Yeah, But Does Your CS Degree Have Enough Flair?

Recently, the head of Google's Android division, Sameer Samat, called for a rebranding of Computer Science/Software Engineering degrees.  He believes it's perceived as something like 'go learn how to do Java coding,' which doesn't require a degree.  He wants it to be recognized as something that's more well-rounded, and he wants graduates to have a little extra oomph (my onomatopoeia, not his).  I think this false perception is much better than my mother's, who thought I would subsequently be able to troubleshoot her Windows 98 system when it was infected with malware after clicking on a link in a chain e-mail, but I still find it a little wanting.

I don't disagree that's how many people see the degree, and that it is, in fact, an erroneous take.  But I think any discussion on any degree creates a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario.  The biggest reason why STEM degrees in general - and CS degrees in particular - are so well-regarded is that they offer practical skills for job seekers.  In theory, employers can take graduates of these programs and simply get them working without needing to invest too much time in training that someone with a traditional liberal arts degree will require.  

This, of course, is bullshit.  The first year of any CS grad's employment is spent beating the phrase 'design patterns' out of them and informing them that, no, they don't need to write their own sort algorithm because every language already has an optimized sort() call for anything they'll need.

Likewise, I just looked up key skills that Marketing majors learn, and they seem pretty practical - performing market research, data analysis, and marketing strategies (specifically Search Engine Optimization and digital campaigns).  This sounds as shovel-ready as any CS degree.

Granted, that isn't classified as a traditional liberal arts degree like English, but it isn't the gold standard that we've allotted to a STEM degree.  

The curriculum for an English degree and the skills it can impart immediately to a new position are a little bit harder to parse from a practical standpoint, but it still covers the bases that are common among all college degrees - the ability to work with minimal supervision (aka internal drive) and, of utmost importance, the ability to think critically.  In fact, if there's one thing all college degrees should impart are methods for thinking critically.

If a company isn't willing to train a new college grad, regardless of the field, they're doing everyone a disservice.  They're squandering the grad's talents and not taking advantage of a fresh perspective that can improve their business outlook even if that outlook is a bit inefficient at the outset.

The perceived discrepancy between STEM and other degrees is muddied even more by comments further down in the article:

Samat instructed job seekers to have a "passion" outside of CS and to "take it to the next level."

The article concludes with Samat stating, "I think it's really important that it be something that you're really excited about going deep in and really becoming a 5% top expert in the field."

If that's the advice I received from a mentor, I'd ask for my money back, even if I received the advice for free.  It is, as the Texans say, all hat and no cattle.

I have a passion for several things.  When do I know that I've taken it to the next level?  How do I know when I've become a 5% top expert in the field?  Is it the right field?  If not, when should I down-level, de-passion, and re-passion somewhere else?  Shouldn't I get more concrete advice from a group of people who consider themselves the utmost utilitarian thinkers than a sloganeering equivalent of "clap three times and wish on Tinkerbell's wings"? 

People who tend to employ these phrases also tend to equate passion with "using every free waking hour to pursue a goal," which can run counter to their seemingly contradictory advice of working at least 60 hours for their paycheck - a task that also requires levels of passion never before seen in human history (VPs and Execs demand more passion than a Danielle Steele novel; the romance level at home has got to be smokin').  It's hard to be passionate about something when it competes with eating, sleep, and ultradevotion to someone else's business.

This advice is equally as patronizing (and given by the same people) to advising people to go into trades, like plumbing, as they attempt to wipe out white collar jobs to improve their profit margins.  Somehow, these geniuses of industry don't understand that such a shift would flood the field, making demand drop steeply for those jobs.  Also, not everyone is physically able to handle the demands of a trade, and, maybe, just maybe, we should be promoting different classes of jobs, some of which don't incur physical labor for increasingly less money.  

Well, they either don't recognize it, or they're too lazy or indifferent to care.  They're truly passionate in their lack of compassion!

More so, isn't delving into art history something someone can be passionate about?  How is pursuing a degree in that as a passion less genuine or prudent than first pursuing a CS degree, and then getting serious about art history?  Is one classified as better?  If so, why?

I won't naively claim that certain degrees don't offer immediate practical benefits upon graduation.  We STEM grads often thumbed our noses at others who weren't making that thousandaire cash with their first gig at a faceless corporate entity.  

But, if the claim is that only a certain class of people should look for their inner passion in addition to the passion of their career in CS - and with what appear to be very prescribed boundaries as well (I assume that 'be a top 5% expert in a field' subtly means 'find ways to make me more money') - then businesses are missing out on a lot of people who could greatly increase their bottom line with their passion.

With unending passion,

Until next time, my human and robot friends.