[khawkins]

This is under the assumption that you see college is a program of self-betterment and not busy work for receiving a degree that says you can have a middle-class job. It feels like even the universities themselves see it as the latter these days.

[knowuh]

The cynical anti-intellectualism in this thread is bracing.

All part of the zeitgeist I guess.

News is fake. Science is fake. Schools are barriers. Everything is subjective, objective reality is nonexistent.

How do we have productive disagreements going forward?

[RNCTX]

> News is fake. Science is fake. Schools are barriers. Everything is subjective, objective reality is nonexistent. How do we have productive disagreements going forward?

Funny you describe it that way. I'd argue that young people in STEM fields, including IS/CIS/CompSci undergrad programs, think everything can be objective when that clearly is not the case.

You don't need to go to college to press buttons, fill out spreadsheets, or input code until you get the output you seek. You need to go to college to make the subjective decisions, which don't have a clear right/wrong answer.

[SuoDuanDao]

I can't word this in a non-snarky way, but it's a genuine question:

Why do you believe that college can teach making subjective decisions?

[TheOtherHobbes]

Because moral philosophy and epistemology have been a thing for well over 4,000 years, and college could easily teach the basics.

[RNCTX]

This.

The humanities are glossed over at best in public high schools across the United States. I don't know of one that requires a PHIL intro course of students.

College is not vocational training (unless you're a law or medicine student), it's for learning how to think.

[tankenmate]

If you study the International Bacalaureat (IB), a high school curriculum taught around the world that is based on the French system, you are required to study Theory of Knowledge; effectively an introduction to philosophy.

[lol768]

> The humanities are glossed over at best in public high schools across the United States. I don't know of one that requires a PHIL intro course of students.

I'm not sure how much weight this argument holds.. The whole "gen ed" thing is a rather US-centric concept.

I don't know of any universities in the UK that require a PHIL intro course of students. When you go to university, you overwhelmingly study the one course ("major") that you picked beforehand. There's often a small amount of room on many courses for optionals from other fields, if you want to take them, but this is by no means mandatory and I'd say the proportion of folks doing philosophy modules studying a different degree at my alma mater was slim.

[kerkeslager]

In theory, it would be good to have a part of our educational system which teaches people how to think. But what does that look like? I'd say that boils down to two things: logic and evidence.

The vast majority of philosophy classes are absolutely garbage at teaching either of those things. Sure, in theory, logic is part of philosophy, but in any of the philosophy classes I've taken, we didn't talk about logic. The things we did talk about were often examples of how not to think, yet they were presented as equally valid next to much more rational ideas.

For example, one of the things we covered in my ethics class was Kant's categorical imperative. The categorical imperative falls over instantly if you apply even the most basic logic to it, but no mention of this was made in any of the course discussion or materials. I'm sure lots of people walked out of that class thinking that the categorical imperative was a perfectly reasonable way to make ethical decisions. If this is the sort of "learning how to think" philosophy classes are doing, then I'd prefer we didn't--I'd rather let people figure out how to think on their own than to teach them unequivocally incorrect ways of thinking. Philosophy could be useful if these classes were taught as, "Here's a bunch of historical ideas, and here's how we apply logic to prove them wrong." But until that happens, I'd strongly oppose introducing any more philosophy to curricula.

Other fields are better-equipped to teach people logic and evidence. Science is all about evidence collection, and logically applying the collected evidence to the evaluation of hypotheses. Math, especially around proofs and derivations, is all about logic, and probability and statistics give you tools that are very broadly applicable. History, if taught well, teaches you how to logically analyze artifactual evidence and logically contextualize the present in terms of the past.

But, there are two problems: first, many college students don't focus much on these areas. And second, the parts of these fields which I mentioned aren't particularly well taught even by these fields. Many students get A's in science classes thinking that science is memorizing a bunch of facts about chemicals or living things, without ever having learned how to obtain new facts themselves. Many students get A's in math classes having memorized a bunch of formulas without being able to derive even basic proofs. Many students get A's in history classes having memorized a bunch of historical events, without knowing the difference between primary and secondary sources, and without ever considering that an author might have bias. Even the classes which do teach people how to think, to some extent, generally do a piss-poor job of it.

That's not to say that these fields (and other fields not mentioned) have no value. Even if you think well, your thinking is only as useful as the evidence you feed into it, and colleges do a very good job at moving vast amounts of evidence on a variety of subjects into people's brains. Further, colleges often do a lot of work getting people skills: lab techniques, using computers, effective communication, etc. You can argue that the purpose of college is learning how to think, but the implementation of college is much better at teaching people information and skills. Learning how to think would certainly be valuable, but de facto it's not what colleges are doing, and the things colleges are doing do have some value.

