[deltaonefour]

Engineering programs especially in top schools are way too hard for what's required to learn programming. And by top school I mean a top school that admits less than 10% of applicants. These programs are way more challenging than normal. Failing one of these programs does not mean you can program.

Also when I say anyone can do it, I mean anyone with around an average IQ or above. Obviously if you're mentally challenged it's a different story. Obviously new born babies don't have the IQ to learn programming.

I've went to schools where they admit anyone with a pulse and I've also been to actual top schools that are highly selective. I can tell you these programs that admit anyone feel significantly easier because they are. Doing well in one of these schools is not an achievement. I remember coming out top of the class at these schools simply studying for a test the night before.

But the reasoning as to why people fail in these "easy" schools is not what you think. It's exactly what the other replier said but more. Learning programming is not easy, and many people don't have the discipline or the study habits necessary to achieve it in a class room environment as well. They may look like they're studying hard... but a good number them aren't doing the necessary studying to succeed. They may not even be interested in programming. But make no mistake, if you make the curriculum longer and easier or if these people spend the time to grind, most people will succeed in learning programming.

[MockObject]

> Learning programming is not easy...discipline or the study habits...necessary studying to succeed... spend the time to grind...

Programming is what I did obsessively as a teenager. I didn't need any discipline or study habits. It was and still is exciting and creative. This is aptitude and interest, which obviously, few have.

[deltaonefour]

Many have it.

Much less people have the aptitude for quantum physics which is way harder. Programming is so easy that even as a teenager you have sufficient background to learn it.

I assure you that as a teenager, it's very unlikely you had any aptitude for quantum physics or any of the hard mathematics required to understand general relativity.

[MockObject]

That's funny, because I loved quantum physics and general relativity so much that I majored in physics, not computer science. I didn't find QM very hard, either. Having done both, I wouldn't say one is harder, only that QM requires more prerequisite knowledge, and I didn't have that as a teen.

I find doing advanced math relaxing and meditative during commutes. That's aptitude. It's probably much the same aptitude as finding programming enjoyable, but software is a much better career, so most of us end up there than in physics anymore.

Not many people have this aptitude, though. Most people would name hundreds of activities they'd rather do than either of them.

[deltaonefour]

Ok. then you're an exception.

But let me put it this way. Much much much much much More people have done programming since they were teens but much less have done QM. You will find tons of examples of programmers and relatively few people who know QM or advanced mathematics.

That's the dichotomy I'm talking about. Programming is easy. QM requiring pre-requisite knowledge is part of what makes it so much harder.

[notch656a]

Much much much more people have shot a deer than have shoot a lawn mower. That doesn't tell you anything about which is easier to shoot.

[deltaonefour]

It does. You have 20 minutes to mow the lawn or shoot a deer, starting now. Which task can you actually accomplish? Far more people will be able to mow the lawn.

You analogy is bad. But I get your point.

Let's put it this way. Something that is commonly done is LIKELY to be far more easier than something that is not commonly done. Full circle back to our other point on probable causes.

[Scea91]

Pointless debate when you do not define the level. Anyone can be surgeon, if you define 'surgery' as being able to 'remove mole'. Many programmers just remove moles. Some do coronary bypass surgeries.

[deltaonefour]

Then let's define the level. Whatever the level is for an Average programmer, my claim is anyone Normal can achieve that level.

[notch656a]

Claiming that if everyone programs the normal average person will achieve the average is claiming nothing. You're simply saying average is average. A lot of words without saying anything at all.

[deltaonefour]

No I'm saying the average level of adequate programming for a software engineering job. The average for the job is higher than the average skill level for the population.

This is obvious. Your diving into technicalities of language, which is unnecessary.

My claim is that most of the population can achieve the average skill level held by an average developer.

[notch656a]

>I've went to schools where they admit anyone with a pulse and I've also been to actual top schools that are highly selective. I can tell you these programs that admit anyone feel significantly easier because they are. Doing well in one of these schools is not an achievement. I remember coming out top of the class at these schools simply studying for a test the night before.

Lol K bro, I didn't say this to brag, I said it because of what I witnessed. I don't think being good at engineering school is an 'achievement' or a sign of superiority, I just think it means you may be wired differently than some other people -- that's it. The school in question I'm referring to is ranked in the top 10 of US engineering programs, with much lower grade inflation than many of the private schools, and no one takes you seriously when you say this school is 'easier.' I lived with several of these people who were trying, and they were doing everything right and taking the necessary steps, with full family support, and working tirelessly and still just couldn't cut it. One of them I spent time with daily ended up becoming a doctor instead; these were not dumb or undisciplined people.

Many of the more 'highly selective' private programs are actually easier because they milk you dry in tuition and they want to keep the dollars flowing, so they will coddle you along.

