Google Hiring More People Who Didn't Go To College

[DaShi]

**** Google. Kids (' parents) spent a lot of money to get those fancy degrees to become a cog in the Google machine. They paid their dues!

[Al B. Sure!]

There is definitely something to be said for having a teacher or mentor in just about any field, even mostly self-taught fields just to assess your progress and keep you on the right track. Maybe the institution of college is unnecessary but google cannot replace a mentor.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can google and learn things yourself if you already know what you're looking for. A lot of the value of a college course is revealing the unknown unknowns--things you don't know, and didn't even know you were supposed to know. At least for Computer Science.

In history as well - a big part of the curriculum is learning where to find things. Primary, secondary sources, assessing reliability, etc. How is google going to help with that?

[Al B. Sure!]

History is one of the main subjects that truly can be self-taught. I'm not even saying that to be a smart-ass. It genuinely is, as evidenced by the abundance of history buffs out there.

You don't see too many amateur chemists or amateur accountants. Amateur historians though are a dime a dozen. Half of Apolyton would probably qualify.

[Ben Kenobi]

History is one of the main subjects that truly can be self-taught.

There are plenty of amateur astronomers out there too, of which I am one. There's a difference between those who are self-taught and those who went to school for it.

I'm not even saying that to be a smart-ass. It genuinely is, as evidenced by the abundance of history buffs out there.

Part of what I'm trying to show you is precisely which parts of our curriculum aren't well adapted to an amateur's approach. I am not saying that someone who's an amateur cannot become a good historian, far from it. Just - that having an exceptional history teacher will help teach you about the reliability of sources, how to find good primary sources, how to do effective research, etc. Even historiography as a discipline - is not something that many amateurs pick up.

Amateurs, not really understanding the theory tend to reinvent the wheel. They go over ground that's already well established without really understanding that it's been covered. They tend to do extremely well in their specialities - ie, if you're a civil war buff, that sort of thing - they get the fine details out but they aren't necessarily too concerned about corroboration, etc.

You don't see too many amateur chemists or amateur accountants. Amateur historians though are a dime a dozen. Half of Apolyton would probably qualify.

Well, Apolyton, as I've tried to explain, is a very special place on the internet. I would suggest that nearly half, if not more than half here have gone to college, and that of those who've gone, many of us are very, very good at what we do.

Sure, you get the odd ignorant person like Kentonio or Gribbler, but they are the exception, not the norm.

[Al B. Sure!]

Some of the most interesting, innovative, and broader analyses of history comes from people who aren't even historians. I am thinking of the quantitative cliodynamics of Peter Turchin (a biologist), the world-systems approach of Immanuel Wallerstein (a sociologist), the geographic soft determinism of Jared Diamond (a biologist and ecologist), etc.

It seems like those moving the discipline of historical analysis forward for the last few decades have all been from outside of the history field.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some of the most interesting, innovative, and broader analyses of history comes from people who aren't even historians. I am thinking of the quantitative cliodynamics of Peter Turchin (a biologist), the world-systems approach of Immanuel Wallerstein (a sociologist), the geographic soft determinism of Jared Diamond (a biologist and ecologist), etc.

Remember my interdisciplinary background is in physics, Albert. Turchin's approach is one I think will bear fruit, the problem is that he's got the same worldview as Ehrlich. His tools are ok, his thesis, less so. I'm more interested in what happens during population declines, and the macroeconomic consequences. Like what we saw from the 3rd through about the 8th century in the West.

Diamond is ok, with Guns Germs and Steel, but aside from that hasn't contributed much.

Personally, I'm more interested in the folks of the 19th century and their approaches to history. I'm a big fan of von Ranke. I think the newer stuff is simply too new for us to get an accurate grasp on their true significance. It's very difficult to process while you're very much a part of things.

Wallerstein is just the usual Marxist crap.

It seems like those moving the discipline of historical analysis forward for the last few decades have all been from outside of the history field.

And this is why amateurs are not the same as those who have studied the discipline. You are not taught historiography.

[ZEE]

Ben, why do you hate God?

[Hauldren Collider]

History is one of the main subjects that truly can be self-taught. I'm not even saying that to be a smart-ass. It genuinely is, as evidenced by the abundance of history buffs out there.

You don't see too many amateur chemists or amateur accountants. Amateur historians though are a dime a dozen. Half of Apolyton would probably qualify.

QFT. Couldn't have said it better.

[Ben Kenobi]

I eagerly await the day when HC earns a history degree and becomes a reliable source on this statement.

[regexcellent]

You see amateur chemists all the time. There was even a hit TV show about them starring Bryan Cranston.

[Hauldren Collider]

i'm not sure meth making counts?

[DaShi]

It's more profitable than a PhD in chemistry.

[Aeson]

I went to college for a bit. I wouldn't want to work at Google. It's better just having Google work for me.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Companies hire non-degree people with experience or promoted from within, especially when the labor market tighten.

There is a desire for quality employees, and degrees can factor into the quality, but there can be other qualities that degrees do not account for. I'd take a solid, honest, smart, hard working non-degree over a lazy ahole degree any day.