That said, modern colleges often put teaching of any kind behind profits, and that's not something I see any value in for society or students.

[SuoDuanDao]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'teach the basics'. Certainly, college can provide the texts and an environment where other people are interested in the same subjects. If that's all you mean I agree, though it's far from the only institution where that's possible.

The trouble, I think, is that making ethical judgements requires wrestling with ethical conundra oneself, and that is not something a professor with 300 undergrads to teach can provide any useful guidance to the majority of them for. The idea of accurately assessing performance is even more unrealistic. Maybe it's a function of the kind of university I attended, but the vast majority of my fellow students who were taking these 'subjective' courses were simply gaming a rubric in their writing. And this is true even of those who were genuinely interested in the subject matter, they saw it as a price of admission.

Which seems to me like an impediment to actually learning what was traditionally taught on more of an apprenticeship than an industrial model. If your own undergraduate experience was different, I'd be curious what your university did differently.

[gknoy]

> making ethical judgements requires wrestling with ethical conundra oneself, and that is not something a professor with 300 undergrads to teach can provide any useful guidance to the majority of them for.

I don't remember a lot from my undergraduate course on Ethics, but I do recall that literally in the first lecture, the professor presented us with questions about things like how should one behave or treat others, and then presented us with "edge cases" that directly challenged what most of us had answered.

As a young person, it's very easy to think that our problems are novel and unique, and the ethics course very clearly showed that many of these problems are millennia old, with people having given names to better-realized versions of what most of us think of as the way we should behave, and that people have spent lifetimes of work writing and arguing about the ramifications and "edge cases" of such philosophy.

I feel like the biggest benefit from the course was not any particular ethical guidance, but rather the challenging of our beliefs, and the realization that these things _are_ hard, and are not something we can trivially answer with something that fits on a Hallmark card.

[derangedHorse]

Do you really think new college students absorb all that they hear in the entry-level classes? You're also operating under the assumption that all professors employed by a college are capable of effectively communicating the topic they're supposed to teach

[dennis_jeeves]

>I can't word this in a non-snarky way, but it's a genuine question:

>Why do you believe that college can teach making subjective decisions?

Lol, most people actually believe that common-sense can be taught to people. I don't.

[SuoDuanDao]

I agree. Developed is one thing, even building a space where it's easier to develop, but teaching? As a guy who's taught for both fun and profit, I don't buy it.

[mikecoles]

Anti-college is not anti-intellectualism. Quite the opposite. Higher education is no longer about education; it's about profit. Pieces of paper are pointless for anything other than wallpaper. Free-range education through meeting and collaborating with others is more beneficial to expanding your knowledge than handing over money to some college. Save those tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life. Spend that time and money being an apprentice, creating your own curriculum, or taking specific training.

[BossingAround]

> Anti-college is not anti-intellectualism. Quite the opposite. Higher education is no longer about education; it's about profit.

In the US, maybe. Do people take ridiculous loans for their degree outside of US? Some loans, sure, but loans that amount to 5-10x their future yearly income? I don't know...

[Junk_Collector]

While there are some truly staggering examples of US college loan debt, the average loan debt at the end of a 4 year degree in the US is $26k or about the price of a new mid range car. For the majority of people, their total college loan debt is below a single year of their first year annual income out of college and certainly not 5-10x.

[1]http://www.collegescholarships.org/loans/average-debt.htm

[Melting_Harps]

> In the US, maybe. Do people take ridiculous loans for their degree outside of US? Some loans, sure, but loans that amount to 5-10x their future yearly income? I don't know...

Yes. In the UK. I had a relationship with someone who specifically learned German in school, and went to Germany to tutor in a cross-education outreach program after she graduated to go scout for Universities she wanted to attend in order to avoid having to take out massive loans like her siblings did back home. Very smart girl.

She and I enrolled into online classes, I had already complete my Bsc but wanted to do this with her; but she felt she was missing on the 'campus life' part of the University experience and went into Pedagogy to the Masters level and now teaches back in the UK.

In a post Brexit World, that is just not possible.

The EU is still pretty favourable in terms of University costs being hidden and obfuscated via VAT for the students, but many Industries within it's local economy (PIIGS, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia in the Eurozone, and just about most of the periphery member nations) cannot provide adequate jobs let alone a career to its graduates within their sectors so they have to go to Germany, UK, Holland and as things have gotten worse France to a much lesser degree than when I was there.

