with your resume. The issue in English is that the floor is lower. It has little to do with the ceiling. (Yes, there are plenty of English teachers from whom it's harder to get an A than it is to get an A in an advanced math class.) It's about what is concluded about someone when the worst possibility is assumed.
The corporate world is deeply negative and anti-humanistic and will typecast you to the lowest calibre of person consistent with your resume. The issue in English is that the floor is lower. It has little to do with the ceiling. (Yes, there are plenty of English teachers from whom it's harder to get an A than it is to get an A in an advanced math class.) It's about what is concluded about someone when the worst possibility is assumed.
"Gaming the system is a lot harder to do in, say, linear algebra or real analysis or quantum mechanics."
To some degree, but I definitely recall some dramatic differences in difficulty from various professors or classes that purportedly covered similar material and met the same requirements. When someone gets all A's, I always wonder whether they were one of the students who said "Why are you taking the second compiler course? That's hard. XYZ is a much easier A..." Of course, someone who doesn't have all A's could still be someone who tried that and failed, which would be kind of the worst case...
To some degree, but I definitely recall some dramatic differences in difficulty from various professors or classes that purportedly covered similar material and met the same requirements. When someone gets all A's, I always wonder whether they were one of the students who said "Why are you taking the second compiler course? That's hard. XYZ is a much easier A..." Of course, someone who doesn't have all A's could still be someone who tried that and failed, which would be kind of the worst case...
> it's not all that hard to complete an English degree without learning those things.
How do you know this?
(You know, since we're talking about logical rigor.)
How do you know this?
(You know, since we're talking about logical rigor.)
Based on the English (and other humanities) courses I took as an undergrad, in which the key to getting good grades was not rigor but repeating back what I imagined the professor wanted to hear, and based on my friends who were English (and other humanities) majors, who were delightful people but (for the most part) not particularly rigorous thinkers in the sense that Google is trying to hire for.
Did you take any high level literature or english courses? Repeating back what the teacher wants to hear is fairly standard across all disciplines in low level courses.
The people who I know who didn't just complete english degrees, but excelled were all very critical thinkers. The classes required reading, understanding, and then writing critically about what was read. Thinking was highly valued, particularly about nuances of the language and meaning.
Of course people who are not good can slide by and get through school, but that can happen in any field. See CS grads who cannot write FizzBuzz for example.
The people who I know who didn't just complete english degrees, but excelled were all very critical thinkers. The classes required reading, understanding, and then writing critically about what was read. Thinking was highly valued, particularly about nuances of the language and meaning.
Of course people who are not good can slide by and get through school, but that can happen in any field. See CS grads who cannot write FizzBuzz for example.
Not much different than CS classes where you're learning methodology and showing that you can regurgitate it on a test, really.
(I''m not the OP.)
I have a degree in English, and another one in mechanical engineering.
The 9 English classes that I took were uniformly less difficult and less rigorous than the 25 or so engineering classes I took. When I studied English, I already had a reasonably well-developed understanding of logic, but it was not used in my English classes. I would estimate that I could have earned a B average in English with 5-10x less time spent than in engineering. Standardized tests suggest that I have more aptitude for engineering (or at least math), so English should have been harder for me if the curricula were of the same difficulty.
I have a degree in English, and another one in mechanical engineering.
The 9 English classes that I took were uniformly less difficult and less rigorous than the 25 or so engineering classes I took. When I studied English, I already had a reasonably well-developed understanding of logic, but it was not used in my English classes. I would estimate that I could have earned a B average in English with 5-10x less time spent than in engineering. Standardized tests suggest that I have more aptitude for engineering (or at least math), so English should have been harder for me if the curricula were of the same difficulty.
Of course you can teach a rigorous English course.
The problem is that you can also not.
I took an intro to philosophy course in which we were graded reasonably rigorously on our logic. But the prof also made it clear via both a bit of text and a bit of subtext that we were getting so graded because nobody really takes the old stuff that seriously anyhow, so there's no sacred oxes getting gored. You can write an essay for this class either endorsing or denouncing Descartes and as long as it is reasonably logical, you'll get a good grade. Don't expect such accommodations if you start getting into what is taken seriously.
I also took a real-deal English history class graded primarily on essays, and both at the time and even now I'm pretty sure I got a 2.5 simply because I failed to correctly echo back what the prof expected, made harder by the fact that she did a reasonably good job of not telegraphing what she expected. However, I never got any other useful feedback on my essays; the facts were correct, the arguments were logical enough, they were to the expected length, they just got graded poorly. (And it's not as if I was going out of my way to write offensive political agitprop myself, I was just trying to answer the questions. But I'm quite sure my perspective was quite different than hers, in ways hard to explain in an HN comment.)
The fact that you run a rigorous course grading logic and rhetoric (based on a computer science degree) is not proof that everybody else does. Yes, they all say that's what they do, but that's not proof either. In practice the humanities are pretty notorious for this sort of thing, and I'm completely unconvinced this essay with its one data point that is almost by definition an outlier (both coming from a computer science degree and being what is probably an early course in the sequence as implied by having a lot of non-English majors in it) provides any significant evidence against the original claims from Google, or that the field's notoriety is unearned in practice.
(Incidentally, to the extent that I rather dislike the humanities we have today, it is precisely that they could be excellent training in logic and rhetoric, but they generally aren't. Postmodernism poisoned the humanities nearly unto destruction.)
The problem is that you can also not.
I took an intro to philosophy course in which we were graded reasonably rigorously on our logic. But the prof also made it clear via both a bit of text and a bit of subtext that we were getting so graded because nobody really takes the old stuff that seriously anyhow, so there's no sacred oxes getting gored. You can write an essay for this class either endorsing or denouncing Descartes and as long as it is reasonably logical, you'll get a good grade. Don't expect such accommodations if you start getting into what is taken seriously.
I also took a real-deal English history class graded primarily on essays, and both at the time and even now I'm pretty sure I got a 2.5 simply because I failed to correctly echo back what the prof expected, made harder by the fact that she did a reasonably good job of not telegraphing what she expected. However, I never got any other useful feedback on my essays; the facts were correct, the arguments were logical enough, they were to the expected length, they just got graded poorly. (And it's not as if I was going out of my way to write offensive political agitprop myself, I was just trying to answer the questions. But I'm quite sure my perspective was quite different than hers, in ways hard to explain in an HN comment.)
The fact that you run a rigorous course grading logic and rhetoric (based on a computer science degree) is not proof that everybody else does. Yes, they all say that's what they do, but that's not proof either. In practice the humanities are pretty notorious for this sort of thing, and I'm completely unconvinced this essay with its one data point that is almost by definition an outlier (both coming from a computer science degree and being what is probably an early course in the sequence as implied by having a lot of non-English majors in it) provides any significant evidence against the original claims from Google, or that the field's notoriety is unearned in practice.
