https://iamexec.com/meet_our_execs
the company may not care about credentials for hiring, but for marketing purposes at least they are creating the illusion that their menial helpers are in fact credentialed.
further off topic - it's a little depressing to me to see the "high tech" cradle of silicon valley creating a service to organize menial labor. wow, house cleaning online is sexy? i must be dreaming, is it 1999 again?
Regarding listing one of our Exec's degrees: credentialing clearly matters to people outside the company (customers), and there's little we can do to immediately change that. When we talk about credentialing not mattering for hiring, it's for core team employees (people who build the product), for which there are generally other metrics we can evaluate on.
i think robots picking artichokes would be cool in terms of both high tech and reducing the dependency on exploitative labor conditions. but moving robots and object recognition are tough problems, and when there's other "low hanging fruit" (excuse the pun) to be found in other startups the technically difficult stuff can get pushed off.
exec may also have longer life as a viable business than facebook. it fills a need that won't go away, whereas facebook has a major risk of having the fad end, or alienating users through ever-increasing invasion into people's personal data driven by the need to justify a ridiculous valuation.
only risk i see to exec is what happens to your quality labor pool if the job market tightened, but that doesn't seem like a big risk for a while. with 8+ million people dropping out of the labor force over the last four years, there's a lot of slack to pick up.
i agree that credentials are not necessarily indicative of on-the-job effectiveness. alternative and cheaper ways to hire people, like using programming tests (we use them at my company), are tricky and can risk running into discrimination lawsuits if they are not directly job related, esp at bigger companies. however, for some reason using tests to filter people out is considered OK if it is done through a university, and then employers hire on the back end, which leads me to think that it is partly employer laziness and partly fear of liability that keeps the credentialing system intact.
Generally, the hard problems with robotics are related to sensing. Stuff like inverse kinematics and gripper movement are mostly handled in ROS if you can build a model.
Recognising the artichokes is not that hard as you might think given OpenCV as a primitive, and if you could get a near-field sensor using structured light it would actually be easy. This is not possible right now but will be in the next few years (unsubstantiated prediction).
Anyway, what I am saying is that you would be surprised how fast the boundaries change between "hard" and "easy". The things people are doing now with a $200 irobot create and a $100 kinect are blowing my mind.
I do agree that house cleaning online isn't very glamorous, but if it helps people and makes money, it doesn't need to be.
Everyone seems to have a certain implicit sense that, sure enough, a CS education isn't crucial to work in certain sub-sets of software development. Likewise, it's well understood that such a foundation is necessary in others.
> For example, if you're doing anything with machine learning, you might want people who understand statistics. Oh, and if you're designing aircraft, you might want someone who's studied aeronautical engineering
Exec, of course, is neither doing cutting edge work in machine learning nor designing aircraft. Neither, if we are honest, are most startups or software companies hiring developers (including those who emphasize & prefer pedigree).
The question being posed (continuously) is :
To what degree is being self-taught (or, non-university taught) a hindrance in positions that do not explicitly call for it? If it's not a major hindrance, then is limiting the hiring pool in fact irrational?
I do not see this being answered adequately and directly. More often than not, we default to pointing out edge cases where a university education in CS/robotics/engineering/bio-engineering/what have you is necessary to perform the basic job functions. This isn't particularly productive.
Data should resolve discussions, not corner cases or anecdotes. Is there anything actionable or quantifiable that we can work with, or will this discussion inevitably lead down the path of opinion?