[pokler]

I think the subheading may be a better title -- 'This is the story of how I prepared for a decade to graduate in 3 months.'

This seems feasible only for a specific set of people: those with previous experience & looking specifically for the credential and not so much the learning experience that comes with a traditional 4 year degree. Not to take away from the author's achievement, I just think it would be misleading to imply that this is a path that most people can take.

[astura]

Reminds me of every single one of those "how I paid off $100,000 in debt in 1 year" articles. It's always like "dad got me an executive job at his company and grandma gave me a condo as a graduation gift so instead of living in it I moved in with my parents rent free and turned the condo into income stream. (Aren't I smart!?!) Since mom always had a gourmet hot meal prepared for me I could put all my income into my loans instead of silly things like buying food and worrying about preparing meals."

These sorts of writings have their audience (I guess) but they aren't written for normal people. What I mean is, normal (or even above average) people can't follow a similar path and get similar results - it's extraordinary people getting extraordinary results.

[abfan1127]

I paid off $240,000 in 3 years by not being an idiot with my money. I got on a budget with my wife. We cut up our credit cards because we always double or triple spent our money. We budgeted for things like Christmas. We followed Dave Ramsey's plan. We're 2 months from paying off our house now.

Edit - I went back and checked, it was $140k.

[cxr]

Heads up: this is a common pattern of expression that makes you come off as really obnoxious to people who will never tell you that that's what's happening. If you can't understand why people have a problem with this, here's the explanation: there are almost certainly smarter people than you who happened to be more unlucky than you.

You were lucky-but-stupid before, so you stopped being so stupid, and now your messages carry the undertone that anyone else is some variation of the person you were back in the stage before you wised up. It's a view that doesn't provide any space for people who were wise from the beginning. When you say things like what you said above, you're not highlighting how smart you are or getting down to how dumb other people are; you're just highlighting how lucky you were to even have the circumstances where you were allowed to be that stupid in the beginning.

[fnord77]

Do you do social skills coaching? Plenty of tone deaf people (myself included) who would gladly pay for this.

[ambicapter]

Seriously, what an amazing comment. Imagine if we had someone like this in every discussion on the internet.

[oAlbe]

This is one of the best comments I've ever read on HN, bar none. Thank you for that.

[war1025]

I would guess he is actually getting downvoted because he is pointing out an uncomfortable truth.

The majority of the people that frequent this site are above the median income. Being in the tech field gives you a huge leg up economically.

You can either squander that, or you can use it to stay out of debt and build wealth.

Having someone point out that you maybe don't actually make the best financial decisions is uncomfortable and makes people defensive.

Doesn't make the statement any less true. Most people on a tech salary (even outside the unicorn tech hubs) have the means to be debt free and live quite comfortably besides.

[cxr]

Alternatively, maybe someone really does have a "royal flush" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV8XhzG_rAg> (or anal fissures, cf The Office episode "Health Care", season 1, episode 3).

[abfan1127]

At the risk of more down votes, I'll disagree with you. There are certainly smarter people than me who are less lucky than me. However, its a much smaller subset than many would believe. Many claim unlucky when in reality their luck is a consequence of their past choices. They've taken risks and those risks didn't work out.

[cxr]

I once read some advice that I'll try to repeat, but without knowing whether I can do a great job capturing it, but here it goes. The general idea was that if you're on a date with someone, then you should avoid asking or saying things that subtly insist that something is true if you don't know it to be true. An example is that if you don't know whether your date was molested by their father as a child, you should tread carefully with any questions or comments that carry the presumption that they weren't.

Here's some more sage wisdom: the average human has approximately one testicle. Except not, right? Because that's not how numbers work. So, it doesn't matter if, say, only 4% of the people you interact with are unlucky and 96% aren't. This is not an engineering problem. If you do meet someone who is (or was) unlucky, and you have an interaction with them like this, then even though they're in the 4%, their circumstances are still 100% at odds with your assumption.

[abfan1127]

interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!

[war1025]

You can only get downvoted on a post to -4, fyi. I stopped caring nearly as much about being agreeable once I learned that.

For what it's worth, congrats on what you did. I'm in a similar position and I completely agree that for the majority of people here it wouldn't take anything beyond stopping making bad choices.

[dkersten]

> I stopped caring nearly as much about being agreeable once I learned that.

The score is just some meaningless internet dick measuring, so why care at all?

[imtringued]

If staying in my home country is a bad decision then nothing will change my mind.

[rfrey]

That means you earned more than $80,000 post-tax income surplus to your needs. That surplus is a third more than the US average total household pre-tax income.