(Incidentally, to the extent that I rather dislike the humanities we have today, it is precisely that they could be excellent training in logic and rhetoric, but they generally aren't. Postmodernism poisoned the humanities nearly unto destruction.)
Your position can apply to anything. There are Computer Science graduates who cannot tell you what a linked list is.
You need to look for signals that imply humanities majors that are smart. Do they have published articles in student publications? Were they active in campus organizations?
End of the day, look for smart people who get things done.
If you need specific, rigorous domain expertise, hire somebody with a degree in that discipline of engineering or whatever. Otherwise, you're better off with a smart person who knows how to think and communicate vs. someone with an engineering degree who cannot function.
You need to look for signals that imply humanities majors that are smart. Do they have published articles in student publications? Were they active in campus organizations?
End of the day, look for smart people who get things done.
If you need specific, rigorous domain expertise, hire somebody with a degree in that discipline of engineering or whatever. Otherwise, you're better off with a smart person who knows how to think and communicate vs. someone with an engineering degree who cannot function.
"If you need specific, rigorous domain expertise, hire somebody with a degree in that discipline of engineering or whatever. Otherwise, you're better off with a smart person who knows how to think and communicate vs. someone with an engineering degree who cannot function."
This is one of those cases where it sounds like you think you disagree, yet you just gave away the farm there. If you want a programmer, hire one trained in programming, you just agreed. As for whether you hire the functioning English major or the non-functional computer science major for a programming job, in practice, you hire neither.
As for it "applying to everything", actually, my last paragraph is a parenthetical because I don't feel like justifying it deeply in an HN post when it would properly take a book, but there is a difference. Postmodernism killed the humanities. Evicting the entire idea of "truth" and calling that eviction virtue murders all further academic thought. (Yes, I'm summarizing. Brutally. But that is more true than it is false.) Even if that is true, it's still not an epistemological framework under which any academic function can take place. Computer science doesn't have that problem, all the moreso because the compiler grounds almost the entire discipline; certainly everything an undergraduate will encounter. It's hard for the humanities to brag about their ability to inculcate logical thought and careful rational reasoning when at the highest levels those things are despised.
This is one of those cases where it sounds like you think you disagree, yet you just gave away the farm there. If you want a programmer, hire one trained in programming, you just agreed. As for whether you hire the functioning English major or the non-functional computer science major for a programming job, in practice, you hire neither.
As for it "applying to everything", actually, my last paragraph is a parenthetical because I don't feel like justifying it deeply in an HN post when it would properly take a book, but there is a difference. Postmodernism killed the humanities. Evicting the entire idea of "truth" and calling that eviction virtue murders all further academic thought. (Yes, I'm summarizing. Brutally. But that is more true than it is false.) Even if that is true, it's still not an epistemological framework under which any academic function can take place. Computer science doesn't have that problem, all the moreso because the compiler grounds almost the entire discipline; certainly everything an undergraduate will encounter. It's hard for the humanities to brag about their ability to inculcate logical thought and careful rational reasoning when at the highest levels those things are despised.
jerf's position can apply to anything. That doesn't mean that it applies to all things with equal probability, though.
I'm fine with saying that there are rigorous English courses, and non-rigorous CS ones. But I still expect that, on average, the CS courses are more rigorous. Partly that's due to postmodernism, as jerf pointed out, but partly it's just because the subject matter of CS can be more rigorously defined and described than that of English.
I'm fine with saying that there are rigorous English courses, and non-rigorous CS ones. But I still expect that, on average, the CS courses are more rigorous. Partly that's due to postmodernism, as jerf pointed out, but partly it's just because the subject matter of CS can be more rigorously defined and described than that of English.
I feel bad that I cant get a job at the New York Times with my cs degree. I might not know any literary composition or journalism techniques, but you can't tell me that as a computer scientist I am not as smart as an english major that learned all these skills in college.
Ok. Now we both feel inadequate and offended, so it's all even.
Ok. Now we both feel inadequate and offended, so it's all even.
Drama major here.
I can look or sound competent in any field.
Well, except Drama, but it's not like there's any money to be had there.
I can look or sound competent in any field.
Well, except Drama, but it's not like there's any money to be had there.
> I feel bad that I cant get a job at the New York Times with my cs degree.
You probably can, actually. "Data journalism" is a growing field.
You probably can, actually. "Data journalism" is a growing field.
> In “Dante’s Hell and Its Afterlife,” an undergraduate course I teach at my university, students have to work hard to achieve good results (not to mention an A-level grade) on a research essay. The “excellent” paper will contain a substantive thesis that is appropriately focused, coherent, and interpretive, not merely descriptive; a detailed analysis of well-chosen examples to support the argument; a logical ordering of parts, each contributing to the whole, with transitions and topic sentences that advance and crystallize the main points; an effective use of information from credible sources, correctly cited and documented; and all expressed in clear, concise, grammatically correct prose.
So true. Writing is highly technical and very difficult. Just before I started at my state university, it added a writing test that all students had to pass before receiving a degree because employers complained about the lack of writing skills. Several years in, most people were still failing on their first try.
Unfortunately, writing doesn't have debugging tools, tests and output for feedback to let you know if what you put together works. Rather, you need someone who is a good writer to provide honest feedback.
Also difficult is that developing good writing skills requires good instructors / mentors. I have had too many writing classes with instructors who would give praise for just about anything. All of my instructors in my first year of taking writing classes told me how great I was. It wasn't until I took a technical writing class in which my first paper came back a mess of red ink that I finally felt like I was learning something. That class was one of the most valuable I have ever taken. She told us at the beginning of the class that few people can write well, we probably won't ever be able to write well either (true for me,) but she would help us become passable enough to get through the writing test.
Granted, most writing classes don't focus on the same items as technical writing. But with as much effort as this instructor put into every one of my papers, this can't be something many instructors are willing to do.
How do you become a good writer and get good feedback? I don't know.
Compare this to many other classes in which the instructor is largely a guide and you do most or all of your learning on your own.
ETA: I think the instructor and the quality of the course is extremely important. Many subjects in college can be setup to be easy to coast through or rigorous. The name on the course isn't as important as the contents.
So true. Writing is highly technical and very difficult. Just before I started at my state university, it added a writing test that all students had to pass before receiving a degree because employers complained about the lack of writing skills. Several years in, most people were still failing on their first try.
Unfortunately, writing doesn't have debugging tools, tests and output for feedback to let you know if what you put together works. Rather, you need someone who is a good writer to provide honest feedback.
