When I come across an applicant with a nanodegree, it almost sends a negative signal. If anything, do the course, leave it off your resume, and if you get an interview, you might impress your interviewer with all this unexpected technical knowledge.
I, on the other hand, treat it as a positive signal, albeit a weak one. But at the end of the day, for me at least, a hiring decision is never about any one feature on a resume... you have to look at the whole thing holistically and try to get a complete picture of the candidate.
Somebody with just a nano-degree maybe doesn't impress so much. Somebody with a couple of interesting open source projects, a nano-degree, and some other miscellaneous education may well impress me depending on the details.
But really, it (should) all come down to the ability to demonstrate competence in your claimed skills, regardless of where/how you acquired the skills you claim.
I'm surprised that it sends an negative signal. Is there a reasoning for it? Does completing an online course signify unwanted behavior/personality? I feel like if you leave it off your resume, you probably wouldn't be able to land the interview to begin with.
> I feel like if you leave it off your resume, you probably wouldn't be able to land the interview to begin with.
The nanodegree is step zero in teaching yourself to program and definitely isn't necessary. Demonstrating what you can do is several orders of magnitude more important, and is the real end goal. Most competent self-taught programmers understand this, and understand how trivial a nanodegree actually is as a signal of being able to build good software as part of a team. I typically invite about half of self-taught people with a coding portfolio for an interview, mainly because about half have one that demonstrates the kind of back-end work we do. I invite literally everyone who has launched a product, no matter how small or in what domain, for an interview. I have never invited someone to interview on the basis of a nano-degree. Granted, every application I see is filtered through the sausage grinder of HR, so that's maybe a consideration.
Yes, that's the rub: Getting past HR, which typically demands a degree (or higher). Unfortunately, there are a lot of self-starters in this industry and I feel it is the fault of HR's lack of education in this matter to be able to recognise good talent.
I like your attitude toward interviewing anyone with who has launched a product as it gives you a lot to talk about.
The bigger factor is that it indicates that someone had the gumption to get there without the benefit of an academic and social system to motivate them. That is an impressive and unusual tendency of personality, and one that makes you an asset pretty much no matter where you are or what you’re doing. I want as many people like that in my organization as possible.
I’ve done online courses myself and found them immensely useful.
Unfortunately, I think that to some extent, it signals that “I’m interested, but not committed enough to get a full degree.”
Your nanodegree realistically will never come close to competing with a formal CS degree. So don’t bother with listing it. List your github projects and apps you’ve released. Get the interview. “Oh and by the way, in my spare time, I’ve self-studied XYZ.”
>>Unfortunately, I think that to some extent, it signals that “I’m interested, but not committed to getting a full degree.”
This seems quite short-sighted, because the underlying assumption is that not getting a full degree is a signal for unwillingness to commit, as opposed to _inability_ to commit.
Not many people can up and quit their "real life" to pursue a degree. With your mindset, you are definitely discriminating against, for instance, people who have medical bills to pay and are stuck at their current jobs, but are also ambitious and dedicated and want to switch to better careers and are willing to do whatever it takes to do it.
I’m extremely sympathetic to that situation since I was an unemployed college grad looking to get a developer job when I took my first Udacity course (“How to build your own search engine” - 2012).
The problem is that it’s a competitive field out there and to give people false hope that a nanodegree will get them a job is disingenuous.
I’ve also listed the alternatives for self-taught developers to help them stand out. I think ultimately, if you weren’t going to get the interview, a nanodegree won’t help you. If you were maybe going to get the interview (by showing impressive original work in the form of projects and apps), a nanodegree might help you the slightest bit.
>> Unfortunately, I think that to some extent, it signals that “I’m interested, but not committed enough to get a full degree.”
Commitment is rarely the barrier to a full degree. More likely barriers:
- Person wants grad degree but does not want to risk getting off career track and losing momentum (e.g., consulting, banking, etc)
- Person wants grad degree but cannot afford it
- Person wants grad degree but cannot afford child care
- Person wants grad degree but needs salary to support family
- Person wants grad degree and can afford it, but has competing time commitments such as children
- Person wants grad degree but has visa issues locking them into an inflexible job
- Person wants grad degree but work hours do not allow it
- Person wants grad degree but cannot afford to downgrade healthcare plan (in the US)
Speaking from personal experience, i did my graduate degree 15yrs after my undergrad. I finally semi-retired from Wall Street and was doing a personally co-founded startup which allowed me the flexibility to do a graduate degree in the evenings. My wife had to focus intensely on taking care of the kids in evenings and late evenings while I studied.
The nanodegree will never be the deciding factor when I consider granting an interview. At best it's a minor positive signal, but I'd certainly never consider it a negative signal. I know people who do and I think they're gatekeeping.
If the mention of the nanodegree fits into a broader narrative corroborated by other parts of the resume that this person is a self-learner, then I consider it favorably. I think the way I would describe it is that the nanodegree says this person "tried," but I need to see separate evidence that this person internalized the material.
It's sort of like having MS Word or Git on your resume. It's a signal that you've run out of impressive things.
I do believe you can learn more from nanodegrees than a generic full degree. But nanodegrees are also quite easy to get through. Nobody checks your stuff, and there's much less protection against plagiarism. As a learning tool, it's great. As a certification, it's very poor.
>> The problem is that there is almost no barrier to entry for nanodegrees.
I'm a hiring manager and have also been in senior manager roles (directing overall department build-outs) and I dont see it as a negative. It is a slight positive for me:
- Barrier 1: Interest (positive)
- Barrier 2: Sufficient motivation to complete, however easy (positive)
This said, I've encountered some managers who see it as a negative because they think individuals who sharpen their saw are 1. more likely to progress and move on and 2. distracted from working 24/7 on the job. I think this is positive -- you probably want to filter out such managers anyway!
Yes but the problem is that barrier to entry is proportional to prestige so there is very little prestige associated with nanodegrees. Whether it's right or wrong companies care about prestige. Not all of them of course but I have found this to be true for the most in-demand jobs.
How do you compare it to someone completely self taught with similar experience? At least with someone that completed a course you know the minimum extent of their knowledge and understanding.
I think in both cases you'll need to discuss the details of the projects you've done, whether in the ND or on your own. Without getting your hands dirty, any degree is just a piece of paper. Its the work you've done that proves you have real skills, and you're not just a trained chimp.
I think the negative signal is that they think it's worth mentioning. It's like if you go on a date with someone and say "you know, I have to tell you, I've kissed someone before." They're probably going to be concerned that this is notable information.
They're likely viewing them as similar to certifications. Different industries treat certifications differently.
Enterprise technologies like Java and .NET and IBM products are helpful if you are aiming for that sort of job.
But, if you are looking at more open-source oriented shop, they give the impression that you are focusing on trying to look accomplished. It can look like you are trying to appeal to the wrong crowd, which means your priorities don't align with what they are looking for.
> This is bad advice. No one has time to look at your open source patches and evaluate them.
The last time I was asked to screen and interview candidates I took the time to check out all portfolios, including github/gitlab/sourceforge profiles and projects.
In a few cases the candidate's portfolio work was decisive to greenlight and reject job apllicants.