Believe it or not there are public schools that will take essentially anyone with a pulse into engineering, and a handful of the more challenging and highly ranked engineering programs are included. These are not 'easy' programs, and attrition rates far exceed other programs at the same university. Personally I approve of this approach because it allows anyone to try their hand rather than depending on BS criteria like standardized testing or high school performance, or other dumb factors like whether your parents had the strings to pull in a non-profit to make you look like mother teresa. The kind of person who succeeds at engineering is often not the kind who has an impressive background coming out of highschool.

>I remember coming out top of the class at these schools simply studying for a test the night before

The number of people who received, or would be able to receive, an ABET accredited engineering degree at the top of their class from any of say the top dozen engineering schools while simply 'studying for a test the night before' is a much rarer trait than you think. Either you're unaware of your exceptional aptitude or you were blind to your surroundings.

[deltaonefour]

>I don't think being good at engineering school is an 'achievement' or a sign of superiority, I just think it means you may be wired differently than some other people -- that's it. The school in question I'm referring to is ranked in the top 10 of US engineering programs

Bro, I went to a top 10 as well, and it's also not a private school. I'm telling you that it doesn't matter. Doing well in a school that has zero selectivity is not an achievement because you're competing with many people who don't even have the drive to succeed. Of course a huge number will be fodder for you to step on. Sure you're school is hard.. but that's a different kind of hard.

At a selective school, every student you're with has drive and has consistently placed number 1 at every previous school they've been at. The classes and challenge are normalized so that just being number one is now average or even below average. This is hard on another level.

>Many of the more 'highly selective' private programs are actually easier because they milk you dry in tuition and they want to keep the dollars flowing, so they will coddle you along.

Not true at all. Again, Selective programs normalize what is easy among top students. The curve becomes insanely steeper. Schools allow you to change majors to keep milking the dollars but they still fail you out of the class.

>Believe it or not there are public schools that will take essentially anyone with a pulse into engineering, and a handful of the more challenging and highly ranked engineering programs are included. These are not 'easy' programs, and attrition rates far exceed other programs at the same university. Personally I approve of this approach because it allows anyone to try their hand rather than depending on BS criteria like standardized testing or high school performance, or other dumb factors like whether your parents had the strings to pull in a non-profit to make you look like mother teresa. The kind of person who succeeds at engineering is often not the kind who has an impressive background coming out of highschool.

I never said it's easy. But it certainly is easier. Let's do a quantitative analysis then. Anyone with a pulse and let's say they fail out 75%. That's equivalent to a 25% pass rate. Then take a look at a selective school with a (in my case 20% failure rate and 10% acceptance). That's about 8% pass rate assuming anyone with a pulse applies (of course this is not the case, better performing students tend to apply).

By that number alone you know how much harder it is in a selective school. And the 20% failure rate is just a random guess, could be much higher than that as tons of kids switch majors after their first weeder class. Realistically I give it 50% failure rate if you count people who switch.

>The number of people who received, or would be able to receive, an ABET accredited engineering degree at the top of their class from any of say the top dozen engineering schools while simply 'studying for a test the night before' is a much rarer trait than you think. Either you're unaware of your exceptional aptitude or you were blind to your surroundings.

Let's caveat something here. I passed top of my class and studied the night before in a non-selective school. The other school I transferred to, (a top school) I could not do this. Also ABET is garbage, let's be clear about that. Many top engineering schools have certain programs that are ABET accredited, and many schools with ABET accredited programs are easy.

[notch656a]

>I never said it's easy. But it certainly is easier. Let's do a quantitative analysis then. Anyone with a pulse and let's say they fail out 75%. That's equivalent to a 25% pass rate. Then take a look at a selective school with a (in my case 20% failure rate and 10% acceptance). That's about 8% pass rate assuming anyone with a pulse applies (of course this is not the case, better performing students tend to apply).

>By that number alone you know how much harder it is in a selective school.

You really don't. All you proved was that 80% (or whatever) of those who the school selected would pass. You know nothing of what percent of those who they didn't select would pass. You can't possibly make the assertion it would be lower than 25% example you gave for the "anyone with a pulse school."

I don't doubt you probably went to a more rigorous, challenging, and renowned school than me. I don't doubt you are more intelligent than myself or many who did well at my school. The fallacy comes when you conflate entrance selectivity with difficulty.

> I passed top of my class and studied the night before in a non-selective school.

Can you help explain to me why you went from a top non-selective public school to a different top selective school? In my experience after the first couple years everyone but the cream was filtered out, so by junior year it was effectively like I was in a 'selective' school. Or are you comparing a lower tier non-selective engineering school to a top selective school? My point of reference here is one of the handful of non-selective top-10 schools.

>Many top engineering schools have certain programs that are ABET accredited, and many schools with ABET accredited programs are easy.

Agreed. Was just providing some baseline for roughly the curriculum that was covered. You're right that ABET on its own doesn't speak thoroughly to the program, which is why I used a variety of other qualifiers beyond ABET.