Also difficult is that developing good writing skills requires good instructors / mentors. I have had too many writing classes with instructors who would give praise for just about anything. All of my instructors in my first year of taking writing classes told me how great I was. It wasn't until I took a technical writing class in which my first paper came back a mess of red ink that I finally felt like I was learning something. That class was one of the most valuable I have ever taken. She told us at the beginning of the class that few people can write well, we probably won't ever be able to write well either (true for me,) but she would help us become passable enough to get through the writing test.
Granted, most writing classes don't focus on the same items as technical writing. But with as much effort as this instructor put into every one of my papers, this can't be something many instructors are willing to do.
How do you become a good writer and get good feedback? I don't know.
Compare this to many other classes in which the instructor is largely a guide and you do most or all of your learning on your own.
ETA: I think the instructor and the quality of the course is extremely important. Many subjects in college can be setup to be easy to coast through or rigorous. The name on the course isn't as important as the contents.
"How do you become a good writer and get good feedback? I don't know."
Write a lot and have other people read it.
Try and communicate, and see where that communication breaks down.
Write for large audiences, and see where you are either misunderstood or how you piss of the readers.
These recommendations are some of the tools you're asking for, though they aren't as automated or have answers as clear as piping something to a standard output.
Remember, when you first start to learn programming, you don't have access to "debugging tools, tests and output for feedback", either... these are tools you develop because you realize that you need them. That doesn't mean that these tools don't exist, or that you can't find them, or that they are useful to you in your situation.
Write a lot and have other people read it.
Try and communicate, and see where that communication breaks down.
Write for large audiences, and see where you are either misunderstood or how you piss of the readers.
These recommendations are some of the tools you're asking for, though they aren't as automated or have answers as clear as piping something to a standard output.
Remember, when you first start to learn programming, you don't have access to "debugging tools, tests and output for feedback", either... these are tools you develop because you realize that you need them. That doesn't mean that these tools don't exist, or that you can't find them, or that they are useful to you in your situation.
For me, the problem in English class was that "good" writing was very subjective. It always seemed as if the goal was to impress the teacher. I've only had one English teacher in my life who I felt gave me concrete instruction about how to write effectively (shout out to Dr. Cross!). The technical writing course I took in college was also somewhat beneficial.
In mathematics, there are problems and there are solutions. That is much more logical to me.
In mathematics, there are problems and there are solutions. That is much more logical to me.
@joelgrus really nailed it. When someone at Google uses the verb "signals," you need to pay attention. Nothing is black and white in search. It's entirely about pulling together multiple sources of information, and deciding which ones signal the strongest and correlate with the results you're looking for.
Guy Raffa is welcome to make his own search engine company staffed entirely with English majors to prove his point.
Guy Raffa is welcome to make his own search engine company staffed entirely with English majors to prove his point.
Disagreeable or not, I find it amusing that he opens his piece with a rubric regarding what constitutes an "excellent" paper in his course, and your last sentence contains such a glaring fallacy that it seems entirely likely he'd dock you heavily for it (and rightly so). It's also incredibly ironic considering the context of the argument at hand.
> It sounds like he wants those topflight English majors after all: graduates adept at conceiving, articulating, and supporting their own ideas—not some “specific answer” the professor is looking for. Bock just doesn’t realize they are what he is looking for.
Guy Raffa goes so far as to claim that those topflight English majors are what Bock is looking for.
If that were true, then a team built on this core principal should clearly be better than one built without it.
If you see a fallacy in the last sentence of my first post, please explain it to me. Calling something a fallacy is your thesis. Now it is your job to prove it. Irony, indeed.
Guy Raffa goes so far as to claim that those topflight English majors are what Bock is looking for.
If that were true, then a team built on this core principal should clearly be better than one built without it.
If you see a fallacy in the last sentence of my first post, please explain it to me. Calling something a fallacy is your thesis. Now it is your job to prove it. Irony, indeed.
Nowhere does Raffa claim that a team built entirely of English majors would be better than one built of any other constituency. That's a strawman you erected. QED.
Raffa says, "they [topflight English majors] are what he is looking for." Topflight English majors are the constituency Raffa says Bock should hire. You have to purposefully misread what Raffa has written, in order to see it any other way.
"Guess the teacher's password" is a strategy that works for many English majors and few Computer Science majors. You can succeed at rhetoric by either learning how to make good rhetoric, or by learning how to tell people what they want to hear.
It's significantly more difficult to write good programs by learning how to tell people what they want to hear.
It's significantly more difficult to write good programs by learning how to tell people what they want to hear.
There are English professors who are legitimately hard to game, people who are smarter than most or all of us but have chosen to focus on something different. Yes, there's more noise in the system in the humanities, but don't underestimate them just because they have a different skill set.
However, the game-the-system students generally avoid those professors, who get a reputation for being difficult graders. So your point has validity. I just object to the idea that all humanities professors can be "hacked". Yes, there are some who grade highly any students who confirm their biases, but quite a few of them are smarter than any of us.
However, the game-the-system students generally avoid those professors, who get a reputation for being difficult graders. So your point has validity. I just object to the idea that all humanities professors can be "hacked". Yes, there are some who grade highly any students who confirm their biases, but quite a few of them are smarter than any of us.
Google's entire hiring process is slanted towards rejecting bad candidates, not towards accepting good ones. The "more noise in the system" is exactly why Google is wary of candidates with a humanities background.
Yeah but in CS, the program works or it doesn't. So there's none of that wiggle room. CS degree definitely signals something - a minimum competency that is uncertain in a humanities student.
> Yeah but in CS, the program works or it doesn't. So there's none of that wiggle room.
CS grading is not the same thing as just programs working (and often that's not even the most important part of it), and, in my (obviously limited and potentially not representative, I'll admit, but there's not a lot of structured evidence being presented on any side here), the variability between institutions and individual classes within institutions in CS grading is more alike than distinct from that in any other field.
The scope of the curriculum, OTOH, in CS is probably more consistent between institutions and individual students within institutions than is the case in most non-technical fields, particularly for CS taught within an engineering rather than liberal arts institution (e.g., at UC Davis, the difference between a degree from the College of Engineering and the College of Letters and Science), and, further, while there are certainly kinds of analytical skills that are central to most courses of study in English, its not at all unreasonable to expect that the kind of analytical skills that Google is more concerned about are more likely to be central in CS programs.
But, overall, I think people are generally overplaying this. The stated preference for CS over other degree fields even with a slightly higher GPA in the non-CS field isn't anything like an absolute bar. Its saying that a degree in CS is one signal that is relevant to the Google hiring director that has some weight, not that it overwhelms all other information.
