Autodidacticism

This whole idea of the self taught programmer is a little disingenuous, because while I fit the stereotypical mold of one (no college degree, no formal computer science education), I was anything but self taught.<p>To claim so would be to discredit my friend who explained pointers to me in high school, or my first programming boss who helped me transition from writing HTML to SQL.<p>While I didn't take a class from Hennessy or Patterson, Gosling, the GoF, McConnel they certainly 'taught' me from their books, as did the countless anonymous internet posters in #java, #c, and as of late, #scala.<p>The feedback I received from friends who reviewed side projects or the JBoss guys reviewing my patches was invaluable.<p>It may be fair to say I created my own computer science curriculum, or that I wasn't formally taught, but I'm quite hesitant to take on the label of 'self taught'. Unless someone grew up in a cave without the internet and emerged a programming wizard, I'd caution others too.

Last week I took Philip Greenspun's intense relational database systems class at MIT. I had built some modest database-backed applications before, but I had only learned the minimum that I needed in order to make my applications work. Being forced by the structure of the class to read and do exercises that I evidently was not interested in on my own provided the framework for me to learn much more than I ever had on my own.<p>But what material did we cover? Pretty much <a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/sql/" rel="nofollow">http://philip.greenspun.com/sql/</a> with some additional topics. I had seen that online book before. Why had I never made myself study the entire thing? Why had I never gone through all of the examples on my own? I don't know. I guess I didn't see the value in it. Now I do.

I've a secret for you: in programming there are only people that taught programming to themselves, because there is no other way to do it. I guess that this is true for many other things as well.<p>p.s. for the same reason many people have a CS degree and can't code.

There's a hell of a lot of wisdom in the collected software development body of knowledge. It's a shame that a lot of that knowledge seems to have been wiped from recent working memory.<p>I'm a little bit sensitive to this. This morning I received a 55 page 'requirements document' from my management-appointed senior software engineer (whose background is in forestry). It amounted to little more than a very complex relational database schema and some algorithmic pseudo code. I then spent 4 hours via phone and email trying desperately to explain why those weren't requirements. His forceful rebuff: his approach had worked in the past, so it should work again. I didn't blame him - he just didn't know what he didn't know.<p>I've worked with some damn good programmers who had little knowledge of computer science or software engineering. They've been awesome at cranking out some (even clean) code, and they're some of the smartest people I've ever met. But, software is hard, the breadth of knowledge is vast, and just being a good programmer doesn't cut it.

You really have no choice but to be somewhat autodidactic if you develop on the web, but I like to make that point that Tiger Woods has a coach. Michael Jordan had a coach. Coaching is important, because learning happens best with constant feedback.<p>Just read Moonwalking With Einstein, which touches on this.<p>Seems like this guy Dr. Ericsson in Florida is the go-to expert on mastery in general.<p>As working programmers I do think it's easily in our interest to spend time learning how to acquire new skills as well as we can.<p>Moonwalking With Einstein: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/159420229X" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Rememberi...</a><p>Dr. Ericsson: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Anders_Ericsson" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Anders_Ericsson</a>

During my "learning" life I have been in both sides; in different fields but definitely in both sides. While I have learn most of my knowledge in the university (2 undergrads, 2 masters and finishing a phd) there have been other topics besides CS, mechanical engineering, statistics,... that were interesting to me. Sports and nutrition being the most important, and I have never had any mentor or taking any course on them.<p>In the University the education has to be focused on teaching what is needed, not what an individual wants to learn. I did not like databases, but I took 2 db courses. I did not like compilers but I took 1 course just focused on this topic. And both topics are useful, and somebody working on CS need to know its basics. This cannot (and should not) be decided by an individual sorely based on his interest or needs. A basic layer of knowledge is decided by experts on the field that consider that ANY xxxx (put here whatever career you want) must have.<p>What I felt in the fields I am an autodidact is basically a huge lack of basic knowledge. How am I supposed to decide whether the book A is better than the book B for the topic I am trying to learn? Do I need to know something before getting into this other topic? How I decide the path I need to follow to reach a certain knowledge? Those questions are (almost) always solved with somebody guiding you through the process of learning.<p>There is something that has always shocked me: is that most autodidacts cannot accept that their education might be partial and the lack of base (generalizing here) might affect their adaptation for new projects or their speed on learning new techniques.<p>Following the structure of a university in careers like CS or engineering should be a must, and new methods of education are stepping on the learning process by helping autodidacts to be directed into a clear path of what-is-needed.

