>doesn't it make more sense for software companies to prefer self-taught applicants over university grads?

I don't like the question. It's too open, what role are the "software companies" selecting a candidate for? What skills did the self taught applicant teach themselves? Which university course and how successful, what industry experience if any comes with it?

Generally I'd say a good degree shows rigorous study, flexibility a certain amount of persistence.

University graduates are often self-taught in many aspects - a degree however comes with a transcript given a brief overview of what the applicant should know and the level of their ability. To get this from a completely self-taught applicant without formal qualifications you'd need to test them thoroughly; why do this when you can choose from pre-tested stock.

As a complete outsider, the relationship between computer science and most software to me looks like that between physics and mechanical engineering.

I'm nowhere near being an IT employer, or computer scientist I just like sticking my oar in.

What a dumb question -- what makes the two mutually exclusive? I've been programming since I was 9. Here's the paper from the research I worked on my freshman year, which wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't gone to college.

http://v3vee.org/papers/ipdps10.pdf

While I agree with you, "what a dumb question" doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

In my opinion, getting your degree and teaching yourself or launching a product show two different types of initiative. If you've done both, you should get double points.

My comment about it being a dumb question certainly contributes to the discussion: it says that I think the question is intellectually bankrupt prima facie and that I don't think questions like it should be submitted in the future. I have a standard for intellectual discussion on Hacker News and this question doesn't meet it.

There may be a legitimate question hidden behind the non sequitur but if so one should ask that question, not require people to do some linguistic gymnastics to find the real question.

I agree with you, but the pretentious tone of your comment distracts from your point.

Sorry, I'm just attempting to beat Reddit away from HN with as big a stick as possible.

They are not mutually exclusive, but it's a matter of degree. Someone who is exclusively self-taught has the potential to demonstrate more initiative.

It only shows that the person is good at doing things that they find interesting. I am a largely self taught man but I have learned a lot of things in school that I am grateful for learning but probably wouldn't have spent a lot of time learning on my own. Probability & Statistics and DSP are two that come to mind off the top of my head. I probably would have done them to a cursory understanding and not spent the countless hours in class and studying that it takes to get a deeper level of knowledge. That is not to say that I wouldn't have been learning though; it just would have been in a different area.

Learning subjects and doing well in school shows a potential employer that you are indeed capable succeeding in doing things that do not interest you. This is a skill that is important to employers.

Went to College. Was very frustrated with how little I learned in the areas I was interested.

However I learned a lot in many areas that I wasn't (at the time) interested in.

I went to uni, and got a decent Computer Studies BSc degree. It never stood me one damned bit of good, because before, during and after my studies, companies are still holding to the mantra "We need two years' experience in [name the technology]." I have seen employers asking blithely for "two years' experience" in technologies invented six months ago, so "experience" is not the issue.

I have come to the conclusion that, like desperate people in their forties still holding out for their One True Love and still staying single, employers are looking for someone who will come on like Neo from The Matrix, yet look, speak, think and get paid like Wally from the Dilbert strip.

I think the degree puts the "hard working, white collar, self-made man, bucked my own goat, got myself to where I am from nothing, Essex barrow boy, yadda yadda" interviewers off their stride. Some misplaced sense of snobbery, perhaps. I have seen them snap at me, yet treat a candidate with only a minor diploma with kid gloves.

And as for what I've done with myself since I got my degree ... applied for, literally, more than a thousand jobs, attended countless business breakfasts, attended VIP private viewings of art exhibits, appeared in front of and behind a TV camera, done a stint on a radio show as a presenter, given classes, studied languages, mathematics, poetry and art, seen my writings published in a number of different places, and taught my nephew stick fighting for his drama class.

Plus, I had the time somewhere to fit in some coding.

Unemployable? Lacking in initiative? Hardly.

Then go to a uni with a required co-op or intern program

If you're interested in running a successful company you'll prefer whoever is most competent (technically, socially, etc.), regardless of where they're coming from.

If someone you think is a 'know nothing' gets hired instead of someone you view as technically skilled, you've learned something about that company. Maybe you don't actually want to work there.

College isn't a magical pill, what you get out of it is proportionate to what you put into it. If you're motivated enough to teach yourself to program, you're probably motivated enough to learn a lot in college as well.

Being self taught and being college educated are not mutually exclusive.

As someone who doesn't have a single credit hour of college and currently works at a university as lead developer on a NASA space mission, I will say without hesitation that I would recommend getting a degree. I would hire anyone who was right for the job, but a good education gives some breadth that is very hard to acquire through self study.

Some universities offer a different degree program where you learn some EE & chip design along with software. When these programs are done well they are great.

I'm currently attending college and it is frustrating to watch grad students who know nothing get hired over some one who is technically skilled. It's baffling to say the least.

I learned a ton in school and have applied concepts and took ideas and expanded upon them. Now I'm not just hacking away at a piece of ice, now I understand everything I'm doing and why one way is faster than another

No, self-taught is fine for trivial tasks but for good solutions it take a well balnced education. Example: I've yet to interview a self taught programmer/analyst that had a grasp of space/time complexity.

(first year electrical engineering student here) Could you explain what you mean by space/time complexity? Is this just Big-O notation and the associated ideas regarding complexity, or is it more than this?

No.

Initiative is orthogonal to academia?

why would software companies cut themselves off from the supply? that's just bad business.