As an aside, though, it is worth Google examining whether this signal is given more weight than it should, especially considering their recently-posted diversity numbers and their stated concern for diversity -- since their overall diversity matches fairly well the diversity of CS graduates but clearly doesn't meet what they want, they might want to consider whether part of their diversity problem is overemphasizing having a degree in CS in their recruitment material and selection processes. If it is overweighted -- and I'm not saying that it is -- that would be a lot easier for Google to fix than many of the other things they are trying to do to address diversity (not that those things aren't valuable to pursue even if addressing the weighting of CS degrees can address some of the problem more easily and in a shorter time frame.)
Full disclosure: I am programmer whose only degree is in Political Science.
CS grading is not the same thing as just programs working (and often that's not even the most important part of it), and, in my (obviously limited and potentially not representative, I'll admit, but there's not a lot of structured evidence being presented on any side here), the variability between institutions and individual classes within institutions in CS grading is more alike than distinct from that in any other field.
The scope of the curriculum, OTOH, in CS is probably more consistent between institutions and individual students within institutions than is the case in most non-technical fields, particularly for CS taught within an engineering rather than liberal arts institution (e.g., at UC Davis, the difference between a degree from the College of Engineering and the College of Letters and Science), and, further, while there are certainly kinds of analytical skills that are central to most courses of study in English, its not at all unreasonable to expect that the kind of analytical skills that Google is more concerned about are more likely to be central in CS programs.
But, overall, I think people are generally overplaying this. The stated preference for CS over other degree fields even with a slightly higher GPA in the non-CS field isn't anything like an absolute bar. Its saying that a degree in CS is one signal that is relevant to the Google hiring director that has some weight, not that it overwhelms all other information.
As an aside, though, it is worth Google examining whether this signal is given more weight than it should, especially considering their recently-posted diversity numbers and their stated concern for diversity -- since their overall diversity matches fairly well the diversity of CS graduates but clearly doesn't meet what they want, they might want to consider whether part of their diversity problem is overemphasizing having a degree in CS in their recruitment material and selection processes. If it is overweighted -- and I'm not saying that it is -- that would be a lot easier for Google to fix than many of the other things they are trying to do to address diversity (not that those things aren't valuable to pursue even if addressing the weighting of CS degrees can address some of the problem more easily and in a shorter time frame.)
Full disclosure: I am programmer whose only degree is in Political Science.
Your last line is telling. I know Many programmers who have no CS degree, or no degree at all. They are some of the best.
SO clearly a CS degree as a bar is going to miss an important demographic (potential hiring population). But a CS bar is also clearly useful in an effort to weed out inappropriate hires (vs one that filters for hiring the best).
SO clearly a CS degree as a bar is going to miss an important demographic (potential hiring population). But a CS bar is also clearly useful in an effort to weed out inappropriate hires (vs one that filters for hiring the best).
But note that the preference that Google's hiring director has stated is not a bar -- there is a difference between a positive signal and a sine qua non litmus test.
I'm not so sure about this. Maybe if you've graduated from a good school. I've known at least one person who graduated with a CS degree but didn't actually know how to program. There are many schools where students get by just by copying each other's homework and the professors never punish them for it. My own major (electrical engineering) at the school I went to was almost nothing but students like this. It's a systemic thing and way more common than a lot of people would think.
>There are many schools where students get by just by copying each other's homework and the professors never punish them for it.
This is much easier to notice in the rest of the hiring process than the same sort of faking in a humanities context.
This is much easier to notice in the rest of the hiring process than the same sort of faking in a humanities context.
So I started college as a CS major (and then switched to physics because it was harder :-), but my recollection is that my code was graded not just by whether it produced the correct outputs. It was also graded on structure, use of good variable and function names, comments, IDL diagrams, appropriate revision control check-ins, etc. As I recall, those sort of subjective things were worth about 50% of the grade on homework assignments.
While I agree with the main thrust of your point, there are exceptions. A program can work, but be 1000 lines too long with a ridiculous set of branching if statements. There is also the concept of working well, or efficiently, or elegantly.
Agreed. But then you're beyond the first-layer hiring filter, which is essentially FizzBuzz.
So one of the very few English professors in the country with a computer science degree is offended by Google's hiring practices.
The fact is most English majors don't enjoy heavy duty math or science as much and it's not that weird to expect a computer science major to depend more on logic and rigor when approaching a problem than it is for someone whose thesis was devoted to a literary analysis of the symbolism behind the pickle dish in Ethan Frome.
The fact is most English majors don't enjoy heavy duty math or science as much and it's not that weird to expect a computer science major to depend more on logic and rigor when approaching a problem than it is for someone whose thesis was devoted to a literary analysis of the symbolism behind the pickle dish in Ethan Frome.
Oh please, the amount of math and (physical) science a typical CS major goes through is pretty laughable compared to a math, physics, or chem major. It's usually on par with biologists with a bit more calculus.
It's not that CS majors are magically people who love science and math and English majors don't. It doesn't even matter most of the time. The fact is Google wants CS majors because should be able to hit the ground running. That's not even the case for the average college of science major applying to the average job at google. Yeah, maybe they know matlab, maple/Mathematica, and enough C++ to implement the Newton-Raphson method, but they've never even touched a database before.
It's not that CS majors are magically people who love science and math and English majors don't. It doesn't even matter most of the time. The fact is Google wants CS majors because should be able to hit the ground running. That's not even the case for the average college of science major applying to the average job at google. Yeah, maybe they know matlab, maple/Mathematica, and enough C++ to implement the Newton-Raphson method, but they've never even touched a database before.
> Oh please, the amount of math and (physical) science a typical CS major goes through is pretty laughable compared to a math, physics, or chem major. It's usually on par with biologists with a bit more calculus.
Sure, but CS isn't supposed to teach you physical science.
It's supposed to teach you logical reasoning, and at that we definitely are better. Most "hard science" students I know struggle through parsing a basic decision tree.
If I had to hire a logical thinker and couldn't hire a CS major, I'd definitely go for a philosophy major. Purely anecdotally, they're the only other discipline I've had a lot of success in teaching programming to.
Sure, but CS isn't supposed to teach you physical science.
It's supposed to teach you logical reasoning, and at that we definitely are better. Most "hard science" students I know struggle through parsing a basic decision tree.
If I had to hire a logical thinker and couldn't hire a CS major, I'd definitely go for a philosophy major. Purely anecdotally, they're the only other discipline I've had a lot of success in teaching programming to.
"The fact is most English majors don't enjoy heavy duty math or science as much"
These statements need data to back them up, Mr. Science.
These statements need data to back them up, Mr. Science.
You don't think it's a given that, on average, students who
choose a degree that requires "heavy duty math" enjoy it more than students who choose a degree that doesn't require "heavy duty math"?
I'm unsure of the motivations most people have in choosing majors. When I see generalizations of a very large group of people, no matter how obvious it may seem, I just like to see data to back it up.