The major benefit of a "formal" education (or in learning from someone with lots of experience) is that they have a better feel for the overall territory than a novice. They can help guide you towards the direction you need to go.<p>Learning by yourself should obviously be encouraged, but it's often difficult to know what thing to learn about next in order to ensure that the new knowledge integrates well with what you already know and (pragmatically) helps you solve the problem at hand.<p>To give a specific example, I'm lucky enough to sit next to our chief infrastructure engineer at work and he has helped me learn a huge amount about Linux over the past three years. He hasn't done this by giving me "formal" instruction, but instead he's pointed me in the right direction when I get stuck with something.

The word "autodidact" hides a lot of complexity behind it that makes it difficult to make any coherent argument for or against it.<p>For one thing, a teacher cannot shove anything down your throat. It is <i>always</i> the student who learns and in that sense, everyone is an "autodidact". This is not to belittle a teacher who's role in directing a student, keeping her on her toes, challenging, questioning, probing, explaining, etc. which are all valuable. The thing is, a formal teacher is not the only source of those things. Our parents and peers do those things too.<p>You learn, you get good at something ... anything. In today's world, feedback from the community on what you need to get good at and whether you're getting good at it seems adequate to the point that if you know how to make use of that, you can learn stuff efficiently and effectively. You might say more of us are becoming "allodidacts".<p>The third point is teachers also continuously learn. Peer learning is how scientific progress happens, for instance. So if you do continuous learning at all, you're likely to do it for a much longer fraction of your life than the period that you're "taught".

I don't agree with this:<p>Reality directs your learning.<p>With or without a mentor you are still being forced to work in a particular direction. Do you read a book for your own benefit or for your employers or for both? Who appraises you? Are your colleagues impressed by what you've learnt?<p>Unless you live on a desert island you probably have constant feedback.

I'm an autodidact.<p>Isn't it part of being self-taught to find mentors - in books, online, and if you're lucky, in person?

As far as knowing what my goals are, there is nobody better than myself as a teacher. Mentoring or other 1:1 discussions where a real teacher could help with career guidance, philosophy, et cetera. I also go online and talk with people there, or I could leave the house if I so choose.<p>As far as selecting the best teaching material, I win. I can pick any used copy of any books that I feel are necessary, and they are cheap. Textbooks with exercises are a must. If I was shut off from the rest of the world, the sheer volume of college textbooks I physically have a copy of would keep me busy for years.<p>You don't learn from the teaching, you learn by doing. If you teach yourself and you never use what you have learned, done 5-10 of the medium to hard problems, and then tried to put together what you have learned, you will fail.<p>In the end, we agree. You should NOT be the sole teacher, unless you plan on just living and working for yourself. Perspective is a hard thing to get from yourself.

I don't necessarily disagree with the author, but almost inevitably you cannot be an autodidact. If you consult a book or the internet for information, you are learning from someone else (just not necessarily audibly or directly). The real question is, are you somehow at a disadvantage if you avoid academia? Is it better to be practiced in real-world scenarios and real failures then to learn theory? Personally I think a little of both is good, but you do not necessarily need to be "taught" in the traditional sense we think of teaching.

<i>But no matter what you think about formal education, it has one thing going for it: The separation of teacher and student.</i><p>It's more than just a separation, it's an inherent power-asymmetry.