The ideal being landing a job in the US or China where they can make obscene amounts of money in certain fields like Tech or Medicine with little to no debt, and subsidized advance degrees. Which still opens it up to the work visa lottery, and uprooting your life during some the most critical years of your entire Life (late 20s to early 30s) in the hopes it pans out.

The best thing that can happen is to disrupt it entirely and level the playing field and re-structure it in such a way that its both affordable and accessible to all motivated to want to go in and meet its requirements. And incentivize them to stay in their home towns a build a solid community and tie it to the needs of its actual needed labor force: hopefully doing away with the notion of studying Civil Engineering for Oil Rig drilling if you're from Iceland kind of thing. As it makes no sense, and doesn't reflect the value system or the job prospects of your community let alone the job prospects of a Nation that is entirely dependent on renewable geo-thermal.

How exactly the Lab portion of STEM gets solved is still a mystery.

I propose the building auxiliary wet-labs in Libraries within their communities. The net benefit here being that students should be required to teach children and adults of their community the topic or subject they are studying as a graded portion of their grade for the privilege of having such a model and build community in the process. Or perhaps that should be the only real on-campus (at both Universities and Community Colleges) component to what is an otherwise entirely Online system?

Just look at this example, which having to attend my midterm and practicals during one of the largest fires in San Diego History (I was literately trapped in my car on my way back home to OC for 7 hours after they closed campus when we were sitting down for the exam as the classroom filled with smoke) and during my finals during the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, I can understand this from both sides:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ucla-professor-suspended-af...

That hot button issue could be entirely mitigated, whether you're pro or against the BLM protests is irrelevant. On just a practical and logistical matter you could just overcome this with the current technology that we have and avoid the certain backlash to the professor, department because of it from the irate student body and opportunistic Media.

I saw a rant from a UCLA professor pretty much lining out how he, and his entire profession have not seen a single decrease in pay since he left University in the late 80s as a TA and saw how the CSU/UC extortion system was being assembled in what was once the envy of the entire US' university system--which followed the EU's model pretty well, and was low to no cost if you were local, but had the ability to employ its graduates as the California Economy could support it. Which was a net benefit that significantly contributed to CA becoming the 8th largest economy in the World.

I can't seem to find it and really wish I had saved it as the very employees in the system are to the point where they know it went too far. And are perhaps even afraid of what may happen at what an angry mob can do these days.

[quacked]

I agree with you, but the primary issue is signalling via degrees. For the elite non-college educated who already have a working portfolio of projects to reference, landing a "white-collar" job may be a possibility. For the rest of them, a non-degree holder, even if objectively competitive with a degree-holder, will be immediately discounted by a hiring manager who's looking at 250 resumes.

[SuoDuanDao]

Productive disagreement? I think to begin, we need to vet people we might have disagreements with. I don't think productive dialogue can be commodditized. Maybe it can after the fact via podcasts etc, but dialogues themselves are, I think, inherently analogue and highly personal. I think, given the realities of the attention economy, that we need to be much more selective about whom we let in to a conversation that might change our own mind. And this needs to be on a case-by-case basis, with everyone setting and updating their own standards on whom they'll let into dialogue.

I think people like the one you're responding to would agree and increasingly think that association with institutions of higher learning send a strong signal to avoid dialogue. It doesn't necessarily look like anti-intellectualism to me, any more than filtering out people who didn't graduate high school is necessarily elitism. I could see myself rationalizing either, depending on the kind of conversation I wanted to have.

[dart600]

Could you please define anti intellectualism by your standards? To me, anti intellectual notions would be just if the initial intentions of a discussion were based on a very rich topic and were dissolved in some manner. I beg a brief and graceful peer review for the poor submissions that likely seek solace in the isolation of a virus infected planet.

And at end. In my intention to post, I was solely being altruistic, informing whomever reading that if they were to read this article and consider getting a degree from U of the P that they should consider the risk. Just a gesture. However, I think my writing style might have been misunderstood as some semblance of pseudo intellectual attempt or such. Do know, for the record,that as the 1st to reply to the post, my intention was to inform.

But I am intrigued and inspired. How about we both try to post an article that invites our versions of intellectualism! Ready set go.

[zo1]

>"How do we have productive disagreements going forward?"

We are barely having any of those right now in the greater society. As long as we can't argue facts, objective-reality and do so without feelings, we'll continue descending into anarchy and divisiveness.