I chose CS after my university cancelled its computer engineering program. I chose computer engineering because it was a challenge in a way that english and history weren't. Much of my childhood was spent with my nose in a book because it was a way to avoid dealing with the religious schism in my family. As a result, my ability to read and write for an academic setting (and on standardized tests) made getting high grades a trivial matter.
I would change your assertion to "choose a degree that requires heavy duty math and succeed/graduate". Sampling after the choice is initially made is clouded by kids choosing what is popular and/or being forced to go to college because of social pressures and/or choosing only what will hopefully make them the most cash.
Given my science background, very little is a given until I see data. CS people get on their soapbox and talk about being superior in logical and rigorous thinking and then lead off with statements like it's a given.
Perhaps I shouldn't call it a fact without data but I assume English majors choose English over the other choices because they feel that they would enjoy English more than the other choices.
Is that logical?
Is that logical?
Absolutely, but that doesn't exclude them from enjoying and loving the other topics.
> enjoy heavy duty math or science
Neither do I, and I'm a CS major.
Neither do I, and I'm a CS major.
First comment to the article by @skeptomycin sums up entire article. Not worth the time to read it really.
>>I cannot believe how the actual statements by Bock were distorted and taken out of context by Prof. Raffa. It is beyond appalling.
>>I cannot believe how the actual statements by Bock were distorted and taken out of context by Prof. Raffa. It is beyond appalling.
[deleted]
I think of English courses as teaching you about being convincing to humans. Correctness is important, but secondary. This is probably best exemplified by anecdotes being arguably the most evocative form of explanation, and yet the weakest form of evidence.
It makes sense to me that a technology company would downweight achievements in the humanities when hiring (for their technical positions). It's a noisier signal. Computers and nature aren't convinced or understood in the same way as humans are, so a lot of the English major benefits get lost in the translation to STEM.
(Serious question: what are the best examples of people in the humanities contributing to science and technology? For example, Noam Chomsky basically invented formal grammars.)
It makes sense to me that a technology company would downweight achievements in the humanities when hiring (for their technical positions). It's a noisier signal. Computers and nature aren't convinced or understood in the same way as humans are, so a lot of the English major benefits get lost in the translation to STEM.
(Serious question: what are the best examples of people in the humanities contributing to science and technology? For example, Noam Chomsky basically invented formal grammars.)
I think most humanity studies develop critical thinking, but at very shallow level.
Mathematicians have to nest 100s levels of logical operations to get proof they want. Programming around 50 to 10 logical operations. Lawyers perhaps 10. Literature nests perhaps 5 levels of logical operations.
There is simply no apparatus to manage this level of complexity in human language. Just try to describe 3th level integral or matrix operations with pure words. It is like analyzing complex program on TI programmable calculator with 5 line display.
And I think English is not very logic friendly language, too many double meanings and context sensitivity. I like German for its logic and Esperanto for its simplicity.
Mathematicians have to nest 100s levels of logical operations to get proof they want. Programming around 50 to 10 logical operations. Lawyers perhaps 10. Literature nests perhaps 5 levels of logical operations.
There is simply no apparatus to manage this level of complexity in human language. Just try to describe 3th level integral or matrix operations with pure words. It is like analyzing complex program on TI programmable calculator with 5 line display.
And I think English is not very logic friendly language, too many double meanings and context sensitivity. I like German for its logic and Esperanto for its simplicity.
A quality education is a quality education. I'm sure he takes into consideration more than just the major and letter grade achieved though (obviously getting a B avg in MIT's CS program would not be the same as getting an A avg in Auburn's).
Anyway I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter what someone's academic focus is. Smart, impassioned people can excel at any field that they take the time to become educated in. Not to mention that programming and computer engineering is much more about experience than we'd like to admit.
Anyway I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter what someone's academic focus is. Smart, impassioned people can excel at any field that they take the time to become educated in. Not to mention that programming and computer engineering is much more about experience than we'd like to admit.
+1 from the systems engineer with over a decade experienceat cutting edge facilities - and a BA in philosophy (focused on recent continental thought, not logic). It comes down to the individual and their passion.
I have one humanities degree (Japanese Studies) and one STEM degree (Aerospace Engineering), both from good schools in those respective domains. So, I feel in a unique position to comment on this.
I enrolled in the engineering program second, after I was sick of the poor employment opportunities associated with the first degree. During my engineering studies, it sometimes felt like my brain was being rewired, making it more suited to meet the rigors of the coursework.
I don't know if this was "in my head" or if something was actually happening on a neurological level. But, I know that the course work went from being ridiculously challenging in my first semester (pulled teeth to get B's and C's in the early days) to manageable and often fun in the last (mostly A's).
I am eternally grateful to the research and writing skills that I honed during my first degree. However, it was definitely the engineering courses that made me into the "analytical thinker" I am today. So, I think there is something to be said about what a STEM degree signals.
I enrolled in the engineering program second, after I was sick of the poor employment opportunities associated with the first degree. During my engineering studies, it sometimes felt like my brain was being rewired, making it more suited to meet the rigors of the coursework.
I don't know if this was "in my head" or if something was actually happening on a neurological level. But, I know that the course work went from being ridiculously challenging in my first semester (pulled teeth to get B's and C's in the early days) to manageable and often fun in the last (mostly A's).
I am eternally grateful to the research and writing skills that I honed during my first degree. However, it was definitely the engineering courses that made me into the "analytical thinker" I am today. So, I think there is something to be said about what a STEM degree signals.
I used to be a philosophy major at a top 10 school notorious for its rigor. Now I am a CS major at my local university after transferring (for various reasons including cost). What the author doesn't understand is that when we says, "It sounds like he wants those topflight English majors after all: graduates adept at conceiving, articulating, and supporting their own ideas—not some “specific answer” the professor is looking for", you actually get much more creative solutions to CS problems because implementations may vary, but are still bounded by the problem. In English (and potentially moreso in philosophy), you are not really bounded by anything, so it's incredibly easy to get at least a "good" grade, while getting an A is entirely at the mercy of a subjective grader with no clear grading rubric to distinguish a B+ from an A. Further, there isn't any domain to learn, so you can fairly easily skim the cliffnotes of every assigned reading and produce at least a B essay. Thus, no work ethic. CS really forces you into a discipline because there is a domain to learn as well as projects to code, and you can't BS a program at the last minute. If an essay doesn't have a coherent conclusion at 4am, turn it in and get a B. But if your program doesn't compile at 4am...
From my experience I consider CS to be far more challenging in terms of critical thinking, work ethic, and ability to solve complex problems. Also interesting is the camaraderie the students in these classes develop as we solve hard problems together, with the knowledge that if you've made it this far in the major, you're pretty capable. To echo the sentiment of another poster, you would be pretty blown away be the ineptitude of many liberal arts majors (apart from their complete lack of relevant domain knowledge) who are able to cruise through their classes for all the reasons mentioned above.