[trophycase]

But the average household probably also isn't in 240k of debt unless they made very very poor financial choices.

[leetcrew]

this is correct, the median household has a (positive!) net worth of ~$120k. you have to go down to the tenth percentile and below to find households that actually have negative net worths.

https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/#...

[theplague42]

I do not think that "240k in debt" (he clarifies it was 140k in another comment) actually means owing 240k more than your total assets.

As far as the median net worth, that's just someone most of the way through paying off their mortgage...

[93po]

I find it really hard to believe that only the tenth percentile has more student debt than savings. Virtually everyone I know in the 20s, and many in their 30s with advanced degrees, all have more debt than savings.

[theplague42]

Or student debt; a doctor going 200k into debt for med school probably isn't exactly in dire financial straits.

[abfan1127]

I'd feel bad for a med student halfway through that gets sick. 100k of debt and no degree. yikes!

[ljm]

Or they're in the US and had to go to hospital for treatment?

[abfan1127]

I went back and checked my records. It was 140K! oops. Anyways, here is my list.

85k in student loans 30k 401k loan 20k car loan 30k car loan

[alistairSH]

So 46,000 in disposable income? That's a massive amount of money by normal-person standards.

Hell, the fact that you had $30k in a 401k that you could borrow from yourself already makes you exceptional.

[abfan1127]

You're right. But I also changed my mentality. We became intentional with our money. Its amazing how you can find money in a budget to put towards debt. Its also how you stay out of debt going forward. You learn to prioritize your spending.

[ljm]

I think you're getting downvoted because you're missing the point somewhat. You had the opportunity and means to change your mentality and become 'intentional' with your money, and learn how to prioritise your spending, because you've had such a surfeit of wealth compared to the average that you won't have faced the same problems others would (and still) have. That's fantastic for you, don't get me wrong, but for many people it would sound quote tone-deaf.

If you can afford to put aside almost 100k a year and still live comfortably you are decidedly not in the class of people for whom saving is, if not an impossibility, a luxury.

We're not just talking about Pratchett's Boots Theorem[1], but also the fact that such people are quite literally only one or two paycheques away from total disaster. These are the people who can't afford to save because every penny is spent on merely surviving, and they can't amass the bare minimum amount of wealth it would take for them to be able to lift themselves out of that situation.

[1] https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfair...

[Bakary]

Being poor is only something you can truly understand once you've tasted it yourself. The stress alone feels like it's shaving many IQ points from your baseline. Even then, I got only a limited understanding compared to people in the third world. (not going for the misery olympics here, just an observation)

[abfan1127]

The deepness of my debt and the steepness of my accent are just variables in the equation.

Many people are 1-2 paychecks away from total disaster, but they never take the step to make a change. It can certainly feel impossible. But the reality is "merely surviving" has a broad usage. I know lots of people that are living paycheck to paycheck, but have the iPhone X.

https://www.daveramsey.com/dave-ramsey-7-baby-steps

[Privacy846]

It’s amazing what you can do when you earn way more than the median household.

[greyhair]

This is one of the hardest things to explain to people.

Here is a thought experiment. Lets assume that the minimum required to live in a given place is $20K.

So now you have two people, one makes $30K, the other makes $40K. How much more does the second one make compared to the first? Twice as much. At $30K, you have $10K disposable. At $40K, you have $20K disposable. And someone making $60K is making four times the disposable compared to $30K.

Once you get above cost of living, everything gets easier.

[war1025]

Yea. You can get $240k in debt.

Good luck getting anyone to lend you that kind of money if you're actually poor.

Someone who is able to get deeply in debt basically by definition has access to money. They would not be granted loans otherwise.

[ChrisRR]

What the hell? So you're literally earning $80k above your living expenses. Waaaaaay above average

I'd be more surprised if you couldn't pay that sort of money off

Re your edit: I'm even more sceptical now. Your figures were off by a third. I know exactly the value of my mortgage when I took it out. That figure is burned into my mind. I don't know how you could be out by $100,000

[war1025]

I don't know what it will add to the conversation, but I thought it was worth adding in my two cents.

My family of five is supported by my income (~$100k / year).

I get paid weekly. Every Friday, I go into my bank account amd transfer anything in excess of $2000 into the stock market.

Some weeks that's quite a bit of money, some weeks it's not so much money.

As of a week ago when I did the math, we had $65k more to our names this year than we did one year ago.

Probably half of that was money we saved directly, and half was stock market gains, so I guess from a debt payoff perspective maybe that's closer to $30k.

