I love the title code monkey, but I'm anything but a rank-and-file coder.
In the last 20 years, I've had the chance to manage about a dozen PhDs in various disciplines.
The ones who were not in computer-related disciplines (but were coding/managing anyway) were uniformly very good. Not knock-your-socks-off-great, but very good.
The ones that were from computer-related disciplines were usually condescending, non-responsive, and difficult to get along with. It seems that they were missing important social and interpersonal skills and felt they knew everything they needed to know. In fact, you might say they felt that they were way above what they should be doing.
I found them useless.
A few stories does not a rule make, but at the same time, I can't help but notice others in our field have similar opinions -- so there is probably a pattern here.
Note that others did not find them useless. On several occasions I was told we had to keep them -- in order to make our bids look better to win government contracts.
So, your opinion is that a PhD is not necessarily bad, but (based on your experience with a few people) that a PhD in computer science makes a person useless?
Just to highlight the absurdity of your logic, I think it's fair to point out that based on the evidence provided, it's just as likely that you're the problem -- the only common factor in your anecdotes is you.
I think what he was saying was that a PhD in computer science is not particularly happy as a "regular" programmer doing sometimes what they perceive to be menial tasks, and perhaps answering to someone who they perceive to not have their "rank."
I can fully understand this. I have a PhD, but not in Comp Sci, so every little thing I learn in programming is a bright new challenge that I enjoy. For now. But I might grow quite bored and grumpy if I was doing menial physics.
We also have to consider the idea that in academia, business pursuits are considered (to some extent) "selling out." So if these comp sci PhDs are recently from academia, it's even more plausible to me that they may have a counter-productive attitude.
Yes. I posted that response this morning, then went sightseeing. Looks like I was completely misinterpreted.
I would not judge people based solely on anything -- race, creed, education, whatever. I would consider hiring another PdD in a minute.
If you put a gun to my head and asked for some kind of sweeping generalization, it would be that people who are very good at spending multiple years diving deep in one technical area are probably also people who are not generalists. And modern software development requires a wide-ranging skillset: negotiation, conflict resolution, interviewing, marketing, man-machine interfaces, graphical development, sales, consensus-building, etc. Oddly enough, I would even venture that most skills required by an agile team are not actually technology-related.
In addition (continuing me to make a generalization) at some point some people feel like they are "done" -- that they have learned enough and can rest on their laurels. Scrappy uneducated people never get this way, nor do hungry entrepreneur-types. People from other fields also see everything as new and for the first time. The guys I worked with seemed to think that their PhD had some kind of street credibility. Maybe it does with some, but in the environments I've been in it's more like "what have you done lately and what can you do for me?" And both of those questions are business questions and not technology ones.
As I mulled my own cognitive processes, I speculated about the following possibility, which may apply more to small businesses than large: the academic/deep-solver (PhD or whatever) doesn't understand that the problem is often not well-defined enough in a business situation to warrant spending the resources for an omnipotent solution. The problem isn't really defined until the Market has a voice. Sometimes, the thing you thought was important isn't really important, the thing you blew off (or, in my most recent case, the thing I thought I was replacing the need for) turns out to still be quite important.
Code it. Show it. Then, with luck, you'll know what the problem really is. At least, that's been my experience (but I'm still relatively new to this game).
your opinion is that a PhD is not necessarily bad, but (based on your experience with a few people) that a PhD in computer science makes a person useless
Nope.
Hence the "being misinterpreted" statement.
Seems like you want an argument. Go have it with somebody else.
I didn't start this thread. If you sincerely think I misinterpreted your words, you're more than welcome to explain your opinion with something more insightful than "nope".
You may not have meant to say what you said, but that doesn't mean that my summary was wrong.
Yes, I believe that he was trying to say something along those lines. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a crass generalization to say something about a "PhD in Computer Science", as if they all shared the same brain.
If you ask me, PhD holders have demonstrated themselves far more capable of dealing with scut-work than your average human. Every PhD I know earned their degree only through years of drudgery and perseverance through vast stretches of boredom. They tend to laugh bitterly at those people who suggest that they're impractical dreamers, incapable of doing "real" work.
For my part, the only impractical dreaming I got done in graduate school were the bits where I imagined that I could make money with my skills when I graduated. :-P
Well, I'd much prefer a title nicked from the military, like "grunt" or "man on the ground" rather than "code monkey" which I've always found condescending. One implies that you are submitting to the common good, other that you are submitting because you can't do anything else. Different strokes, I guess.
Anyway, whatever you call it, you appear to not be one. You're managing them. If I worked for you I'd tell you straight off "don't call me code monkey." Oh wait, you wouldn't hire me. You think I'm useless.
In the last 20 years, I've had the chance to manage about a dozen PhDs in various disciplines.
The ones who were not in computer-related disciplines (but were coding/managing anyway) were uniformly very good. Not knock-your-socks-off-great, but very good.
The ones that were from computer-related disciplines were usually condescending, non-responsive, and difficult to get along with. It seems that they were missing important social and interpersonal skills and felt they knew everything they needed to know. In fact, you might say they felt that they were way above what they should be doing.
I found them useless.
A few stories does not a rule make, but at the same time, I can't help but notice others in our field have similar opinions -- so there is probably a pattern here.
Note that others did not find them useless. On several occasions I was told we had to keep them -- in order to make our bids look better to win government contracts.