[tripzilch]

US is "the greater society" now??

[zo1]

I'm not from or residing in the US. My comment was aimed as commentary on what I can see happening globally.

[kerkeslager]

Your post lacks nuance.

Some news is fake, some isn't.

Some science is fake, some isn't.

Schools are barriers, but for many elements of a school, the fact that it's a barrier is a good thing--we don't want ignorant people performing in roles that where knowledge is required. The problem is that many elements of schools are barriers which are poor at achieving their purpose, or are directly counterproductive to their purpose.

> How do we have productive disagreements going forward?

That's a complicated question, but oversimplifying the opinions of people we disagree with and then labeling it ("cynical anti-intellectualism") isn't the answer.

[antepodius]

Or: Objective reality might exist, but it's not necessarily present in the universities, which are mostly there as an IQ test by proxy with a filter for the most lazy, with some social indoctrination thrown in. Any science or truth exists only at the whims of the social order of the day.

[zarathustreal]

>Any science or truth exists only at the whims of the social order of the day.

This is not objectively true but I understand what you're trying to say. I'm sad to hear that your experience of science and truth has been only that which society has given you, or at the least that you feel that others are only experiencing it in that way

[antepodius]

Sorry, I should have worded that more clearly: Only that science or truth that is doesn't contravene the current social order is allowed air, allowed to be talked about without reprisal and shunning. The degree to which this is true is a canary for how totalitarian and neurotic your micro-society is. The micro-society of universities generally seems to be becoming more, rather than less, rabid and paranoid.

A lot of it is like Bostrom's idea of the decentralized electroshock dystopia: even though a significant proportion of people are witches, everyone's afraid of reprisal for not actively hunting witches, so the witches-in-hiding hunt their own when they're unmasked.

But this is the way of things; this wave will pass, eventually, as well. And like the soviet scientists who kept their heads down and mouthed the party line, the secret iconoclasts will survive till the current order is replaced by the next, with its own peculiar tabboos.

[zepto]

This is a crucial argument. Do you have a link to something that supports your statement that “this is not objectively true”? I think it would help a lot in these debates.

[tripzilch]

Yeah it's called "The Barstool Experiment". Look it up :-)

The short summary is: Two people sitting in a bar, discussing how there is no objective truth, or that "science or truth exists only at the whims of the social order" and stuff like that, all day long. And then a third person comes along and smashes their brains with a barstool. In some variations, the first two people are a scientist and a priest. But the third person is just some dude with a barstool.

[AnimalMuppet]

But if you can't do the middle-class job because you can't write, the piece of paper will only get you so far. It may get you an entry-level job, but you probably won't get much in the way of promotions. So even from that perspective, plagiarism isn't helpful.

[BeetleB]

> But if you can't do the middle-class job because you can't write, the piece of paper will only get you so far. It may get you an entry-level job, but you probably won't get much in the way of promotions. So even from that perspective, plagiarism isn't helpful.

Where do these mythical jobs exist where being able to write well is a requirement for career growth? Certainly not at engineering companies.

I wish what you said were true, but in my experience, "being able to write and communicate well is critical in the workplace" is one of the top lies taught to me when I was at university. We had to take a regular writing class, and a technical writing class to graduate with an engineering degree. And when I get to industry, I see no signs of people practicing what they're taught, and it doesn't hold anyone back.

Edit: I should say my experience is more about writing than communicating as a whole. People do need to be good speakers/presenters. But writing? Not really.

[brobdingnagians]

Yes, writing is important. I have coworkers who struggle at writing, and it takes mental overhead to try to understand them. It hurts their ability to communicate clearly, think clearly, and to be taken seriously. I have clients who struggle to write well; I was just barely looking at a legally binding document that is incomprehensible in places and would have serious repercussions on those using it. That is bad. Society is better when we are truly educated to think and to communicate. We can be enriched by each other when we understand each other. Writing coherently helps us think coherently. That improves our lives more than a degree certificate ever will.

[azinman2]

Writing and communication skills are absolutely necessary for career growth. The power of persuasion is directly linked to the ability to communicate your ideas well.

[usrusr]

Careers can be grown in many ways. In terms of career advancement, good writing will be outperformed by ruthless opportunism nine out of ten times. Cheating in education is identifying a metric and optimizing for that instead of the quality themetric is intended to measure and that strategy won't stop being effective upon getting a degree. Implication: no, "they are only hurting themselves" isn't a valid excuse.