[deltaonefour]

>Can you help explain to me why you went from a top non-selective public school to a different top selective school?

Transfer. And change of major. I would say I went to an top 50 school initially, with average selectivity and the same amount of weeder classes in every engineering program. Then went to a top 10 public school with an even more selective engineering program.

The weeder classes for your school filtered everyone out but the people remaining are still only 25% of anyone with a pulse. I'd wager this school has an extremely low amount of high achievers joining, so while you're dealing with smart competition, it's nowhere near the level of what you'd be facing at a selective school.

At a selective school, you have the top 10% of kids from the entire nation, who again get weeded out by about 50%. Yes that's effectively the smartest kids in the country getting cut in half. Nothing here is statistically rigorous but you can't deny that this back of the napkin estimate says something about how hard these schools are.

>You really don't. All you proved was that 80% (or whatever) of those who the school selected would pass. You know nothing of what percent of those who they didn't select would pass.

The kids who were selected overall have a higher chance success and higher work ethic and higher intelligence then those not selected. There are definitely scenarios of people who are great at programming but can't do well in school but these are generally in the minority. Google for example doesn't hire people based off of school, but the majority of their hires have degrees from top schools. It correlates with IQ and general programming ability, but I would say google sort of over selects. They don't need people that strong.

>I don't doubt you probably went to a more rigorous, challenging, and renowned school than me. I don't doubt you are more intelligent than myself or many who did well at my school. The fallacy comes when you conflate entrance selectivity with difficulty.

Never claimed any of these things and who knows? Maybe you went to the better school. I simply stated my credentials to show you that I have anecdotal experience from both types of schools. The difference in hardness is palpable and can only really be truly known by someone who went to both types of schools.

In the first school I attended my mindset was like you. I thought I had a talent and that most people were stupid. That changed when I got into a top 10 highly selective school.

But we did kind of get side tracked here. My main point is that my experience with schooling is more extensive then yours. And from that experience I derive that anyone can learn programming. It wasn't mentioned before, but programming is much easier than school.

I should also mention that this experience is from both extensive experience in school AND work. School experience provides sort of a bubble, a partial picture but not the full thing..

[notch656a]

You compared a top 50 school to a top 10. Of course it was different, and quite possibly more rigorous.

I'm comparing a (my non-selective public) top 10 engineering to other top 10s [engineering]. Near peer selective to near peer non-selective. You compared a top 50 to a top 10 ranked engineering, far from peer schools. Starting with 10% says nothing about the difficulty of the program. You don't even know that they were the best 10% of engineering material, just that they were the top 10% of what the school thought were picks as candidates. Selectivity does not confer difficulty. High (50%+)success rate of your selective cohort does not confer low (25%-) success rate of the non-selected group.

> My main point is that my experience with schooling is more extensive then yours.

It seems we have the same amount of experience with top 10 schools, where N=1 for both. I have been to a 'lower tier' school but not for engineering so I didn't even bother to mention it, and yeah I agree it was a joke comparatively.

[deltaonefour]

>Starting with 10% says nothing about the difficulty of the program. You don't even know that they were the best 10% of engineering material, just that they were the top 10% of what the school thought were picks as candidates. Selectivity does not confer difficulty. High (50%+)success rate of your selective cohort does not confer low (25%-) success rate of the non-selected group.

It does. Like I said the the smarter kids the tougher the courses. Because smarter kids normalize easiness. The difficulty of the program is set by the kids who attend. The school absolutely cannot fail the entire class, they have to set the hardness so that a certain amount pass. It is absolutely a factor especially if most schools grade on a curve. So if any Tom Dick or Jane can join the curve however steep it is, will reflect the quality of those who join.

"Best engineering material" is a misnomer. the smartest kids from other schools correlate with best engineering material. I already stated that sure you can have some miracle kid that succeeds at engineering but bombs at school, but this is rare. Kids who do well in school tend to do well in engineering. Any other thing you see is likely to be an anomaly.

You're basing your argument off the erroneous notion that engineering talent in school is completely separate from all other subjects and therefore selectivity is completely irrelevant. That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying it's not completely separate at all. There is a strong correlation that if you graduated top of the class in your high school you have a higher likelihood of better performance in engineering at a top school. It's not always the case but the correlation exists.

>It seems we have the same amount of experience with top 10 schools, where N=1 for both. I have been to a 'lower tier' school but not for engineering so I didn't even bother to mention it, and yeah I agree it was a joke comparatively.

Sure it's N=1. But read my paragraph above. That's a common sense figure. Person A gets all F's in your classes and Person B gets straight As and takes a bunch of AP courses... by probability person B will be the better engineer. Common sense. We can make a good estimate based off of common sense logic without the need for statistically rigorous data. So based off of that logic, my reasoning goes beyond a N=1 sample size as we can use common sense induction to arrive at a broader conclusion.