The post from Sivers' blog[1] a few days talked optimistically about how, at least in some ways, we're beginning to see a fix for this.<p>You can break out of the credentials trap by <i>making and doing stuff</i> and by looking for people who make stuff. Public creations and contributions, even as simple as blogging, are becoming much more of an accepted credential (offering more external validation in Dixon's words) and that's great.<p>(Well, mostly great. Great that people might look at your github as a credential, perhaps going a tad too far when people proclaim that Github replaces resumes.)<p>I'm nothing but a wee programmer from New Hampshire, and while hating on Stack Overflow is cool around here[2], it allowed me to help thousands of people and create a (literal and S.O.) reputation. I wasn't thinking about career with all my days and nights contributing to StackOverflow, it was more of plain old poor time management mixed with some desire to be useful to someone. Yet SO and a tad of blogging landed me a book deal, which is a far more interesting outcome than anything my regular career-minded things (getting a degree and getting a job/experience) have done. By miles.<p>Unlike the external validation in the post (getting a degree), making stuff encompasses a much bigger pie. You aren't competing against the other people with law degrees. You're showing tangible reasons you might be useful. Really, if your field allows it, making stuff publicly is the best credential we've got.<p>[1] "It's all who you know?" - <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5198956" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5198956</a><p>[2] As of writing the first comment is bashing the SO system, which is a typical top-comment for these sort of stories: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5210648" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5210648</a>
I've been meaning to write about this but so far my thoughts aren't fleshed out very well, so bear with me. I've been observing a trend with people that is quite interesting but I'm not sure if there's any useful conclusions to it.<p>I grew up in Germany, went to an okay university first, then a "good" university, became a management consultant for a while, enrolled in a relatively high end business school, went to Cal to do research and finally ended up in the Bay area and went through YC a while ago.<p>There were <i>very good</i> (by some metric) people everywhere I went. I'm talking about the top of the class when I studied Math in Cologne, the 30 y/o tenured CS professor in Munich, the 22 y/o consultant who earns more than his parents etc.. Those people are often focused on achievement, grades, getting a good job, etc.<p>Recently, I've met a different kind of people. People that I'd consider <i>great</i> at what they do. The people that you can ask a stupid question and they'll give you a considerate answer, the ones that do things out of an intrinsic motivation. To find out if they want to work with you, they'll sit down with you and talk, or work a problem over. I've had to write resumes all my life and then suddenly, a few years ago I stopped maintaining one and never needed it either.<p>I think what I'm seeing is that at the very high end in whatever field you're in, people won't care about credentials. But unfortunately, there is a middle ground on the "slightly less high end", where it is very important. Perhaps what you can do is "keep up appearances" until you pass that stage. If there's an easy way to get credentials (i.e. I don't think I benefited a lot from any degree I have, but they were easy to get and I could do other things I liked more at the same time), go for it.<p><i>Edit: Sorry if this lacks clarity, I wrote it in a hurry. I'll come back later to edit</i>
"But optimizing for external validation is a dangerous trap"<p>You dont think this is strongly present in the startup world as well? In a number of ways I think many in the current form of the startup world are even more hungry for external validation but perhaps in a different way and from a different crowd.<p>"You’re fighting over a fixed pie against well-credentialed peers."<p>This also present in startups but instead of fighting for the next rung on the latter you are battling others for a piece of a limited number of funds, eyeballs, reporter coverage, demand, etc. The point being is that there is always a bottleneck or constraint in any field entrepreneurial or not. I'd agree that for an engineer, while quite rare, startup success has the potential to enhance your career probably more than being a smashing success in corp but both are funnels in different forms.
Many luminaries including Peter Thiel have been saying this but I see a little bit of a contradiction while comparing their statements to their backgrounds. Peter Thiel, for example, went to Stanford undergrad and law school. Chris Dixon has an MA from Columbia. PG has a PhD from Harvard etc...I'm also wondering if the reverse is happening in the startup world where investors see you unfavorably if you're not a 19 year old college dropout but instead have an advanced degree. In addition, like the previous poster pointed out, credentialism exists everywhere. People want to trust one source for vetting multiple candidates. This happens with YC for example. YC startups are more likely to raise money because investors trust the partners' judgement in vetting the founders.
> optimizing for external validation is a dangerous trap. You’re fighting over a fixed pie against well-credentialed peers. The most likely outcome is a middle management job where you’ll have little impact and never seriously attempt to realize your ambitions.<p>That should be in every college freshman's welcome packet.
I think one of the big draws of credentials is the ability to measure your success.<p>Getting into a great school or landing an important job is a lot easier to quantify than startup success.<p>A credentialed life might be much less exciting, but it removes a lot of doubt.
The external validation isn't just outside the tech field though - the desire to work for a well-known corp isn't just to impress mom and dad.<p>The tech industry, to put it bluntly, has no idea how to hire people. Credentialing is <i>everywhere</i>, even amongst startups. Do you know how many startups eyes light up when they hear about well-regarded-big-tech-corp on my resume?<p>I've since graduated out of big software companies, but my time spent there continues to pay dividends in the startup world today. It is the way it is, for better or for worse - but one thing is clear to me: there are perfectly rational reasons to pursue this kind of credentialing besides "so the proles who don't get it respect me".
Following the Peter Thiel point, I think that the education system is currently flawed in the way that it sets up the end goal as being college. From the beginning (elementary), kids are trained to get good grades to get into a great college, but there's very little active discussion with students about careers and life in general at the early phases. Everything done at an academic level is to get into a good college, rather than learning for curiosity's sake and building something of value. I know this because I fell for it when I was in HS, and it's something that needs to change.
like everything, apply a cost and reward analysis.<p>i was the first technical employee of a now well known, but still very much young and growing startup. i predict this credential will prove more beneficial than "software engineer, google" for a number of reasons.<p>incidentally, i was so young and isolated when i started working for startups that i didn't realize it was taboo or scary until it was too late. i wasn't optimizing for credentials; i just needed a job man.
I think I was at the startup school event where she said this, she had a bunch of cute monster pokemon type deals to describe problems you run into with a startup, this was one of them. Engaging lady.
Is it a trap, though?<p>We, in the HN-sphere, have this irritating tendency to take outlier successes and people as indicative. Since no social-proof system on earth (university education, or investor affirmation) can identify excellence beyond the 98th percentile or so, we assume (correctly) that those systems are functionally ineffectual, and (perhaps incorrectly) conclude that people can safely tell those systems to fuck off. Most people can't. Most people need to exploit those systems, no matter how painful the level-grinding may be, in order to get food on their tables.<p>I think it's ridiculous that most people spend 3 times as much time proving they're capable of doing work than actually doing it. (Most corporate work is evaluative, not functional or important. See: <a href="http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/fourth-quadrant-work/" rel="nofollow">http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/fourth-quadra...</a>) However, very few people have the power to get out of that nonsense.