But I guess my point is, I don't think it's unreasonable to think a two income household in a higher-income metro than where I live could have $80k/yr in excess income to pay down debt with.

[alistairSH]

It's certainly not unreasonable or even uncommon. But, it's still way above the norm in the US. Median household income in the US is somewhere around $65k/year (before taxes and expenses).

Side note - You're only holding $2k in cash for a family of 5? That seems low. Your efforts to invest for the future are commendable, but if you get caught on the bad end of a 2008-style recession, is it enough to keep paying bills?

[war1025]

> You're only holding $2k in cash for a family of 5?

I am holding $2k in a checking account. My savings accounts are appropriately sized to get us by for probably six months to a year.

[kbenson]

The other side of this is that "average" living expense has little meaning when applied to a place as big and varied as the U.S., much less the world. In some areas, the cost of living is much higher. The commonly provided solution to living somewhere the cost of living is too high is move. Unfortunately, moving comes with all sorts of other constraints that are rarely considered.

I this case, we're talking about a family, so what if one or both of the the spouses needs to work but can't find work or is paid much less in the new location? Is it still a net win if the family income is reduced to a large degree?

What if there is family in the current location but not any target location? Beyond any help they may be able to provide (child care, if not regularly, in special circumstances), they may provide a real tangible mental health benefit compared to living in a new location where you know few if any people. Or what if you're providing help to that family member, and leaving would be problematic?

The bottom line is that is that some people are stuck in or around places like SF making very little compared to the cost of living in the area, but also don't feel like they are in a position they can leave. If you made $80k in SF and lived in SF or close enough to commute, you might find that a large portion of that goes purely to housing. For a family, probably $24k a year minimum, even if you commute in from an hour away.

[torben-friis]

I mean, that's still contingent on having a decent salary relative to the amount of debt - I'm assuming it didn't happen with a couple of ~30k/year salaries.

[abfan1127]

I was a sole provider making under $100k.

Edit: salary. We were receiving small bonuses ($10k) at the time. but we learned to keep our expenses down, and every bonus we did receive we rolled right into debt before spending it on stupid crap.

[wffurr]

Something is off with the math here. I don't doubt your story, but perhaps your numbers are a bit off?

240k over 3 years is $80k/yr in principal alone, substantially more with interest. If your post-tax take-home was $95k, that leaves only $15k/yr for living expenses for your household, which is extremely low.

Maybe that's possible with a lot of beans and rice, paid off used cars, and second-hand clothes and such.

Seems like part of the debt you are paying down is a mortgage, so that means your housing cost at least is part of the $80k/yr debt service. Still doesn't leave much for transportation (often second biggest expense for a household) and the rest.

[abfan1127]

no, you may be right (it was a few years ago). It may have been 3.5 or 4 years. I did receive small raises over the years, but we kept our budget fixed. I did receive a big windfall near the end from a company acquisition ($40k iirc). But at the rate were were paying stuff off, it brought it in ~6 months.

The math still shocks me every time I do it.

[bavent]

This math doesn't check out. $240k for three years is $80k/year. Assuming you are already factoring interest in. So you and your wife lived off less than $20k a year? Where?

[folkrav]

Must have had extremely cheap rent, be very frugal when it comes to eating and basically any expense, really. In rent alone I pay $10.5k/year (with what most people here extremely cheap rent). When I still was in school living off school loans, our frugal weekly groceries (almost no meat, very rare, mostly fresh produce in discount markets) came out around $80 a week, so about $4-5k/year. We're already at $15k. This leaves $5k for literally everything else. I'd wager no kids, no car payments, no cell phone outside maybe prepaid, basically nothing in utilities, buying used clothing, no appliances that broke, no internet above basic, next to nothing in terms of entertainment expenses, etc. Quick mental math keeping the strict minimum from what I pay right now and I'm already over $20k. This is weirdly cheap.

And honestly, if the numbers are right, good on him for having the discipline to do it, but this sounds like a rather awful three years.

[abfan1127]

Arizona

[astura]

I didn't mean to make this about finance or the ability to pay off debt, it just reminded me so much of the type of writing that is really, really common in "pop finance"-type publications.

I wasn't at all saying that I believe that it's impossible to pay off a large debt quickly or that nobody ever does - just that, of course you are going to if you're in such an extraordinary situation. So the entire thing ends up being not very interesting or actionable, yet the title promises that it will be both.

I guess there's an audience for it though, because they keep getting published.

[stevewodil]

>by not being an idiot with my money

It was also due to the fact that you were making $80k/year ABOVE your living expenses.

