Would you recommend a degree?

[UK-AL05]

"adds a lot more polish".

What rubbish, there is no reason that someone pursuing a vocation such as programming needs to go to university. It's a waste of time. A prospective programmer will learn far more on the job than they will pursuing a degree. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of time for academics in most fields but I think the vast majorities of programmers would be better suited to on the job training rather than a BsC.

We have apprentices here, the qualifications they do are poor. They are basically are Java or .net focused qualifications(Microsoft Technology Associate in Software Development Fundamentals for example)


What happens, if we switch to c#(From java) or functional languages? What if we wanted to apply M.L to our systems.

They would know nothing about that, they are very specialised(Because it's cheap). University gives you a much more rounded view.

Fortunately I am trying to give them a well rounded education, I've taught them formal grammars, compilers, algorithmic analysis, bits of machine learning. I don't see many self-taught developers with those skills.

That's the stuff that makes actually you a rigorous developer, as opposed to a code slinger. I don't think people in other organisations would take time to teach them that, i'm not sure how good developers would be with those vocational java/.net centric qualifications alone.

I would not want to be a corporate monkey, only knowing business languages. Your education needs to be rounded and general, especially in a fast moving one like tech otherwise you might find yourself outdated.

 

[Ahleckz]

I believe that university should be for academic pursuit. Software development, whilst incredibly important, isn't an academic subject and I feel it would be far better taught on the job.

Your justification agrees with me. You claim that education needs to be rounded and that software development is fast moving. Giving someone a BsC in software development is counter to both these suggestions. University education does not give anyone a rounded view into their subject. They give a very specific introduction into one field.

 

[UK-AL05]

I believe that university should be for academic pursuit. Software development, whilst incredibly important, isn't an academic subject and I feel it would be far better taught on the job.

Your justification agrees with me. You claim that education needs to be rounded and that software development is fast moving. Giving someone a BsC in software development is counter to both these suggestions. University education does not give anyone a rounded view into their subject. They give a very specific introduction into one field.

I didn't say a degree in Software Development. I said degree in computer science, which is an academic pursuit.

Should engineering not be taught at university just because it's applied?

Besides there is theoretical computer science(My thesis was on distances in higher dimensions for M.L and A.I - Basically looking at novel types of distance for machine learning algorthims, and ways to combat the curse of dimensionality) and applied cs. To be good, you need both which university gives you. My theoretical side means I can design new algorithms and M.L techniques from scratch if I have to.

Universities give you general education in one subject, learning java does not mean you know computer science as with this vocational qualification.

If I had the choice I would choose developers with a good theoretical background. This does not mean a pure maths degree as other people imply.

 

[Ahleckz]

I didn't say a degree in Software Development. I said degree in computer science, which is an academic pursuit.

Should engineering not be taught at university just because it's applied? And besides there is theoretical computer science(My thesis was on distances in higher dimensions for M.L and A.I) and applied cs. To be good, you need both which university gives you. My theoretical side means I can design new algorithms and M.L techniques from scratch if I have to.

Universities give you general education in one subject, learning java does not mean you know computer science as with this vocational qualification..

I asked what you now do, you said "software" and felt the need to quantify that with acronyms for some reason. That is why I assumed you were defending software development as a degree.

The above quoted post is very interesting and sums up your view very well. You clearly think that the role of university is to teach people. I, and many other people, would disagree with that view. University is there to further knowledge, to a point. Universities are there to further the pursuit of knowledge. A university certainly should not be teaching - that is the job of schools.

 

[InKursion]

I believe that university should be for academic pursuit. Software development, whilst incredibly important, isn't an academic subject and I feel it would be far better taught on the job.

Your justification agrees with me. You claim that education needs to be rounded and that software development is fast moving. Giving someone a BsC in software development is counter to both these suggestions. University education does not give anyone a rounded view into their subject. They give a very specific introduction into one field.

It really depends on the nature of the course and uni. Academic university courses (normally high entry and very theoretical/abstract) will give you the general, wide-ranging analytical knowledge. Vocational courses, courses with sandwich years in industry, courses at business-minded ex-Polys etc. will be more specific and will be more like a certain form of 'job training'.

 

[UK-AL05]

I asked what you now do, you said "software" and felt the need to quantify that with acronyms for some reason. That is why I assumed you were defending software development as a degree.

The above quoted post is very interesting and sums up your view very well. You clearly think that the role of university is to teach people. I, and many other people, would disagree with that view. University is there to further knowledge, to a point. Universities are there to further the pursuit of knowledge. A university certainly should not be teaching - that is the job of schools.

University is to teach and to research. I don't where get the idea they are not for teaching.... They have always been both.