[BeetleB]

> Writing and communication skills are absolutely necessary for career growth. The power of persuasion is directly linked to the ability to communicate your ideas well.

I've updated my original comment to reflect that I was referring to writing and not general communications in general (although I wrote it more broadly).

I've seen people really value presentation skills and PPT. Persuasion on 1:1 and via presentations is definitely valued.

But via writing? No. They're atrocious when writing emails. And they rarely write docs/briefs. If they do the latter, it's really meant to be a teaser to get someone interested, and then that person will go talk 1:1 to get the details or ask for a presentation.

My experience at work: Writing anything longer than 1-2 pages is a good way to ensure no one will read it. And again, if I have a good enough "lead", what will happen is the senior person will read the lead, stop reading, and schedule something to talk to me in person so he can understand in detail. At some level, I understand why he would do that - it can be an interactive conversation where he can interrupt, ask for clarification, etc. Whereas if he read the thing, he would have to write up a response, or even worse, make notes to ask me the next time he sees me.

I almost never get anything as well written as a typical HN comment. Even (internal) documentation/manuals/Wikis are poorly written.

[novok]

At large tech co that pays well, writing is very important for career progression:

1. You often have to write design docs to communicate what you are making and gather feedback. These documents if badly written won't be as well received.

2. At many companies, you have a million things to work on, so in a way, you get to choose who you work with at some level. If someone communicates badly to the point of annoyance, it will take something special for you to decide to work with them or not.

3. To convince execs and managers to approve your project ideas, you often have to write a document explaining your idea. If it's badly written, the exec isn't going to be as interested in it.

4. To get fame as an engineer, you often should write compelling blog articles. Badly written blogs tend not to be read.

5. Good docs make popular libraries, popular libraries get attention.

Which leads to:

6. Promotion is often done by a committee of people who don't know your work, and all they are going to do is review what you wrote. And promo is often based on leadership of projects. And how do you become the leader of projects? You write compelling documents.

Bad writing is not a good sign. It's like saying, at my company, we don't write tests and we don't have alerting & monitoring on our servers.

[zoomablemind]

> And promo is often based on leadership of projects. And how do you become the leader of projects? You write compelling documents.

This sounds somewhat idealized. As much as writing well is an asset, the understanding and ability to navigate office politics is what increases one's chances at career advancement. In the simplest form, just doing what the boss wants/expects one to do, not doing the unwanted things. No matter big or small company, a lot of subtle things that are said and done matter more, than the ways things are put in writing.

[watwut]

> 4. To get fame as an engineer, you often should write compelling blog articles. Badly written blogs tend not to be read.

I could go step by step, but really? This sounds to be so far out of reality. There is reason engineers dont write blogs - they dont matter.

[BeetleB]

I am at "large tech co"

> 1. You often have to write design docs to communicate what you are making and gather feedback. These documents if badly written won't be as well received.

In my company this is entirely up to the culture of the org. Some parts of the company will require it. Other parts treat it as a formality (i.e. few will read it). And other parts don't require it at all.

> At many companies, you have a million things to work on, so in a way, you get to choose who you work with at some level. If someone communicates badly to the point of annoyance, it will take something special for you to decide to work with them or not.

The key phrase is "to the point of annoyance". If most people are poor writers, they are not annoyed at the fact that their peers are poor writers. Even worse, being a good writer is not an advantage.

If your culture doesn't value it, then it is not of value.

> 3. To convince execs and managers to approve your project ideas, you often have to write a document explaining your idea. If it's badly written, the exec isn't going to be as interested in it.

I addressed this in my comment and won't repeat what I've said.

> 4. To get fame as an engineer, you often should write compelling blog articles. Badly written blogs tend not to be read.

I suspect this is reflective of the SW point of view. My company is an engineering one. It is a giant, and is usually the top company in its discipline. I've worked with engineers who are likely the best in their discipline globally, and often way ahead of academia.

Not one of them has a blog - internal or external.[1] Very senior leaders tend to have them, and they usually are not technical, but corporate speak.

Keep in mind: Most of the engineering world is very different from your typical SW company.

> 6. Promotion is often done by a committee of people who don't know your work, and all they are going to do is review what you wrote. And promo is often based on leadership of projects. And how do you become the leader of projects? You write compelling documents.