From my experience I consider CS to be far more challenging in terms of critical thinking, work ethic, and ability to solve complex problems. Also interesting is the camaraderie the students in these classes develop as we solve hard problems together, with the knowledge that if you've made it this far in the major, you're pretty capable. To echo the sentiment of another poster, you would be pretty blown away be the ineptitude of many liberal arts majors (apart from their complete lack of relevant domain knowledge) who are able to cruise through their classes for all the reasons mentioned above.
> while getting an A is entirely at the mercy of a subjective grader with no clear grading rubric to distinguish a B+ from an A
Huh? This is true in programming too. Getting something to compile can't be all CS professors are looking for, right?
Programming is more about communication than anything else. You can write something a hundred different ways which will all run more or less fine -- but they all won't be equally readable and maintainable.
I didn't get a CS degree, so I don't have experience on the matter. Do CS professors grade for readability at all?
Huh? This is true in programming too. Getting something to compile can't be all CS professors are looking for, right?
Programming is more about communication than anything else. You can write something a hundred different ways which will all run more or less fine -- but they all won't be equally readable and maintainable.
I didn't get a CS degree, so I don't have experience on the matter. Do CS professors grade for readability at all?
CS professors do grade for clarity and not just "does it work/compile?" but as a matter of relative weight in a grading distribution I think it gets less attention, and necessarily so for the more challenging problems. Writing prompts have a simpler objective domain to test (grammar, word usage) so the bulk of the grade weight goes to interpretation and style, which is of course subjective.
To be instrumental about it, English (and the arts/humanities subjects in general) teaches the skill of decision making under conditions of uncertainty: we are required to make inferences on the basis of ambiguous 'data' (a literary text whose meaning will generally be slippery) and competing bodies of theory which cannot be proven against each other, of sufficient solidity that they can be defended in a logically coherent argument.
This is a real skill. And if you actually apply yourself to an arts degree, it does develop it. (Before the emergence of national literature studies and modern historiography, the study of the Classics played this role, broadly speaking.)
It does not have direct relevance to software engineering at all (speaking as someone with two literature degrees). But not all problems in development are strictly technical. Someone down there said:
> Yeah but in CS, the program works or it doesn't.
Indeed. Google+ works, right?
This is a real skill. And if you actually apply yourself to an arts degree, it does develop it. (Before the emergence of national literature studies and modern historiography, the study of the Classics played this role, broadly speaking.)
It does not have direct relevance to software engineering at all (speaking as someone with two literature degrees). But not all problems in development are strictly technical. Someone down there said:
> Yeah but in CS, the program works or it doesn't.
Indeed. Google+ works, right?
I was an English major in undergrad and grad school and I see these arguments all the time. I learned a great deal in my university career, and much of what I learned in the humanities took real intellectual curiosity, hard work, and deep thinking. You're not going to put together a real, publishable work by copy and pasting work from Stackoverflow, not in a master level English course. And let's be honest, the majority of CS students are lazy and incompetent, just like the majority of all students in all majors. Sure, you get some truly brilliant students that come along, but most of them never really produce anything of value. And most engineers, talented as they may be at slinging code and doing the lambda calculus, are pitiful communicators and can barely write a coherent sentence.
Let's see some logical refutations before we start with the emotional down votes, you purely logical genius gods of knowledge.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that, were I you.
My education is in science. My particular science is one in which I had to learn a lot of mathematics--everything from real analysis to quite advanced analytical geometry and a wide variety of other things. I forgot more math by the time I took my qualifying exams than most CS people I've known ever learned. So for my part it's just hilarious to see the unbridled arrogance showing its head here. CS majors like to think of themselves as being paragons of logical and intellectual rigor. I think the downvotes we've accumulated here shows that some, at least, ought not.
That's not to excuse or defend the author of the article. I happen to agree with the argument he claims the Googler makes (even though the Googler doesn't apparently actually make that argument) in a very broad sense, based solely on my personal experiences. It's a sense broad enough that it ought not be applied to individuals.
My education is in science. My particular science is one in which I had to learn a lot of mathematics--everything from real analysis to quite advanced analytical geometry and a wide variety of other things. I forgot more math by the time I took my qualifying exams than most CS people I've known ever learned. So for my part it's just hilarious to see the unbridled arrogance showing its head here. CS majors like to think of themselves as being paragons of logical and intellectual rigor. I think the downvotes we've accumulated here shows that some, at least, ought not.
That's not to excuse or defend the author of the article. I happen to agree with the argument he claims the Googler makes (even though the Googler doesn't apparently actually make that argument) in a very broad sense, based solely on my personal experiences. It's a sense broad enough that it ought not be applied to individuals.
Ha! Last developer I hired was an English major ...I found out after I hired him ... the degree question didn't come up in three interview process ... just programming.
Your obviously missing the point he was trying to make. No one was saying that an english major can't make a well thought out argument with a valid point. In fact they can probably do it better than a computer scientist. But, that's not what programming is. Programming is taking the simplest thing and elaborting in mind numbing detail for the computer to execute. way past the point most people get bored and give up. Take a simple form first name great how many characters should we store. middle name same question address how many lines? should we break it out into number and street name? what about suites? State great..list them out... all of them. city..ok..find a database of the cities and tie them to zip code. Oh wait...this is an international ap..great..let's start over...ok now three screens back if they selected this option change the font to one size larger. Programming isn't about making an argument it's closer to mapping out all the arguments and figuring out how they all fit together. but usually for topics that people wouldn't waste their time arguing over. like how to fill out an insurance form. or which document to pick first from a list.
What I am saying here is anecdotal (but when did that ever stop anyone)...
I have to agree with Bock.
I was an English major at a solid school (Rutgers) and went on to do some grad work in Comp Lit at NYU. Years later I took CS/ Math classes at Stevens - there is no comparison in the difficulty. The only exception were the political theory classes I took which were grounded in Hegel - they were hard.
I have met 10 times as many Science / Tech people who were relatively well versed in Literature and/or Art than the contrary. There tends to be absolute illiteracy in Math and hard Science in the Humanities.
I remember years ago one of my profs got caught up in an embarrassing incident where a faked article which conflated Relativism and Relativity passed muster at a critical theory journal and was published with glaring scientific errors. (The Sokal Affair)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Now that i am in a tech field I wish I had spent more time studying math instead of so much Englsh and Political Theory as an undergrad.
I have to agree with Bock.
I was an English major at a solid school (Rutgers) and went on to do some grad work in Comp Lit at NYU. Years later I took CS/ Math classes at Stevens - there is no comparison in the difficulty. The only exception were the political theory classes I took which were grounded in Hegel - they were hard.
