> people are learning how to value educational degrees based on what they'll actually yield financially and making decisions accordingly.
So why bother learning about the basis of human thought and culture when instead we should be learning about how to make the next iPhone app that won't matter in 6 months. Anything to maximize those profits, right? People be damned, it's the bottom line that matters! Got it.
Only around 25% of people have jobs related to their degree. I'd rather be able read closely, think clearly and critically, and synthesize information then learn about algorithms and data structures. STEM degrees do not give you those skills to the same degree.
I can learn CS crap without a degree program. Tech stuff is easy, people are hard. A world full of STEM majors sounds boring as fuck.
It seems like this elides the difference between the goals of humanities education and the actual practice and outcomes of humanities education. I honestly don't know if humanities education confers the ability to "read closely, think clearly and critically, and synthesize information" at a rate that's so much higher than STEM education that it makes sense to divert tens of thousands of dollars to a humanities major instead of a STEM one.
Just as some naive first cut at answering this, I looked up GRE scores by intended graduate major [1]. "Physical sciences" (including math) majors average a 151 Verbal and "Humanities and Arts" average a...156, which seems pretty close, and even closer if you squint to try and account for the fact that the physical sciences skews English-as-a-second-language more than the humanities?
Of course, the GRE isn't a perfect proxy for the ability to "read closely, think clearly and critically, and synthesize information", but...graduate schools seem ok with it?
> a rate that's so much higher than STEM education that it makes sense to divert tens of thousands of dollars to a humanities major instead of a STEM one.
Likewise, your argument doesn't support diverting funds in favor of STEM programs. From my own personal experience of having both a liberal arts BA and a huge portion of a CS degree, the liberal arts program has improved my ability to think and read deeper and more completely than the CS coursework ever could. It has also proven to have prepared me to face the "real world" better than any of my STEM major peers have been able to.
More and more, and this thread re-enforces it, I think the STEM vs. humanities argument is veiled misogyny. White boys studying science = good, brown girls studying poetry = bad.
The STEM world has no soul and will fail all of us because of it.
In the other direction, my personal experience is that a pure math undergraduate helped me to structure assumptions, evidence, and conclusions in a way that I thought was sorely missing in most of my humanities classes. But I doubt either one of our personal anecdotes is all that convincing to a third party.
> More and more, and this thread re-enforces it, I think the STEM vs. humanities argument is veiled misogyny. White boys studying science = good, brown girls studying poetry = bad.
If you're going to jump to this uncharitable a view of my argument, it probably makes sense for us to just stop here.
>So why bother learning about the basis of human thought and culture when instead we should be learning about how to make the next iPhone app that won't matter in 6 months. Anything to maximize those profits, right? People be damned, it's the bottom line that matters! Got it.
Yes, the bottom line matters because it's paying for your education. If there is no bottom line you will have no education. Consider this, back in the day only the richest people send their children to colleges and universities. How did they become rich? By maximizing profits. So yes, profits come first, after you have those profits you can spend it on nonessential education.
> From what I can tell, there's very little enthusiasm for online education, on the part of either professors or students. Pretty much everyone is eager to get back to normal, and I'm fairly confident that this is exactly what is going to happen.
This is probably true from a faculty and student position. However, as an IT person for a university, nothing would get me to quit faster than being forced back into the office. I would leave this job in a heartbeat and go make WAAAAAAY more working a remote job in industry. Given current hiring freezes, budget shortfalls, and low, uncompetitive salary ranges, I don't think universities are in a position to lose many IT personnel.
I'm not the only staff member who thinks this. Universities should prepare for a mass staff exodus if they try to get us back on campus.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has been using Windows since 3.1 and Linux since 2.0.x (early Debian). Nothing in this article is exactly "news" at this point in history.
I imagine they have multiple PhDs working on those projects. For your bog standard SDE these interviews have very little to do with the day-to-day job.
In all honesty, there are not that many "bog standard SDEs" at Google. That's not what the company is hiring for: it wants engineers who are comfortable with complexity, whether measured in technical challenge (Tensorflow, Dart etc.), robustness (cloud, GSuite) or extreme scalability (Gmail, ads, search etc.) A PhD is clearly not the only path to that skillset, but it's not unusual either.
Separately, I'm sorry the original poster had a crappy experience: that does sound awful. It happens, unfortunately, and I'm glad they drew attention to it.
> That's not what the company is hiring for: it wants engineers who are comfortable with complexity, whether measured in technical challenge (Tensorflow, Dart etc.), robustness (cloud, GSuite) or extreme scalability (Gmail, ads, search etc.)
How confident are you about that assertion?
A lot of Googlers are doing generic web/app work that happens elsewhere from those I've talked to.
Not HQ tho so maybe it's different out there
A lot of the requirements around generic web development at Google requires deep knowledge of things. Not always algorithms specifically, but I've also never been slowed down because someone wasn't familiar with a concept I was working on (or able to catch up very quickly).
No no one is writing basic CRUD apps at Google. At that scale there are optimizations needed at every level. I know people who work on the cutsom kernel for the servers to front end people for apps.
Since we're on anecdotes: I've interviewed people who wanted to leave Google because they were bored of not having any interesting work to do.