In your whole comment, this most reflects how unreflective your perspective is in the engineering (and even SW) world. Yes, I do know some companies that do promotions via a committee of people who don't know your work (Google, etc). For the rest of the tech world, this is rare. People get promoted because they have a manger who will root for them in front of the committee. The committee is typically the next level manager, and he/she likely is aware of your work. There's no "promotion packet" that one writes. There's the annual review (under 2 pages), and the committee only scrutinizes it if your manager is pushing for a good bonus or promotion. And as long as its readable, it's good enough. Of course, this means that spelling errors and poor grammar are OK.

When you want to get to a really senior role (usually takes 15+ years in the company - less than 1% of employees reach that level), only then does a wider committee get involved and will scrutinize your work. Do you have patents? Do you have external publications? And this is only for a technical role. You're not subjected to this scrutiny to get into senior management. Which is why surprise, surprise, we have a larger number of senior managers than senior engineers.

> And how do you become the leader of projects? You write compelling documents.

Oh heck no. You get an idea and pitch it verbally to management.

Trust me - a very consistent feedback I've gotten from management at work is "You write too much. No one will read what you wrote" - almost always delivered after I write an email that has 4+ paragraphs. I'm not claiming I'm a great writer, but they don't give up because they find my writing hard to read. They give up after seeing that the email doesn't fit on their screen. If I have a "tldr" they'll read that and talk to me in person (only a tiny minority will read the actual email).

Culture is king. Writing well will serve your career only if you are in a company that values it. Let's not pretend that writing well will take you places in organizations that don't value it.

[1] I should say that they do not openly have a blog. Some may have ones they don't publicize. Having a technical blog you spend a lot of time on would not be viewed positively, and the more senior you are, the more people will be concerned you'll leak IP. The company is pointlessly secretive and senior management doesn't want to allocate resources to vet your blog's content for IP violations.

[cosmodisk]

I work for a small(about 50) company. The ability to write well is absolutely huge.I've seen people being refused salary increases(indirectly),not given more important tasks,and simply struggle on daily basis when they can't put in writing what they need.I wouldn't be able to count how many times I had calls from partner level supplies telling me they can't understand what the email they received from my colleague means. It's so bad sometimes I'm honestly thinking of introducing writing test for the next hires.

[topkai22]

I'm generally against pre-employment tests, but a short writing test is quite possibly the best I've heard of. The biggest problem I can think of is that making it non-discriminatory might be difficult.

[rockinghigh]

I’ve seen many engineers stuck in their careers in part because their writing skills were lacking. Articulating your ideas in a written form is a very effective way to influence others and share your vision. It shows others how you approach a problem and what you value.

[mavhc]

Now imagine how bad it would be if we let in the people who are worse at writing than the current set of people.

[chrisweekly]

"longer than 1-2 pages"

^ not to be confused with strong writing skills!

Brevity is crucial. Learning to compress ideas, eg limiting emails to 5 clear sentences, is part of this rare and important skill. Sorry you haven't (yet?) experienced a work env where there's good writing. Such places do exist!

[jimmaswell]

> "being able to write and communicate well is critical in the workplace" is one of the top lies taught to me when I was at university

Definitely. Communication full of casual txtspeak and/or broken English all over. I suspected my first job's recruitment emails to possibly be some kind of scam at first because they were made in 3 different fonts in the same email with random words capitalized or colored various colors for emphasis, of course full of broken English - and I'm not talking about just terms like "do the needful" which are valid Indian English, that's fine, but even evaluating as that language so much of the communication is just terrible and nobody seems to care. I guess it works out fine and ultimately doesn't matter much but it still feels unprofessional.

[chrisweekly]

I strongly disagree.

Communication skills -- especially in writing -- are increasingly important, rare, and valuable.

I've been doing software-related work for a living since 1998. The trend toward remote and async collab -- which has only ever increased in that 22-year span -- strengthens my conviction.

[jonfw]

You are seriously limited in your ability to move past being an individual contributor if you aren't able to write well. Especially in this industry where remote work, even across time zones, is so common.

I see some really brilliant problem solvers in my company, for instance, that are definitely being held back by their inability to communicate well. Communication allows you to scale your impact several times over.

[nopinsight]

Which field(s) of engineering do you talk about? What are the highest level(s) of promotion the persons who don't write well reach and continue to work in?

I would think that writing well is at least a requirement for promotion into a technical leadership role (above senior individual contributors).

By writing well, I don't mean in the style of journalists or novelists. Rather, writing clearly and concisely to effectively convey one's points and reasoning should be very valuable in engineering.

[BeetleB]

> Which field(s) of engineering do you talk about? What are the highest level(s) of promotion the persons who don't write well reach and continue to work in?

Electrical, computer, and SW.

