| I am going to answer to my self as a way to answer all the comments at the same time. What I am rescuing from the article is the ability to learn beyond looking for what is the minimum that needs to be learned; the attitude of "I need to learn this, so I'll stretch my self" as opposed to "I don't need to learn this!, I can learn the least possible!, it is only useful up to this point! I have never used beyond the basics!". If this is your attitude, then good for you, but as an employer, I am not going to choose the employee that it is just looking for the minimum to learn to get by. And that attitude is the difference between a code monkey and professionalism. This is disturbing to me because today the resistance is towards "math", tomorrow will be towards "C#" ("why do I have to learn that if I can easily scaffold in ruby?" multiple technical reasons, but the one that hit the most for programmer that are not living in their mom's basements is: Because I sign your paycheck), and the day after it would be something else. In general it reflects a problem with learning. My comment does not goes towards math exclusively, but towards the ability to enjoy learning, and that is a color of the character. The comments of I don't need to learn this or that (math, or whatever else) tells me more about who you are than engaging in what is the level of math that you need to learn. Of course some egos will feel offended and call me and my high horse... then again... |