[j_col]

Given that half of the professional IT people I've ever worked with don't even have IT-related qualifications, I'm really not surprised (but I am disappointed for our industry that the bar is set so low).

Can you work as a lawyer without a law degree? No. As a doctor without a medical degree? No. As an IT worker without a computing-related degree? Sure thing, how hard can it be!

I guess the differences are:

1. IT is still young as a profession. 2. IT lacks professional bodies to regulate the industry (see above).

So we end up with lots of unqualified people pulling the strings :-(

[kokey]

It would be nice for some kind of professional body or 10 to come into existence, so you can become say a Chartered IT <something> after either a relevant degree, few years experience and a bar exam, or a more years experience and the same exam. It's so hard for many companies to tell the difference between a guy that simply knows computers or someone who can make the right technology decisions.

[ghshephard]

In security, this is becoming more and more the case. A lot of the CISOs (equivalent to CIO / Sr. Director of IT, but for Security) have CISSPs these days.

I also haven't run into a Director of Network Engineering that wasn't a CCNP or higher for about 5+ years now (this wasn't always the case)

I think the major challenge for "Director of IT" is that it can comprise a heckuva lot of disciplines. Even for a small company - you are looking a BizApps, Back Office Servers (Exchange, AD), Oracle DBAs, Network Engineering, Telecom, Desktop Support, ServerRoom Operations - and all the political pain associated with managing all the various interests that want things their way...

[kokey]

Security certainly has it nailed, since the CISSP works like I described, and isn't vendor specific.

I believe a senior IT 'management' type qualification needs to cover, amongst a wide variety of things, things like development management (e.g. mythical man month) cost management (e.g. COCOMO) and general business sense (e.g. not getting locked in by a vendor).

[raverbashing]

The best IT professionals are those with the capability to self-learn

So those who skip university are around 2 to 3 years ahead of the rest that was pumped outdated subjects, mostly given by people that don't have practical experience.

Unis today, except the higher tier (hopefully) don't teach Python, NodeJS, etc

Even worse, some dropped C, Lisp(Scheme) or others for Java.

So don't be surprised the ones that just graduated can't do much

[j_col]

> The best IT professionals are those with the capability to self-learn

That's a universal truth. You also have to self-learn in college.

> So those who skip university are around 2 to 3 years ahead of the rest that was pumped outdated subjects, mostly given by people that don't have practical experience.

Imagine having those 2-3 years to dedicate to full-time learning, without having to try to learn on the job without the luxury of time. Non-grads are ahead in their specific work areas due to on-the-job experience, but lack the broader knowledge of (for example) a comp sci degree that will force you to look at many other areas of IT and business.

> Unis today, except the higher tier (hopefully) don't teach Python, NodeJS, etc

They are just tools. The latest cool tools will change from the commencement of a multi-year degree to the end. All colleges will look outdated when judged in this way, but that is really not the point of these courses.

> Even worse, some dropped C, Lisp(Scheme) or others for Java.

Again, tools.

> So don't be surprised the ones that just graduated can't do much

I would wager that a recent comp sci graduate will bring to your organization than you appear willing to give them credit for. Sure they might have to learn all of your tools and processes, but they bring with them years of training in analytical, logical, critical thought on broader subjects that you organization is currently tackling, enabling a fresh perspective and a capability for lateral thinking.

[raverbashing]

"> Even worse, some dropped C, Lisp(Scheme) or others for Java. Again, tools."

No, they are more than tools (on itself they are)

They are the sole, or the most important member of a certain paradigm of programming.

To learn how to fasten bolts you need a wrench. Any wrench will do of course, but you need a wrench.

Now, if there's only one 'tool manufacturer' you go with that

Or you expect a dentist to not use tools and only have theoretical knowledge of them in school?

[pc86]

The fact that someone has a degree in Philosophy or Classical Literature doesn't mean that they're not qualified to be a developer, provided that they've proven they can do the work and know the language(s) in question.

There's no inherent reason you can't practice law or medicine without the appropriate degree outside of the ABA and the AMA saying you can't (actually, you need a license; it just so happens that the professional degree is a requirement to obtain the license, but that's just semantics).

I say this as someone with a liberal arts degree from a podunk school nobody has ever heard of, and I know for a fact I'm more knowledgeable than at least one or two of the "senior" folks who are multiple steps up the promotion ladder from me. I'm in the fortunate position that my actual supervisor is smart and technical, was a developer at a Fortune 10 company in his past and does zero direct technical work today. We have developers in my office who have degrees in Computer Science, Philosophy, Political Science, Accounting and one guy who doesn't have any degree or relevant certifications. Nobody here is what I would consider a bad programmer. Everyone can hold their own building an application or writing a SQL routine. Some are better than others, but I haven't seen any correlation between field of study and skill (or even domain knowledge).

I don't see how judging an applicant or coworker based on a degree they got years ago (sometimes decades) fixes any of the issues with our[0] industry, and I don't see how raw technical skill makes someone more or less able to lead technical people. To use an example from elsewhere in this discussion, debugging a VPN connectivity issue quickly doesn't mean you'd make a great manager of developers. It's a different skill set and it doesn't mean that "unqualified people [are] pulling the string."

[0] Because whether you like it or not, it is our industry even though according to you I don't have the "credentials" to be in it.

[j_col]

> provided that they've proven they can do the work and know the language(s) in question.

And that's the rub of it for me: you have to let them lose on your project in order to prove themselves capable, and you have to hope they work out, i.e. learn on the job and you guide them through it. A Philosophy or Classical Literature major has to start their IT career somewhere, right?

So we have the old apprenticeship model rather than the professional model, nothing new here.

This is fine for junior members, but breaks down hard when you move into leadership roles when the leader is unqualified (both in experience and on paper).