I have met 10 times as many Science / Tech people who were relatively well versed in Literature and/or Art than the contrary. There tends to be absolute illiteracy in Math and hard Science in the Humanities.
I remember years ago one of my profs got caught up in an embarrassing incident where a faked article which conflated Relativism and Relativity passed muster at a critical theory journal and was published with glaring scientific errors. (The Sokal Affair)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Now that i am in a tech field I wish I had spent more time studying math instead of so much Englsh and Political Theory as an undergrad.
Bock and the author both miss the same point: the thing that helps you learn to think in a rigorous way is to study something that does not come naturally to you.
I see it as the difference between learning a new skill and practicing an existing one. The former forces you to focus completely, while the latter tolerates inattention.
I see it as the difference between learning a new skill and practicing an existing one. The former forces you to focus completely, while the latter tolerates inattention.
Doing well in an English major at a good school is hard work, requires strong critical thinking skills, etc. But it doesn't reflect the level of analytical precision and rigorous correctness that doing well as a CS major does.
The humanities as a course of study are primarily interpretive and creative, and most schools of thought will support the idea that many different interpretations have value.
By comparison, while there are many different approaches and creative and engineering opportunities in CS, in the end the computer Does Exactly What It Is Told To Do And Nothing Else. And the level of precision, exactness and rigor necessary to support that environment is alien to most humanities curricula.
The humanities as a course of study are primarily interpretive and creative, and most schools of thought will support the idea that many different interpretations have value.
By comparison, while there are many different approaches and creative and engineering opportunities in CS, in the end the computer Does Exactly What It Is Told To Do And Nothing Else. And the level of precision, exactness and rigor necessary to support that environment is alien to most humanities curricula.
Its like the author of this article never compared an English major to a CS major. Yeah, I'm sure the top 1% of English majors are pretty smart guys, but on average they are not very good at thinking logically. And yes, the bottom 25% of CS graduates are probably not that good either.
But the fact remains, if you take a top 25% CS graduate from almost any program in the world, that guy can probably understand a business case quicker than a top 25% English major from an equivalent institution.
Its just far easier to get a humanities degree than it is to get a CS degree, if you aren't a structured thinker to begin with.
But the fact remains, if you take a top 25% CS graduate from almost any program in the world, that guy can probably understand a business case quicker than a top 25% English major from an equivalent institution.
Its just far easier to get a humanities degree than it is to get a CS degree, if you aren't a structured thinker to begin with.
That's sort of a straw man, though, isn't it? The Google guy said he'd take a B-level CS major over an A-level humanities major. So you're not comparing top-25% CS to top-25% humanities. You're comparing second quartile (roughly) CS to top quartile (again, roughly) humanities.
Now, I'm a just physicist with no skin in the game, but it seems to me that arguments on HN in support of the Google position (and yours in particular) all try to argue that CS is generically "harder," or that it's easier to graduate with a humanities degree, or that the xth percentile CS major is smarter than the xth percentile humanities major.
So far I haven't really seen anyone address the assertion that graduating with an A-average in a humanities major is very difficult. Maybe it really is easy to get a BA in humanities with a 2.0 GPA (I don't know, but it sounds plausible). But that's not the issue. The issue is how a 3.5ish GPA humanities major compares to a 2.5ish CS major.
Now, I'm a just physicist with no skin in the game, but it seems to me that arguments on HN in support of the Google position (and yours in particular) all try to argue that CS is generically "harder," or that it's easier to graduate with a humanities degree, or that the xth percentile CS major is smarter than the xth percentile humanities major.
So far I haven't really seen anyone address the assertion that graduating with an A-average in a humanities major is very difficult. Maybe it really is easy to get a BA in humanities with a 2.0 GPA (I don't know, but it sounds plausible). But that's not the issue. The issue is how a 3.5ish GPA humanities major compares to a 2.5ish CS major.
Some of the inflammatory statements have been taken out of context. The B vs. A+ quote was used in the context of students changing majors due to difficulty -- i.e. changing from a CS+English double major to Economics due to the difficulty of the double major. It is a discussion of the phenomenon described by "Students Pick Easier Majors Despite Less Pay." written in the WSJ.
Bock further explains that analytic thinking skills, whether or not they were derived from a CS degree or another degree (Statistics in his case) or not from a degree at all, are the important factor.
Bock further explains that analytic thinking skills, whether or not they were derived from a CS degree or another degree (Statistics in his case) or not from a degree at all, are the important factor.
Some of the best developers I've hired don't have a degree. When looking at resumes, I don't really care about their academics.
I'm sorry, did Prof. Raffa really just admit to the First Great Sin of Dante Studies---taking the Inferno in isolation, separate from the Purgatorio and Paradiso? I do believe he did! And he's from UTAustin! Argh! And he's the Danteworlds[1] guy! Salvami!
[1] http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/
[1] http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/
For the most part, HR are a group that believes in data, but rarely uses it during evaluation and hiring decisions.
The skills he talks about are useful, for lawyers, politicians, sales and other such professions. They are useful in STEM type subjects as well, but usually only if you have the "harder" CS / science / maths type skills as well.
It's google's loss. And believe me it will be. A CS degree may be the best signal of a worker who will program all day, but it's not a good signal for the wide variety of other skills that are required to make a popular, well rounded and valuable product.
For example, making a workflow that is general understandable for the average user requires a strong set of less defined soft skills, like empathy, clarity of thesis, interviewing skills and a translation of discrete systems into metaphors non CS majors can work with.
And to be fair, google already seems to know this as they are trying to minimize the power of engineers in consumer facing product groups.
For example, making a workflow that is general understandable for the average user requires a strong set of less defined soft skills, like empathy, clarity of thesis, interviewing skills and a translation of discrete systems into metaphors non CS majors can work with.
And to be fair, google already seems to know this as they are trying to minimize the power of engineers in consumer facing product groups.
I think its more feasible and smart of Google to find engineers with a subset of soft skills that you describe than hire on those soft skills alone and hope they have a subset of technical skills.
I think this is a false attitude that comes from a rather egotistical belief that engineers can 'do anything' -- so just be an engineer and then do other things too.
Have you watched an engineer design an interface? Its not their speciality because they simply don't have the time to concentrate on such things. Have you seen them write marketing copy? Create HR requirements? Cast product visions?
They usually aren't good at these things because it isn't their speciality. Why would anyone argue that engineers are good at everything and ignore the concentrations that yield very real and measurable value to the products.
Have you watched an engineer design an interface? Its not their speciality because they simply don't have the time to concentrate on such things. Have you seen them write marketing copy? Create HR requirements? Cast product visions?
They usually aren't good at these things because it isn't their speciality. Why would anyone argue that engineers are good at everything and ignore the concentrations that yield very real and measurable value to the products.