[abfan1127]

Living expenses is a flexible item. You learn to keep your living expenses down.

[ChrisRR]

Living expenses are only flexible when you have the money to be flexible.

If you're on a low wage, maybe with some kids. You're buying whatever inefficient car, low quality clothes that need replacing more often, a house near your child's school. Having that huge amount of disposable income offers you a lot more luxuries

[doytch]

Yes but it's a touch difficult to keep living expenses below $0, which most people in the developed - let alone developing - world would need to do on their salaries to save the extra $80k/year.

[abfan1127]

ha, yes. looking back, I don't know how we did it as fast as we did. we kept our expenses low (20-25k/year low) and poured every dollar into the debt. We didn't live in a fancy house or have new cars (beyond when we got in to it with the new car loans).

[pertymcpert]

You're being completely tone deaf to the point that its frustrating to believe that people like you exist.

[stevewodil]

Just be thankful you don't work with them

[abfan1127]

tone deaf to what? That some people have big problems? That those big problems may be bigger than mine? That sometimes solutions to big problems are hard? That sacrifice for some isn't the same for sacrifice for others?

Or that some people's problems are as big as they are because they fail to recognize the change needed to solve them, or are unwilling to make that change? That often times, people fail to recognize the change needed because it first requires them to acknowledge and take responsibility.

[jankeymeulen]

Congratulations for that!

However, you also paid of that $240k by earning at least $80k / year.

[Bakary]

How much did you tally as living expenses during that period? As a rough estimate

[abfan1127]

it was 10ish years ago, so this is a guess...

Mortgage was $750ish water/electric $200 phones/internet $100 food $500-600 fuel $25 insurances ??? $100-200

maybe $1500-2000 a month. $20-25k year in real expenses.

[brundolf]

The thing is, 90% of the value of a 4 year degree (at this point) is the credential. I support broad and quality general education, I think it has value, but I don't suggest anyone put themselves deeply in debt for the rest of their lives over it. But to have any shot whatsoever at a decent job? Yeah, maybe.

So if you have the opportunity to pay a fraction of the cost for the credential, even if it means teaching yourself everything, that seems like a strategy very much worth considering for many people. It's dystopian that that's where we are now, but it is what it is.

[dahart]

> 90% of the value of a 4 year degree (at this point) is the credential.

Why do you say that, and how do you measure value?

I have quite a few lifelong friends from undergrad, people I wouldn't have met or bonded with if I'd done school online. And it's not necessary to know people to get great jobs, but I feel like it helps; 4 of the 6 jobs I've had came about through my undergrad network. One of them, as a founder, was partially funded by a prof. I met as an undergrad. My undergrad department helped my education and career in various ways including giving me a scholarship and RA and TA work, and publishing articles about me after graduating.

I am not an average case, partly because I went to graduate school, but for me it's safe to say the value of the credential part of my undergrad degree is somewhere near zero. Definitely not zero, but I've never needed the credential for anything but passing the checklist of requirements for my first job. The value I got from my time spent in the 4 year degree is almost entirely from the relationships I formed.

[brundolf]

Do you work in academia now? If so, yes, the story is wildly different for your case.

> I've never needed the credential for anything but passing the checklist of requirements for my first job

That's a pretty crucial piece of value! For people who don't come from wealthy families, that entry into the college-educated workforce is often the difference between poverty and not-poverty.

The networking angle is an interesting one I hadn't considered, though personally, while I made several great friends in college, they and the other people I met there have had little to no effect on my job prospects. The closest thing would be that I went to a job fair while in school which eventually led to my first job, though there are plenty of job fairs that are open to the public (potentially even the one I went to; I can't remember). Of course it's possible I'm not the average case myself and that many people get networking benefits from their college experience; I can't say for sure.

> how do you measure value?

I do want to clarify that I'm focusing on financial prospects because in today's America, those are quite dark for many (most?) people. I'm not someone who dismisses the value of a real education, or the value of those relationships and experiences and memories. But I've seen several friends who put themselves in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for those things, and will probably be paying the interest for the rest of their lives, and I just don't think that tradeoff is worth it.

[dahart]

> Do you work in academia now?

Nope.

Yes, there is value of being able to get the first job. Though the value isn't really quantifiable, and it changes over time. Plus the first job typically has other requirements besides a degree, all of which are valuable for the purposes of not getting rejected before an interview. I was just curious where "90%" comes from. (I'm comfortable with it being symbolic, representing your feeling that it's a majority. I just wanted to tease that out and clarify.)