I'm not saying communicating well is not needed. I'm saying writing well is not needed. What I've seen: A good presentation (including PPT skills) is much more valued than writing. Decisions are usually made because of them, not because someone wrote a good brief outlining positives/negatives. Emails longer than a few lines tend not to be read, so people don't focus on it. Documents are usually not read by many except those beneath them, etc. I almost never see a senior management write anything of substance unless it is required by Legal/HR - they'll always get an underling to write them (and no, writing them is not how underlings become senior management).

I'm not saying I like the state of affairs, but it is how I've seen it.

[jabits]

You must be joking, or else work with very low caliber people. I don’t consider people for positions who cannot write well, and certainly know that most successful people do write well. Really, can you take a poorly written engineering spec or RFP seriously?

Just in case you are serious, counterpoint for others who may not know, all forms of communication are very important to succeed and move up.

[BeetleB]

> You must be joking, or else work with very low caliber people.

They're only low caliber people when it comes to writing. Otherwise they're exceptional engineers. The company historically and currently is a market leader. We're not talking about a small shop.

> I don’t consider people for positions who cannot write well

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you're in a setting that values it, and set up filters for it, then of course writing is important. If you're in my company where it isn't valued, then not only is it not important, it has little benefit. No point in writing well if people aren't going to read it.

> Really, can you take a poorly written engineering spec or RFP seriously?

In the case of my company, yes - if you want to keep your job. Unless it's inscrutable, I can't go to my manager and refuse to work on something because the spec is poorly written. He'll immediately tell me to go contact the author and sort it out. Occasionally the author will be nice enough to fix the spec and release a new document. But it's hit and miss. The reason many don't fix the formal spec in these cases? Their managers don't value it.

Specs are for major efforts. At the intermediate level: "What the heck is a spec? We just communicate requirements via PPT."

(No, I'm not kidding).

[watwut]

> I don’t consider people for positions who cannot write well

But that is your personal preference enforced only where you personally can enforce it. That is not imply your decision making is typical for industry.

[jimmaswell]

I've gotten lots of emails from bosses and bosses' bosses like "i semt the file,pls confirm." Few seem to care about writing well in the workplace. With psychological things like how talking like someone makes them like you more, I wouldn't be surprised if "proper" writing was a hinderance to career advancement in such a scenario.

[blacksmith_tb]

That may not be a counter-argument, it's quite possible that upper-level management doesn't feel the need to impress 'the little people', and only sweats over documents that will be read by their peers.

[TedDoesntTalk]

I can only believe you are trolling.

[jerry1979]

You write well. Maybe you have a blind spot because of that.

[brooklyn_ashey]

Wait...does anybody care about writing skills anymore? ——outside—or even inside—journalism? I wish they did. Writing seems to be treated like a 20th century skill of the uber-affluent layabout these days. I jump for joy when I stumble upon some great writing on the internet.

[bitexploder]

Yes. Try consulting. Information security consulting to be precise our work product is a written report. We have to communicate nuanced and complex topics to a variety of audiences. Writing well, even technical writing, is hard and it’s not as obvious as code when it is not quite right. We care deeply about it. Writing clean proposals, white papers, blog posts etc. It all matters to us. Sure your average coding job doesn’t require it, but plenty of work does. And I do believe having communication skills at a high level in a written form is a competitive advantage. It’s hard to see, but in the long run people who can eloquently write their ideas have an advantage on the less articulate.

[glenstein]

The number of people in this thread breezily dismissing the value of effective writing is taking my breath away. I don't think these confident declarations we're getting in this thread paint a remotely accurate portrayal of skills that actually help career advancement. I think everyone's kind of playing a game where it's treated as a trick question and they're looking to emphasize the exceptions as much as possible.

Any sort of work, in say, nonprofits, or public relations, or marketing, or consulting, or any institution where you're at a level of management where your job is to present plans and preside over their progress while being accountable to oversight, and these are examples of the top of my head where I have at least some sort of familiarity, are places where strong writing is an asset. And I'm sure I'm just pointing to a small slice that I know from my own experience. These aren't special exceptions. These are the norm. The counterexamples make me wonder what, if any, actual career experience people are actually drawing from to claim otherwise, or whether they have the perspective to understand how representative those counter-examples actually are.