Google has such an arrogant culture for an ephemeral company built around the sole business to milk indirectly their customers with online advertisement.
Growing up in housing projects I had a hard time realizing how many people internalized even the most egregious stereotypes as fact.
Spent a lot of time in gyms with a lot of hypertrophied chest, shoulder and arms walking on crane legs.
Thinks we don't really know how to measure each other when it comes to it.
Never met a carpenter who didn't complain about the prior carpenter's work.
Finds there's a lot of ways to describe things and some say more than they are designed and often leave a bitter aftertaste.
Spent a lot of time in gyms with a lot of hypertrophied chest, shoulder and arms walking on crane legs.
Thinks we don't really know how to measure each other when it comes to it.
Never met a carpenter who didn't complain about the prior carpenter's work.
Finds there's a lot of ways to describe things and some say more than they are designed and often leave a bitter aftertaste.
Are there enough diverse people to satisfy companies' diversity index goal?
In writing, critical thinking amounts to having an opinion on something. I think the author is mistaking something that's tedious for something that's rigorous.
There's so much to say here about the incompetence of the OP that it's better to write a long blog post about it...so I'll just leave it at this.
First of all, check out the source material, which is this Thomas Friedman column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-ho...
The OP is suggesting that the Google exec doesn't value the skills in the humanities departments. This is not even remotely true. Read the Friedman column for yourself:
> Are the liberal arts still important?
> > They are “phenomenally important,” he said, especially when you combine them with other disciplines. “Ten years ago behavioral economics was rarely referenced. But [then] you apply social science to economics and suddenly there’s this whole new field. I think a lot about how the most interesting things are happening at the intersection of two fields.
So basically, the OP basis for argument is a little off-kilter. But where the OP is incredibly wrong is his interpretation of the following:
> I told that student they are much better off being a B student in computer science than an A+ student in English because it signals a rigor in your thinking and a more challenging course load.
The OP is aggreieved because he interprets Bock's statement as saying that English doesn't have the same critical thinking skills as computer science. Bock is not saying that at all, he is saying to a student that leaving comsci, because the courses are too challenging, is a bad idea, and that he/she shouldn't prize an A in an "easier" curriculum over a B in computer science, because the value of a grade is not the only measure of skills valuable to Google.
What's really important here is the word that Bock uses: "rigor". I'll refer to the definition that Google's search engine brings up:
> the quality of being extremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate.
The OP interprets "rigor" as being "hard" or "challenging." But Bock is more likely referring to the importance of accuracy and the more rigidly testable questions in a typical computer science curriculum versus an English curriculum. Bock does not at all talk about the intellectual challenge of English versus Computer Science.
The fact that a professor has such a skewed, and in my opinion, wrong interpretation of not just Bock's statement, but of the English word "rigor" is itself a testament to the lack of "rigor"...or "stiffness" in how English is evaluated.
First of all, check out the source material, which is this Thomas Friedman column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-ho...
The OP is suggesting that the Google exec doesn't value the skills in the humanities departments. This is not even remotely true. Read the Friedman column for yourself:
> Are the liberal arts still important?
> > They are “phenomenally important,” he said, especially when you combine them with other disciplines. “Ten years ago behavioral economics was rarely referenced. But [then] you apply social science to economics and suddenly there’s this whole new field. I think a lot about how the most interesting things are happening at the intersection of two fields.
So basically, the OP basis for argument is a little off-kilter. But where the OP is incredibly wrong is his interpretation of the following:
> I told that student they are much better off being a B student in computer science than an A+ student in English because it signals a rigor in your thinking and a more challenging course load.
The OP is aggreieved because he interprets Bock's statement as saying that English doesn't have the same critical thinking skills as computer science. Bock is not saying that at all, he is saying to a student that leaving comsci, because the courses are too challenging, is a bad idea, and that he/she shouldn't prize an A in an "easier" curriculum over a B in computer science, because the value of a grade is not the only measure of skills valuable to Google.
What's really important here is the word that Bock uses: "rigor". I'll refer to the definition that Google's search engine brings up:
> the quality of being extremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate.
The OP interprets "rigor" as being "hard" or "challenging." But Bock is more likely referring to the importance of accuracy and the more rigidly testable questions in a typical computer science curriculum versus an English curriculum. Bock does not at all talk about the intellectual challenge of English versus Computer Science.
The fact that a professor has such a skewed, and in my opinion, wrong interpretation of not just Bock's statement, but of the English word "rigor" is itself a testament to the lack of "rigor"...or "stiffness" in how English is evaluated.
I don't get why you have to argue with a company on the way it does its recruiting. They feel that's the best for them and they have the right to.
Yes I believe that a person that studies English could become an Engineer. But being an Engineer requires experience and time. It's not like you'll pick it up in a day. On the other hand a person that studies CS or Engineering has learnt the basics and its easier for him to become one.
The way google is recruiting feels the right way for them (and for me) since they don't want to take in someone that has no idea and start teaching him on that.
Also if someone wants to work for a Tech Company like google I don't see why he will go study English... if English is what he likes best then why would he pursue working under a tech company.
I think you are trying to apply the logic that all the banks have that they'll hire whoever if he passes their tests. But they will train him into investments and guide them through. And also that person like everyone working on finance will have to undergo exams every-year to prove himself. (That's pretty much like studying finance if even more advanced).
Well Google doesn't want to go with the paragraph above.
Yes I believe that a person that studies English could become an Engineer. But being an Engineer requires experience and time. It's not like you'll pick it up in a day. On the other hand a person that studies CS or Engineering has learnt the basics and its easier for him to become one.
The way google is recruiting feels the right way for them (and for me) since they don't want to take in someone that has no idea and start teaching him on that.
Also if someone wants to work for a Tech Company like google I don't see why he will go study English... if English is what he likes best then why would he pursue working under a tech company.
I think you are trying to apply the logic that all the banks have that they'll hire whoever if he passes their tests. But they will train him into investments and guide them through. And also that person like everyone working on finance will have to undergo exams every-year to prove himself. (That's pretty much like studying finance if even more advanced).
Well Google doesn't want to go with the paragraph above.
[deleted]
As a third-year undergrad I took a 400-level course on logic from the humanities department. I remember being blown away by how inept the average students there seemed at first. They were simply unprepared for the torrent of proofs, deductions, tautologies, De Morgan's laws, etc. The way of thinking required to get through that class easily was one which most second-year CS students had, but not the student body at large. I came to realize I had been groomed for this class for years already.
In a 200-level CS course we learned to use Karnaugh Maps. This was not optional. There is a difference between analyzing digital logic and writing papers outside CS. Not that one is better than the other, but you don't hear CS folks claiming they're well suited for writing poetry.