Doesn't PhD just mean they know how to research? What about true real-world
experience? Yeah, they know how to learn about the language, but can they
apply what they've learned? In the computer industry, to me, experience
means way more than a piece of paper. But then again, you *are* getting
that experience from a piece of paper as well, so I guess it all comes down
to the interview and what they can show there.
Jesse
On 7/12/06, Blake Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Mister E wrote:
<snip>
> contemporary risk minimalization analytics (real or perceived).
<snip>
In other words, hiring PhD's is less risky because they've already
proven that they're the prize winning bulls of the herd. If you're
in the business of impressing admirers of things bovine, of course it
makes sense.
True genius is more risky because usually it takes a radical and non-
conformist mode of thought to reveal new truths. It certainly
doesn't exclude the aforementioned prize winners, but history has
proven that only those that follow their own path achieve it.
Seriously though, I've known some very brilliant PhD's, people I
admire and aspire to emulate. But I seriously doubt that any of them
will make a great discovery, or even be extraordinarily creative.
They're too well trained in the chase of dogma's tail, most will even
admit it.
-Blake
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<Sn||n<|}j=<$$<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD, 00Fz, 0,,( 0hF
0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{ rw}
;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
