North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: list problems?

  • From: Henry Yen
  • Date: Thu May 23 16:51:48 2002

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 03:00:20AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> At 02:42 PM 5/23/2002 -0400, Henry Yen wrote:
>  >On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:22:50AM -0700, Rachel K. Warren wrote:
>  >> Of course, there are exceptions to every rule - I've had managers and
>  >> executive officers in the same companies I worked at who did not have
>  >> degrees.  But more often than not, the degree was there.
>  >
>  >i was once taught that causation and correlation are different.
> 
> Stating as fact a causation simply because of a correlation (e.g. degrees 
> == promotion) is probably not a good idea without other evidence.  However, 
> lacking evidence or hypotheses to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to 
> tentatively assume a causation given a strong correlation.

i don't disagree, but the your specific observation seems too broad for me.

i've long deleted the original post, but ISTR that the OP's interest
was in getting a network/engineering/related job, and the degree (no pun
intended) to which having a formal college education might contribute
toward that goal, at least in the short run.

assuming that the companies to which this post refers are those which
are in that situation (hiring good network people), the fact that
the managers and executives at those companies "more often than not" had
a degree is not necessarily more than a correlation.  it doesn't
speak to the issue of whether or not they are/were good network people.

for instance, perhaps a degree is more useful to managers and executive
officers than to network engineers.  or perhaps people who get degrees
strive more for those management positions than people who don't.  or perhaps
those companies tend to hire people with degrees more often than not,
and this post shows that, but it doesn't necessarily relate to network
engineering (i.e. maybe it's a less-than-useful holdover hiring practice,
which is what many offshoots of this thread are discussing); perhaps
the OP would be just as happy to be hired in a non-network-engineering-
oriented position, but that's not the impression i got.

> Assuming correlation and causation are completely unrelated is probably 
> worse, since if there is a cause / effect relationship, correlation is 
> bound to show up.

yes, but i didn't assume that. :)

> Given that we *do* have other evidence (e.g. HR department which ask for 
> degrees when hiring & promoting), why would it be wrong to make a leap such 
> that "a degree will help more than it will hurt".

yes, i think it would be wrong.  the "evidence" presented above is one
person's experience, based on observations of "executive officers and
managers" at places where she has worked.  you could certainly say that
a college degree will more likely than not lead to a position as an
executive officer or manager (not necessarily network-related), especially
if you tend to try to work for companies such as those quoted above.

the "hurt" part presumably refers to the time (5+ per cent of your life),
as well as the ten-thousands of dollars expenditure.

> As one person said, all else being equal (as it frequently is), a degree 
> (or certification) is a great way to differentiate yourself.  Especially to 
> the non-technical (like CFOs and HR departments).

i think it makes a bigger difference when one is young.  i tend to
believe that the differentiation lessens over time.  as well, the
opportunity to seriously and formally study computing/networking
is "relatively" recent.

> The interesting thing about this long (and sometimes interesting) thread 
> which keeps appearing here every year or two is that people without degrees 
> seem to have value experience only, while people with degrees have a 
> relatively high opinion of experience and degrees.

it would be interesting to see the age distribution of these two groups.

> IOW: The people who have been to college tend like it, those who have not, 
> do not.
> 
> Of course, that is just a correlation, and not even a 100% correlation at that.

-- 
Henry Yen                                       Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer                       Hicksville, New York