They are NOT for training however.

Training is not good as basis of a career. It teaches a specific job.

Teaching & Education gives you general skills, such as research and design.

 

[Ahleckz]

University is to teach and to research. I don't where get the idea they are not for teaching.... They have always been both.


They are NOT for training however.

Then why do you claim that university "gives you" an education? University allows the willing to learn for themselves, a university certainly does not teach you the subject matter.

 

[UK-AL05]

Then why do you claim that university "gives you" an education? University allows the willing to learn for themselves, a university certainly does not teach you the subject matter.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Universities are there to give a formal structure to your education.

If you taught yourself, how do you know your well rounded in your subject? You don't know what you don't know. Universities help with that.


If I didn't teach those apprentices, would they ever of know about formal grammars? Probably not, but it allows you design your own custom language and gives you deeper understanding.

Poor people have always been fobbed of with "training", but training won't truly let you escape poverty. You need education.

Heck, I'd like to get them into philosophy if I could.

 

[Ahleckz]

My argument is that the role of university is to assist those who want to further their knowledge (or train - as some professions you need to go to university). Those who want to pursue a vocation shouldn't feel they ought to go to university. And indeed, the OP who has awful A Levels shouldn't be encouraged to go to university because it is unlikely to be on any benefit.

The OP clearly isn't an academic person (and that is fine, don't get me wrong). However, you seem to think that it's fine for someone who isn't academic to go into an academic institution. That is wrong.

 

[UK-AL05]

My argument is that the role of university is to assist those who want to further their knowledge (or train - as some professions you need to go to university). Those who want to pursue a vocation shouldn't feel they ought to go to university. And indeed, the OP who has awful A Levels shouldn't be encouraged to go to university because it is unlikely to be on any benefit.

The OP clearly isn't an academic person (and that is fine, don't get me wrong). However, you seem to think that it's fine for someone who isn't academic to go into an academic institution. That is wrong.

I'm clearly academic(Me and my supervisor was considering publishing my work about distances in higher dimensions for my MSc. Many machine learning algorithms have to deal with data with many dimensions, and they suffer from the "curse of dimensionality" I found a novel way to combat that. But enough of my work ), but I got bad a-levels. There are many reasons you can get bad a-levels. I simply applied myself to work I love and suddenly I’m 'academic', outperforming many other people on my course with straight a grades at a-level.

Who are you tell him, he isn't academic? You don't even know the guy.

Professions are educated at university not trained. Training for professionals happens after graduation with professional certs(CIMA, ACCA etc) or grad schemes.


Many lecturers complain about high achieving students from private schools and leafy suburbs coming in just for the status with no real interest in the subject. Me? Low grades from my a-levels, a passion for the subject and I ended getting the highest grades on my course.

 

[DavidB]

I’ll try and fill in a bit of background info for you:

I'm currently working in computer forensics / e-discovery for a large finance company in London, it's a very challenging career, gives you a massive range of work experience and variety to your life but won’t be anything that you think it is.

Basically, the job that I strive to have is something of a computer forensic investigator. Preferably in the police. The department that cracks down on online fraud and related online crimes.

I have been following the acts of online hackers for a long time. Groups such as anonymous and solo people such as th3j35t3r. What I would want to do is work for an organization (I believe the met police do this?) that works on cracking down on criminals who do such acts (Anonymous).

There's two clear branches of work in the industry :
Working for the private sector you'll work on anything from fraud, legal disputes and in house investigations. These cases vary from straight forward fraud to legal violations and bankruptcy. This isn't where you want to be for a 9-5 job. You work with lawyers throughout pretty much everything you do, and they are relentless.

The work effectively consists of three aspects:
1. Data Identification and Collection, which involves travelling to client sites and forensically imaging computers. This requires good communication skills for dealing with clients, a passion for travelling and a comprehensive knowledge on different hardware components and operating systems. If you’re interested in travelling, I'm not sure there's a better way to travel whilst working in IT (I'm actually on a three month trip to various parts of the US at the moment).

2. Data Processing and Extraction, this involves using forensic tools such as EnCase and LAW to extract and retrieve data from an image that has been collected via the Collection team. In more complex forensic cases this includes an in-depth search and investigation into the computer.

3. Review Support and Data Analysis, which involves dealing with client requests and analysing data to extract specific data requested by clients (often law firms or large companies).