To your original point, for better or worse, incomes and lifetime earnings are statistically higher for college grads. I didn't realize the difference was as high as it is, but the Fed recently published that in the U.S., incomes are roughly double for bachelor's degrees over non-graduates, and roughly triple for advanced degrees. That means that there is a large financial value wrapped up in getting the degree, one way or another. It might have a lot to do with networking, and it might have a lot to do with the credential and social signaling. I'm certain there's some of both. But this value is definitely a must to know about before deciding to forego a degree, and probably a very good thing to keep in mind before choosing an online program over an in-person one.

[brundolf]

Yes, the 90% was a stand-in for my subjective impression

> incomes and lifetime earnings are statistically higher for college grads

Yep. And my interpretation (possibly biased) was that, in a world where nearly all information can be found online for free, the value of college as an environment for gaining professional skills has diminished greatly, but it still gets used as a (perhaps lazy) gatekeeping signifier by hiring departments. I still think there's truth to that, but there's probably something to the networking aspect as well

[clavalle]

So many are in this boat, though; having the chops they've built informally but not having the paper to get in the door.

I really like WGU because it focuses on competency rather than time in a classroom. I hope more educational orgs follow suit.

That said, my wife, who is getting a Master's in Nursing from WGU, is learning plenty -- but she can focus on the actual learning while testing out of areas that she already knows well.

[tmaly]

Would it not be possible for a very focused, hardworking individual to take all the course on MIT for free then enroll in this school and finish fast?

[Cro_on]

It's also possible for a amateur jogger to join an ultra marathon and run until they pass out.

[alisonkisk]

College students are all amateurs.

[varjag]

That's why it takes them 4 years.

[jacurtis]

I went to WGU. I spent 6 months and got my degree.

I really don't think it is possible to go any faster than about 3 months max. Even that is a slog and you will need to be going full time.

Most of the exams are 70-100 questions and you will need to do 2 exams per course. The final exam is proctored, which means you need to make an appointment and go through this whole process of verifying your identity, going through an anti-cheat process and so on that burns another 20-30 minutes between setup and take down. So I would say expect a minimum 2 hour block of time per exam. That is just taking the exams.

So even a class that I finished in one day because I knew everything still takes a FULL day minimum because you are taking 2 exams totaling nearly 200 questions. It is mentally exhausting even if you know the material.

But truthfully you are going to need to study at least somewhat for at least half of the classes. Plus you can only grind through full day exams for so long until you reach exhaustion.

Burn out is also very real. I was averaging 3.5 courses a week for the first month or so. Then 2 classes a week. And by the end I was lucky to finish 1 course a week. It really is a TON of work, even if you come in with a lot of knowledge and experience like I did and don't need to study as hard as other people. The courses are still a lot of effort and take a toll on your energy and brain.

But if you are VERY motivated, you can do it in one term. The way that WGU charges you, you pay per 6-month term. It is a flat fee that covers all proctoring, text books, exams, etc for as many courses as you can complete during the 6 month term. So you would pay the same amount of money to do it in 3 months as 6 months. But if you go into 8 months, then you have to pay for the full second term. So I would set your goal on getting it done in 6 months and if you come in prepared I think it is practical. But you need to have a lot of time to dedicate to it during those 6 months.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add that not all the courses are exams. About 1/3 of the courses are "performance based". These are courses like History, English Composition and stuff that require you to do several graded assignments. These often culminate into a final assignment to do a large research paper to pass the course. All of the assignments are required and must be graded. So you will need to submit them, get a plagiarism scan, and wait for an instructor to grade it (usually 36-48 hours after submitting it). So these will also slow you down. The good thing is that these courses have less time dedicated to studying, but more time dedicated to working on all the research papers and written assignments. These also can slow you down.

[ghaff]

20 weeks of 40 hour weeks is fast. Exams and assignments are going to consume some time and you probably won't know every nuance of a course even if you've taken a different and more rigorous variation.

It also probably depends how big a deal the 4-year degree is to you. There are other options like edX MicroMasters that may make more sense (and it wouldn't shock me if they carried more cred in at least some circles).

[alisonkisk]

Sure, but not in 3months.

[tmaly]

Yes of course, but could someone pull it off in 1 year if they take all the free MIT courses ahead of time?

College debt is a huge burden on kids these days.

[alisonkisk]

If you study in advance, you're limited by how fast your institution can give you credits.

There what OP is about They studied ahead and did 3 years in school.

You're usually paying per credit for these transactional degrees though, not per year.