If you truly believe that "no one is writing basic CRUD apps at Google", then their marketing has been incredibly effective and explains why their interview process remains the way it is
The first time I was a new (post) grad and I didn't much like it and left for a startup within a year.
I figured I'd give it another go with more experience, so the second time I was hired at L5 (expected to be leading teams). Liked it even less the second time, but stuck around for about 2 years for logistical reasons.
In my experience at Google and other large companies, the team you join ends up dictating your experience. I would be open to a third stint at Google, but would be very careful about vetting the team (especially the leadership).
Having said that, I don't think I like the culture at Google. Especially the second time, it felt very mercenary and there was cutthroat competition. It didn't feel like I was working on a cohesive vision, but just moving protobufs around. I think I preferred Google when Eric was CEO, maybe because it was smaller, but it felt like Larry was running Google with too much emphasis on the bottom line and not enough on product or vision.
I actually think this is a big issue for Google, and maybe why there is so much time burned on internal threads.
There aren’t enough good problems to go around and a lot of folks who were promised the world end up bored, working on just another mobile app or whatever else.
I stand corrected. But in all honesty, that smacks of privileged elitism. Do these pop quiz, brain teaser interviews really prove the person can be successful on the job at Google?
Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life by William Finnegan
A beautiful book about waves, love, writing, and living a good life. As a surfer, skier, mountain biker, and overall risk taker, this book affected me in the same way "Walden Pond" or "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" affects some people. It is the most impactful book I've read in the past 10 years. Probably not for everyone, but for those of a certain ilk it is stunning.
Yellow Aster Butte is a reasonably accessible day hike that can be completed by just about anyone who's fit enough to hike. Yes, the last pitch to the butte is a bitch, but just about anyone can do it. The Enchantments, on the other hand, is a permit only area (for overnight trips), that is not easily completed in a day long thru-hike - which from the Stuart trailhead is 18 miles with 4500ft of elevation gain. Even experienced hikers struggle with the Aasgard Pass scramble. This list strikes me as not just best in terms of views and landscape, but also accessibility.
I totally agree the Enchantments are more spectacular, but they require some serious commitment and are not likely to be enjoyed by the vast majority casual hikers.
Fair enough, however the I would counter that the JMT can be sectioned, though not necessarily as day hikes. Other than the permit requirement it is way more accessible and less difficult than the Enchantments (don't get me wrong, they're both hard). I agree the JMT is the best hike in CA. I see how Yellow Aster could be considered the best hike in WA, the Enchantments is just different and special in its own unique way.
Not great. Monitoring my mental health is critical for me. I caught a severe TBI 8 years ago and things have never been the same. I hate the way my brain works now. I hate not being able to concentrate, not remembering a lot things, having to take stimulants, anti-seizure meds, and anti-depressants just to feel a bit normal. I especially hate the personality changes, however minor some of them are. I miss my old self more than anyone can imagine. Yes, I have therapists, physiatrists and doctors all on my side but every single day is still a struggle. It's taken a toll on my family and kids. Some days it seems like they're the only things keeping me going. It's easy to get down and to start wallowing in self-pity, but you just have to keep going. One thing, one step at a time. It could be worse.
ha It's always fascinating to me how language evolves. For some reason I thought this would be about hunting and skinning coyotes, as in the varmints I hunted as a kid, not people smuggling folks across the boarder. I read the URL as carcass, not caracas. I should know better than to think something like that would be a thread on Hacker News.
Blah blah blah. While I appreciate the skepticism, this is BS only for the sake of it (as so many HN comments are).
You instantly lose credibility with this line:
"I bought a Giro Atmos over a decade ago and never needed to upgrade because the top of the line helmets were only a couple grams lighter, after a decade of “improvement.”
I hope you've since replaced it. General guidelines are to replace a helmet every three years due to material degradation and UV damage.
Yes, you are correct that there is a marketing element. Likewise, you are correct that people value their lives over $250 price tag.
As a bit of antidotal evidence, I had a fall this weekend on Evolution trail on Galbraith MTN in Bellingham, WA. I fell from about 6-7 feet up on a feature called the Stinger, a long, super fun north shore style bridge (watch some youtube videos if you want to see it). My face and head were impacted in the fall and I suffered, what I think is, a very mild concussion. I replaced my helmet afterwards as per the recommendations. I also have a history of TBI caused by a cycling accident where wearing a helmet saved my life. I am absolutely going to buy something that even vaguely suggests an advantage for injury prevention. Mountain Biking is, after all, and inherently dangerous sport.
As you suggest, any progress is good progress when it comes to saving lives. But I absolutely disagree that it "is a bet on the order of Pascals wager," especially when it seems I myself have made that wager and come out ahead. So, with the utmost respect, unless you are a leading researcher in this field, STFU.
This reply doesn't seem to be in line with HN guidelines. "Be kind. Don't be snarky." and "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So why bother learning about the basis of human thought and culture when instead we should be learning about how to make the next iPhone app that won't matter in 6 months. Anything to maximize those profits, right? People be damned, it's the bottom line that matters! Got it.
Only around 25% of people have jobs related to their degree. I'd rather be able read closely, think clearly and critically, and synthesize information then learn about algorithms and data structures. STEM degrees do not give you those skills to the same degree.
I can learn CS crap without a degree program. Tech stuff is easy, people are hard. A world full of STEM majors sounds boring as fuck.