The public sector (focussing on the police) tends to work entirely on criminal cases. What you have to consider though is that for every case that you’re investigating some "hardcore hacker" who has craftily hidden any footprints that may lead you to getting a conviction, there will be 10+ cases where you’re investigating a potential paedophile. When the case goes to court, all the judge wants to know is the "rating" of the images or videos present on the custodians HDD. This means that you as an investigator have to watch and assess every single piece of illicit material on a suspect’s computer. On top of this you’re also paid ~2/3 of the salary of a private sector worker. To me this is the epitome of taking one for the team and I’m sure there’s nothing more rewarding than having your work leading to the imprisonment of a dangerous paedophile, I just couldn’t do it myself.

There is of course exceptions to this (e.g. working at the SFO, MI6 or GCHQ) but these locations are often far less glamorous than you may imagine.

I know people say it's a difficult area to get into, but once your foot is in the door you become gold dust. Our IP students get head-hunters ringing them within their first week on the job.


As for education I think that this is actually one of those areas in which you can go to a relatively low ranked university and still do very well for yourself. When applying to uni I was disappointed with the quality of universities offering CF courses so ultimately took computer science. Most of my colleagues that took CF were ultimately bitterly disappointed with the standard of the education that was provided to them. This is not to say that this is true of all courses but you have to truly invest the time into making sure that you have the right uni. I've been shocked at the standard of some of the student's that have approached us for jobs in the past, if you can get out the other side of a computer forensic degree and not know what an MD5 is, then something is seriously wrong.

Personally I think Computer Forensics (or E-discovery) is a fantastic area to be in, and it’s growing rapidly. It’s certainly not a job where I spend every day sat behind a desk; you never know what you might work on the following week. Work varies from a covert raid, to a presentation in front of executive board members , to programming a new tool to get the job done faster.

From what you’ve posted, you need to seriously research further into this field. This is a very niche market and if you don't do it right you'll really find it difficult to break into. You'll really struggle without at least some form of degree though.

 

[UK-AL05]

Good advice, and as I suspected you really need a degree to get passed the gate keepers anyway.


So do the anti degree brigade want him to give up on life now? I think his best chance is with a access to HE course, or going to university where he can get in. If he's really good on his first degree and gets a first, he can do what I did and get MSc at respected university at the end to shut up the elitist employers who ask for a "top university".(These recruiters often don't really know what they're talking about anyway). However with fees at 9k now... I'm not sure if that worth the risk.


Some people really do try to stop people progressing in life on this forum. They have an elite or not view. They are essentially stopping people entering the professions. But if you don't try, you never will.

 

[BoonMonkey]

I’ll try and fill in a bit of background info for you:

I'm currently working in computer forensics / e-discovery for a large finance company in London, it's a very challenging career, gives you a massive range of work experience and variety to your life but won’t be anything that you think it is.




There's two clear branches of work in the industry :
Working for the private sector you'll work on anything from fraud, legal disputes and in house investigations. These cases vary from straight forward fraud to legal violations and bankruptcy. This isn't where you want to be for a 9-5 job. You work with lawyers throughout pretty much everything you do, and they are relentless.

The work effectively consists of three aspects:
1. Data Identification and Collection, which involves travelling to client sites and forensically imaging computers. This requires good communication skills for dealing with clients, a passion for travelling and a comprehensive knowledge on different hardware components and operating systems. If you’re interested in travelling, I'm not sure there's a better way to travel whilst working in IT (I'm actually on a three month trip to various parts of the US at the moment).

2. Data Processing and Extraction, this involves using forensic tools such as EnCase and LAW to extract and retrieve data from an image that has been collected via the Collection team. In more complex forensic cases this includes an in-depth search and investigation into the computer.

3. Review Support and Data Analysis, which involves dealing with client requests and analysing data to extract specific data requested by clients (often law firms or large companies).

The public sector (focussing on the police) tends to work entirely on criminal cases. What you have to consider though is that for every case that you’re investigating some "hardcore hacker" who has craftily hidden any footprints that may lead you to getting a conviction, there will be 10+ cases where you’re investigating a potential paedophile. When the case goes to court, all the judge wants to know is the "rating" of the images or videos present on the custodians HDD. This means that you as an investigator have to watch and assess every single piece of illicit material on a suspect’s computer. On top of this you’re also paid ~2/3 of the salary of a private sector worker. To me this is the epitome of taking one for the team and I’m sure there’s nothing more rewarding than having your work leading to the imprisonment of a dangerous paedophile, I just couldn’t do it myself.

There is of course exceptions to this (e.g. working at the SFO, MI6 or GCHQ) but these locations are often far less glamorous than you may imagine.

I know people say it's a difficult area to get into, but once your foot is in the door you become gold dust. Our IP students get head-hunters ringing them within their first week on the job.