College debt is only a burden for scam private schools and people trying to buy their way into the upper class. If you go with community college Associates and public state college Bachelor, it's not a huge debt burden to get a degree. The time spent studying (not working for money), and paying to live in your own apartment (instead of supported in parents home) and get fed by the college restaurant (instead of home shared meals) is the main cost.

[graycat]

> I just think it would be misleading to imply that this is a path that most people can take.

Yes, but if focus just on computing, in that field, there is, long amazing to me, evidence that "most people can" and, in a significant sense, do: I've long been impressed the degree to which the learning crucial for computing in the US has been obtained via self study much as in the OP.

Okay, say what you will about an ugrad computer science degree and then move on to graduate degrees, Masters and Ph.D. Uh, reality check: At the grad level, the material to be taught is often not all polished up and instead has rough edges, loose strings, things left unclear, etc. The fundamental reason is that the material, the work, the education, whatever, are supposed to be at the leading edge, or, if you will, the bleeding edge. More, the profs are paid mostly for their research (which for teaching is a path, with some efficacy, of quality) and not having all polished up, with good pedagogy, course teaching.

And in Ph.D. programs, and sometimes in Master's programs, the student is expected to write something, original, hopefully publishable -- usual criteria, "new, correct, and significant".

So for the work, it's, in a word, new. Right away can assume false starts, dead ends, encounters with brick walls, unpredictable rates of progress, unpredictable results, etc. So, we're back to independent work or, if you will, self study.

Main point: In education, self-study is not only helpful but at times crucial. In particular, independent study has been especially important in the US computer industry. So, in a sense, the independent study in the OP is not very surprising.

Oh, by the way, the OP mentioned a Georgia Tech Master's degree for ~$10,000. Secret: Commonly high end US research university graduate programs are very short on good students and long on tuition scholarships -- tuition should be about $0.00 for the whole graduate school effort.

Evidence: I was a student and a prof in applied math and computing. From a world class research university, I got a Master's and a Ph.D. For the grad degrees, I paid nothing in tuition. Independent study was crucial.

E.g., of the five Ph.D. qualifying exams, I did the best in the class on four of them, all four made heavy use of independent study, and three of them making heavy use of independent study before the grad program.

E.g., the work that did me the most good in grad school was the independent study with results that were clearly publishable.

[barry-cotter]

> Oh, by the way, the OP mentioned a Georgia Tech Master's degree for ~$10,000. Secret: Commonly high end US research university graduate programs are very short on good students and long on tuition scholarships -- tuition should be about $0.00 for the whole graduate school effort.

It’s vastly easier to get into a Master’s than into a grad school programme where everyone is supposed to be aiming at a doctorate. Most terminal Master’s programmes are cash cows. GA Tech isn’t. They just don’t want to make a loss, but the population of people who can get into a terminal Master’s is quite different from those who can get admitted to a Ph.D. And GA Tech’s OMSCS can be completed while working a full time job. Good luck doing that while in proper grad school.

[graycat]

When I went to grad school, I just got admitted to the grad school and not specifically a Master's program, a terminal Master's program, or a Ph.D. program.

After enough courses, and maybe a paper (I wrote a paper, later published as part of a reading course) can get a Master's. I did that, got a Master's.

If want a Ph.D., then just pass the Ph.D. qualifying exams (QE), courses or not, Master's or not. After passing the QE, do some research. The standard was "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication", and the usual criteria for publication are "new, correct, and significant". So, proposed a dissertation research project (I already had a 50 page manuscript I had done on my own on a problem I brought with me to grad school), got approval to work on that as my dissertation, I did some research, derived some math, wrote and ran some software, wrote up what I'd done, stood for an oral exam, passed, and got a Ph.D.

I never paid tuition.

If for some Master's program Georgia Tech is charging a lot of money, they they should have something different from what I outlined.

[jacurtis]

I agree that this is a much better title. I actually also attended WGU during the pandemic and got a degree over the course of 6 months for about the same amount of money as the author. I came in with 42 transfer credits, so I completed 90 credits at WGU to complete my degree.

The degree took me 6 months for about the same number of classes as the author. So I was going about half the speed of the author of this post, yet my speed was still astonishingly fast for my mentor. While you will read about people flying through the program, the norm is to take about 2.5 years.

When I first started the program I always joked that I was simply buying a $3,500 paper (the rough cost for one 6-month term). I looked at it as a degree-mill. I had accepted it for what it was. But after going through everything and graduating, I was wrong about that initial assessment. I am actually far more proud of the work I did at WGU than what I did at my official 4-year university back in my mid-20s. I also walked away feeling like I learned more at WGU than at my previous university.