[brooklyn_ashey]

Throughout grad school, I worked as a writing tutor to support my humanities habit. Each new class of high school seniors was less skilled —and even less interested— in writing than the last. These were kids with 3.9 GPAs who went to Dalton, Horace Mann, Brearly, Choate and similar. I think great writing is a valuable life skill. I wish I could see more real-life evidence that employers care about it in the real world. (hiring and advancement)

[glenstein]

I literally just gave three or four entire industries where I feel it's almost certainly an important career skill based on my career contact with those fields.

The lack of responsiveness comments have to one other on the internet is disorienting to me, because I would have thought that this would merit acknowledgement. Your anecdote may as well have dropped out of the sky in response to basically any comment in this thread.

[bitexploder]

My point is not so much that employers value it or not, but that it is a tool in your arsenal to advance yourself.

[renewiltord]

To be honest, I arrived at university fully capable of my first job out. I think most people do. The selection process has you write essays and do math and all that shit.

Work is hard, but like most things you learn best doing the thing. Not saying SICP was shit. Just that I could have done that in high school and accelerated my time to money (and through it, contentment).

Maybe I'll let my kids do something like that if they feel the mildest desire to.

[derwiki]

Kudos to you— having started coding QBasic in fifth grade, I definitely needed 3-4 years of undergrad to be ready for my first professional SWE job.

[renewiltord]

That's really funny. We first did Logo and then BASIC at that age (~10 years). Good times, eh? Back in the day? Everything was new and fresh.

[derwiki]

I was _thrilled_ that I could program with something already on my PC. This was before the internet, and I was under the impression a C compiler was several hundred dollars that we couldn’t afford. Eventually, I even wrote “production” QBasic: my boss at the ISP would manually move spam to a spam folder in Thunderbird, export it periodically and kick it over to tech support. We used to manually look at IPs and enter them into the Cisco blocklist, until I wrote a super janky QBasic script to extracts IPs.

Two years later, I learned about regular expressions.

[renewiltord]

Haha incredible. What a story. Love that you managed to use BASIC in production. What a tale.

We had to go to computer lab at school to use the computer. But then my parents spent a fortune on getting us one. Now that I think about it, it was like half a year's rent. Jesus Christ, what were they thinking?!

Mostly played games. But then got a Linux CD from a magazine when I was 13. Wiped the drive accidentally trying to partition it. Disaster. Path to writing code begun.

[bryanrasmussen]

If you have the skills to get the degree with 8 hours of work per day or to get the degree with 2 hours of work per day, getting the degree with the 2 hours of work does not mean you will not be able to do the job which will require you to do the 8 hours of work when you graduate.

[WJW]

There seems to be a sizable group where any job (especially an entry-level middle class job with the associated health insurance benefits and salary) would be a massive step up in income and social status. Cheating on a test to escape a life of poverty in the slums is not much of a dilemma IMO.

[imtringued]

It's actually the opposite. First generation migrants try their best because they know what happens if they fail. Cheating is easier if you can bribe authorities.

[Broken_Hippo]

Most of the jobs don't require you to be able to write well at all - especially not university level writing. Really, all most folks need is the ability to communicate effectively in person or over email. You might - just might - be required to write a letter. Of course, these skills are ones that a store manager at any random retail or dining establishment needs too, and some of these 'middle class' jobs require nothing much at all (if it is a factory that pays well enough).

Besides, plagiarism isn't really about writing. You can lump it into two categories: Cheating, which isn't most folks' intention, and more importantly, giving someone credit for an idea. This last one is something folks need to do in some professions. Don't take an employee's idea and call it your own, same for something your boss has you pass along. Don't pretend something is your own idea when it was implemented at a job you had years ago. This version of plagiarism is vastly more important than writing skills (which can be taught without needing to address plagiarism).

[tripzilch]

> This is under the assumption that you see college is a program of self-betterment and not busy work for receiving a degree that says you can have a middle-class job.

That's not really up for discussion though.

The degree itself will become utterly meaningless extremely quickly if we would actually generally accept that kind of reasoning.

The whole reason the degree is worth something is because it's perceived as a token of you having done the work and self-betterment etc.

It's not an empty token that allows you to have a middle class job. In practice it might be, but as soon as you openly accept that is just what it is, and only what it is, then you only get cheaters.

[nine_k]

To have a middle-class job, you need knowledge, not a degree. (Disclaimer: my son does not have a degree but has a pretty demanding middle-class engineering job.)

If you spend time in a university to just get a diploma and maybe some connections, you likely are wasting your time and significant money (remember, a student loan cannot be got rid of by a bankruptcy).

[leereeves]

Even if you only care about obtaining the degree, rampant plagarism also diminishes the value of that degree.