As for education I think that this is actually one of those areas in which you can go to a relatively low ranked university and still do very well for yourself. When applying to uni I was disappointed with the quality of universities offering CF courses so ultimately took computer science. Most of my colleagues that took CF were ultimately bitterly disappointed with the standard of the education that was provided to them. This is not to say that this is true of all courses but you have to truly invest the time into making sure that you have the right uni. I've been shocked at the standard of some of the student's that have approached us for jobs in the past, if you can get out the other side of a computer forensic degree and not know what an MD5 is, then something is seriously wrong.

Personally I think Computer Forensics (or E-discovery) is a fantastic area to be in, and it’s growing rapidly. It’s certainly not a job where I spend every day sat behind a desk; you never know what you might work on the following week. Work varies from a covert raid, to a presentation in front of executive board members , to programming a new tool to get the job done faster.

From what you’ve posted, you need to seriously research further into this field. This is a very niche market and if you don't do it right you'll really find it difficult to break into. You'll really struggle without at least some form of degree though.

Good advice, and as I suspected you really need a degree to get passed the gate keepers anyway.


So do the anti degree brigade want him to give up on life now? I think his best chance is with a access to HE course, or going to university where he can get in. If he's really good on his first degree and gets a first, he can do what I did and get MSc at respected university at the end to shut up the elitist employers who ask for a "top university".(These recruiters often don't really know what they're talking about anyway). However with fees at 9k now... I'm not sure if that worth the risk.


Some people really do try to stop people progressing in life on this forum. They have an elite or not view. They are essentially stopping people entering the professions. But if you don't try, you never will.

Ignoring the page which just seemed to be arguments about universities, thank you both for the information.

I will be researching further into this field as I don't want to start a course or degree and then realise it isn't required for the field I want to move on into. To be honest, if an employer is an elitist and only wants people from top universities then I don't particularly want to work for them. I'm not from a very wealthy background, so there isn't much change in me affording to go to a place like that.

Thanks everyone for the information.

 

[BoonMonkey]

My argument is that the role of university is to assist those who want to further their knowledge (or train - as some professions you need to go to university). Those who want to pursue a vocation shouldn't feel they ought to go to university. And indeed, the OP who has awful A Levels shouldn't be encouraged to go to university because it is unlikely to be on any benefit.

The OP clearly isn't an academic person (and that is fine, don't get me wrong). However, you seem to think that it's fine for someone who isn't academic to go into an academic institution. That is wrong.

Just would also like to take this moment to say that I don't have awful A-Level results for any reason but my own. It's not because I couldn't do the work, it's because I used to be very lazy, I didn't want to do the work and did the bare minimum. I didn't have fun at school, I didn't really like many people at my school so I spent as little time there as possible. I was more focused on my own stuff. Building PCs at home from scraps just for fun. IT is the only lesson I particularly cared for and I didn't even do much work in that. I could have acquired better A-Level results, and I know that for a fact.

I have said that my work ethic has improved dramatically, I've gained more qualifications since I left 6th form and continue to improve my skills in areas. I am currently learning Python in my free time. I believe that saying I'm "Clearly not an academic person" is an insult; the correct term would be "OP clearly WASN'T an academic person."

 

[mufc802]

The people who say the OP isn't academic are in no position to say so. If you put no effort into a-levels, you do badly. However, if he resat them and put in 100% effort he could do very well. I'm not saying he will, but I've learnt myself that I am academic whereas a few years ago I didn't think I was, I got a fail in a-level maths and physics, but two years later I got a B in a-level maths which I self studied in one year.

 

[Scythian]

I don't see much point starting a seperate thread for this as i'm in a similar boat. I'm currently looking to apply to a university (within the UK). At the moment I'm considering taking a Computer Science degree as this seems ideal for me with maybe one or two other options. I know the field I definitely want to go into IT, but i'm having trouble deciding between a degree and a university. The three degrees i'm considering at the moment are:

Computer Science
Computer Systems Engineering
Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Could someone explain better what the differences what the first two degrees are as I do not quite understand, ultimately if someone can explain where all three degrees can take you that would also be of a huge help.

Grades wise mine are pretty well, though doing a BTEC course (should finish next year with DDD/DDM) i'm lead to believe this limits some of the universities I can attend to those who accept them.

I think it would be bad to simply follow the university league tables solely to pick a university (going by this thread) so are there any other ways to decide? My university options at the consist of the University of Lancaster (based on recommendation from my tutor) and the University of Exeter. Any pointers here would be greatly appreciated.

 

[InKursion]

Lancaster is much more reputable for CompSci and such subjects than Exeter.

Exeter has jumped up the league tables in the last 5 years (like St. Andrews) and most people are still scratching their heads why (hint: the "Rah" effect). Lancaster is a quiet hero in this respect when it comes to CompSci.