Yes, some of the courses are very easy. I was able to coast through them in a day, relying entirely on my previous experience. But this is the same as any other college, there are always 10-20% of the courses that are easy, and you basically just need to show up. The difference is that a normal university would require you to go through the motions for 16 weeks before you can complete the class that you could have passed on day #1. WGU simply lets you take the final exam whenever you want, allowing you to control the timeframe.

While I flew about 20% of the classes quickly in less than 48 hours after starting them, the rest took me an average of about a week of full-time work. I was usually juggling two classes at a time.

A standard 3 credit college course is supposed to take around 20 hours of in-class time with about equal amounts of studying time at home. So a normal 3 credit class generally takes about 40 hours of work to pass. But it is spread across 16 weeks and you also juggle 4-6 other courses. At WGU you take 1-2 at a time and go full bore until you are done with the course. I find that I was still averaging about 40 hours per course on average, but since I could do it all at once I went through it faster. I also found that i retained the knowledge a lot better.

Funny enough, my breakdown is very similar to the author. I would say I didn't even look at the material for about 1/5 of the courses. I skimmed through the material while watching cherry picked lectures for 3/5 of the courses. The final 1/5 of courses I read the text book cover to cover.

Basically what I am getting at is that WGU isn't just a "buy an online degree" program. You really need to work for it. I was working full-time on school. Generally 8-10 hours a day during the week and 3-5 hours a day on the weekend. The tests were generally very difficult. Even courses where I had a lot of experience, I really had to slow down for the final assessments. Passing a course requires you to pass two tests. They call them a "pre-assessement" and an "objective assessment". This is essentially a mid-term and a final-exam from any other school. That is generally the only requirement. So as soon as you pass the "mid-term" they will let you take the "final exam", and once you pass that then you are done with the course. You can choose how to spend your time to prepare for these tests. You can spend zero hours or 100 hours on the course. There are lectures (they call them "cohorts"), text books, study guides, practice tests, homework problems, and flash cards provided for each course. You can choose what you want to use and what you don't want to use. You can also look at a course syllabus and recognize which parts you already know and which parts you need to study and then only spend your time on those parts. You go at your pace and you are in charge. Nothing else is required. For this reason you really need to have good time management and self control.

Overall I am really proud of my WGU Degree. It wasn't easy. I struggled on several classes, but I also walked away learning far more than I expected.

Its also worth noting that at the speed I went, it was exhausting. I really don't recommend it. It is clearly possible, but by the end I was burnt out. I hit full burn out when I had 4 courses left. I really struggled through the final few classes because I had simply gone so fast and so hard for too long. Unless you really need it, I don't recommend cramming this into a single term even if its technically possible.

[jbrogers63]

This was essentially my experience with WGU as well. I started in November and was done by the following August. Most of my classes from community college were transferred and I had ~90 CUs (EDIT: Just a guess on the number. It's been a while...) I to complete. I was able to complete several courses a week for the first few months, but started tapering off to about 1 course a week as time went on. I was exhausted by the end, but it was worth every penny and minute spent.

[debaserab2]

Congratulations on finishing the degree and being proud of the effort you put into it.

If you don't mind me asking: what motivated you to pursue it?

[jacurtis]

I am in my mid-thirties right now. I dropped out of university in my early-twenties to pursue a career. I saw a lot of initial success in my career and was flying up the corporate ladder. But I always felt like I had this skeleton in my closet or dark secret of not having even a bachelors degree.

Early on in my career I could compensate for not having a degree with my experience and work history. I was mostly competing against people with Bachelors Degrees who had little or moderate experience, and I simply had more experience and could compete well for jobs against them.

I found that as I have started applying for much higher level positions now, the degree skeleton has come to haunt me much more. A lot of the positions I have been applying to lately actually ask for MBA's or Master's Degrees. I am competing against other applicants who have Master's Degrees, while I have a high school diploma and some nice experience. The disparity is getting much wider and I knew I needed to get rid of this unnecessary blemish on my resume/CV.

For any other young people reading this. You might feel like you don't need a degree because your career is going great right now. But I will say that life is a lot harder without a degree as you get into higher positions. I am not saying it isn't possible to get a VP or Senior position without a college degree, it is possible, but it is MUCH harder than simply having that paper. There are definitely jobs that you are more than qualified for that you want and you will be turned away simply because of the lack of degree. It is a sad stumbling block that I was sick of dealing with.

[joshspankit]

In your experience, what‘s the max(0) position you can get to without the degree?

