|
|
|
|
|
by mywaifuismeta
1476 days ago
|
|
I'm really sad our culture is encouraging this. I know this is an unpopular opinion and may be seen as gatekeeping by some, but I believe that these "learn X in Y weeks" for deeply technical topics (it's totally fine for X framework) do more harm than good. People who rely on these usually have no real understanding, and just slap something on their resume. As someone involved in hiring, I actively treat anything like this on a resume as a big red flag. If you say you know ML but list some short-term course, I know that you're exaggerating and likely don't have a real understanding. This also tells me that you are likely exaggerating in other parts of your resume and profile too [0]. The same goes for projects. If your "projects" consist of simply calling X library with new data and doing nothing novel, that's a red flag more than anything else. I see this a ton: Just fork some Github project and make a few tiny changes and put it on your resume. On the other hand, I respect people who are willing to spend the time and effort to truly learn something from scratch. Start with a basic math and ML course, then go on more difficult ones, read papers, implement papers and projects, and so on. The same goes for other topics such as distributed systems, compilers and programming languages, etc. There are no "learn X in Y weeks" shortcuts. I understand that not everyone may be able to do this and many will give up along the way, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a great filter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnib... |
|