(0) max in this case being a general term since as you mention it’s possible to get to the higher levels. Essentially where’s the point at which it becomes much harder.

[moneywoes]

If you have an associates degree right now. Would you list both?

[bsanr2]

It's been well known for a while among those who are honest, with themselves and with the evidence, that degree requirements are mostly a cultural gatekeeping exercise for entry-level work. That isn't to say that training and expertise aren't critical, particularly the more responsibility a worker takes on; it's more that one rarely requires 4 years of preparation for a placement that involves work a supervisor that's known you for a month, at best, will trust you with. And the old axiom holds: "The best way to learn how to do something is to do it."

A degree does show that you're committed and willing to jump through hoops (even if only because you don't know any better).

[908B64B197]

That tittle would attract less eyeballs.

The author sure didn't take any shortcuts to graduate.

[bserge]

Some people on Reddit did say they completed 2-3 month bootcamps/courses with no prior experience and got junior dev jobs (in the UK), so I don't even know. Then again it's online and on Reddit, so they may be just lying.

I believe it is possible to learn enough to be decent in 3 months full time, and then learn everything else as you go. However, I don't see anyone hiring with that kind of experience.

But then why pay for a certificate? Four figures, no less. You could go through a bunch of free programming courses in 3 months and print your own certificate, same thing as long as you can actually do a job...

[cjameskeller]

Personally did a bootcamp about 4 years ago. Also taught myself a couple more tech skills in the 2 months post-certificate before I got hired, but nothing special. Applied to several dozen jobs a week (easy to do when most don't follow up in any way...)

Went from about spot-on median salary for the US prior to switching into tech, to 50% more in my first role. In my first 3 years I increased my income over 400%, though I also switched from salaried to contract, so it end up about 300% increase for net pay.

Wouldn't have been able to afford a CS degree, in terms of either money or time, so it was a huge opportunity for me to go the bootcamp route. Have moved up into a senior/lead position, as well, so all the late nights of working on my skills post-bootcamp (and still while working, even now!) seem to have paid off.

But I don't know what the market in Europe is like. MCOL area, US, here.

[gabereiser]

Here in the US we also take a good hard look at bootcamp graduates. Code school/bootcamp graduates I’ve found to be good enough to do most of the mundane web work broiler-plate we have to write. It gives them experience, it give us that broiler-plate code no one wants to write.

Bootcamp’s here like Turing or Galvanize cost $20k and take 4-6mos but you’ll get an entry level Dev job at $75k or more when you’re done. It’s been a really good experience. Some have been really good programmers, others not so much. Same could be said of any demographic. There’s performers and under performers.

[w0mbat]

It's "boilerplate".

It's because a reusable letterpress metal plate of text is called a "boilerplate" because it looks like the manufacturer's nameplate on a steam-train's boiler. That led to any reusable block of text being called "boilerplate". No BBQ equipment was involved.

[gabereiser]

Indeed, I wrote it on my phone, brisket wins on iOS apparently. I usually write it boiler-plate.

[w0mbat]

No worries.

[bserge]

This is really interesting! What about applicants who didn't go through a bootcamp, but have decent projects on their website/Github/whatever? Is it the fact that you can't verify if they actually built that themselves or just copied/stole it?

[gabereiser]

I’ll be more keen on a candidate that has interesting GH projects and is self-taught than someone without GH and came from bootcamp. But if both have interesting projects, they both are equal as far as candidacy goes. I can only speak for myself. YMMV.

[ChrisRR]

I always worry about the kind of companies that hire bootcamp devs like that.

Sure, I agree that quite a lot of university is not necessary for everyone, but not 2.5 years of unnecessary

If someone has just started from scratch 3 months ago and only knows how to program a bit in javascript, interface with a server and populate a database. I don't want them anywhere near a project.

I want them to at least know the basic data types and algorithms, security and integrity and design patterns. I don't want to have to deal with software crashes because they don't understand what O(N^2) is.

[908B64B197]

> I always worry about the kind of companies that hire bootcamp devs like that.

Typically it's a red flag for companies that are cheap and treat software as an expense and not a part of their core product.

[the_only_law]

> But then why pay for a certificate? Four figures, no less. You could go through a bunch of free programming courses in 3 months and print your own certificate, same thing as long as you can actually do a job...

My understanding is a lot of these boot camps have parterships with companies and help place the people who complete them.

[bencollier49]

That's definitely a thing. Very popular over here. The format is normally that you do a crash course over 2-3 months, and then do a year's on-the-job training as an apprentice.