It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by maxander on Saturday May 16, 2015 @12:17PM (#9556625)

Next time you're wondering why more kids don't go into STEM in this age of wondrous scientific and technological progress; virtually any bright 10 year old knows the story of how and why Archimedes leapt out of his bathtub shouting "Eureka!", but none of them would have the foggiest notion of what a real scientist does at work on a day-to-day basis. Neither would their parents, unless they are scientists themselves. Even students halfway through college on course to become such scientists often have only a vague notion of what their careers would actually look like- they just know they like the coursework. Its a leap of faith.

Same goes for most kinds of engineering, and mathematics, and a bunch of other disciplines that are inexplicably underrepresented in children's career aspirations.

(I suppose software engineers are the exception, since the popular notion "they just sit at computers all day typing arcane things" is actually true. : ) )

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by dalke on Saturday May 16, 2015 @12:48PM (#9556738)

What you're saying doesn't really seem specific to the so-called STEM fields.

Do these same 10 year olds know what a movie actor does at work on a day-to-day basis? Or a politician?

Do art students halfway through college have more than a vague notion of what their career will look like? What about English majors? History?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by maxander on Saturday May 16, 2015 @05:24PM (#9557681)

You can get some idea of what its like to be in politics through watching C-SPAN or reading news accounts of high-profile political struggles or watching fictional accounts like the West Wing. The life of actors is often meticulously charted out by the public consciousness just because many people have such tremendous interest in celebrity actors. I'm not saying that its only STEM fields to which this applies, but it certainly doesn't apply to everything.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by modfodder on Saturday May 16, 2015 @06:16PM (#9557852)

You really don't get a good idea about any of those professions through the media. Watching C-SPAN or even the West Wing only gives you a minute glimpse. Same with actors (most of the actors time on set is spent waiting or doing nothing). 90% of a director's job is done before the 1st day the camera's start rolling (and the majority of a director's career is spent emailing or meeting about prospective jobs, not actually on set directing actors).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by dalke on Saturday May 16, 2015 @08:03PM (#9558099)

How many 10 year olds do you think watch the West Wing or C-SPAN?

And you do realize that most politics is local. You need to watch local access cable of town meetings, not C-SPAN, to get an idea of what most politics is like. Bartlet never walked in the local city parade, mingled at the 4th of July town pancake breakfast, nor had to listen to the local kook make a complaint.

Watching West Wing for an idea of how politics works is like watching a documentary on Einstein. Even if completely accurate, it's still a very unusual example.

Similarly, most actors are not celebrity actors. Wil Wheaton's blog, for example, doesn't match what little I've read from the tabloids, and Wheaton is one of the more well known actors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by weinzierl on Saturday May 16, 2015 @01:21PM (#9556866)

    I suppose software engineers are the exception, since 
    the popular notion "they just sit at computers all day 
    typing arcane things" is actually true. : )

I know you are joking, but it has to be said. In my experience most software engineers spend considerable time in (formal or informal) meetings.

According to "Mythical Man Month" the average productivity is 10 lines per developer per day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by SomeCallMeTim on Saturday May 16, 2015 @01:27PM (#9556883)

Yeah, but MMM also mentioned a 10x productivity range between average and exceptional programmers. 100 lines per day isn't too shabby.

I just try to work with exceptional programmers. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by jes5199 on Saturday May 16, 2015 @02:04PM (#9557016)

I try to be LOC neutral. A good day on a healthy team lets me delete at least as much code as I write.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by SomeCallMeTim on Saturday May 16, 2015 @05:51PM (#9557760)

I agree that LOC isn't an ideal metric. But there isn't really an ideal simplistic metric.

Out of curiosity, I thought I'd look at a recent productive day. In actual numbers, my 42 check-ins totaled 409 new lines of code compared with 213 lines deleted, so close to 50% (not counting check-ins with simple line changes).

At the end I had several new features implemented and a lot of code refactored to be cleaner.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by forrestthewoods on Saturday May 16, 2015 @05:37PM (#9557718)

The best days are when you delete more code than you write. If the only thing I did was delete code I'd be soooooo happy!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by maxander on Saturday May 16, 2015 @05:28PM (#9557698)

Well, yes, I'm simplifying things a bit. Although, now I actually think of it, I would be curious to know how average time spent in meetings stacks up for software engineers versus other professions- scientists, architects, accountants, etc etc etc. Certainly something someone might want to consider when plotting out their career path, but I don't believe I've seen anything looking into it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by minot on Saturday May 16, 2015 @01:23PM (#9556870)

I wouldn't mind spending 40 hours a week in these inane meetings if business didn't want me to get stuff done.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by lazyant on Saturday May 16, 2015 @01:54PM (#9556984)

I think that goes for almost all jobs. Do most high schoolers have a good idea what the job of a lawyer or a doctor or a pilot, or a small business owner or a cop or a professor really looks like? I'd say most adults don't have a good idea of what other jobs outside their experience or contact really are day to day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by jotm on Saturday May 16, 2015 @05:20PM (#9557666)

Please, I know half a dozen economics students who have no idea whatsoever as to what job they can possibly get when they graduate...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It Is, in Fact, Rocket Science by Balgair on Saturday May 16, 2015 @02:02PM (#9557014)

I mean, nowadays, if you have an idea of the job you are going into in a STEM field you are usually kidding yourself (exception being sons and daughters whose parents own a business or have another secure job type). Heck, many times the stuff you learned in the 1st year is irrelevant or has changed by the 4th year.

For instance, how many 2 terminal linear circuit components are there? 3 right? Resistor, capacitor, inductor.

Wrong. There is a 4th, the memristor, and those are available today (http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Panasonic/MN101LR05DXW/?...). Now this particular example is not that big, but it speaks to the variety and rate of change in an undergrad course set these days. You have to be able to change, and change a lot. Everything thing you learn has an asterisk next to it. it never really did not, but you have to talk about those things now in class, not just sweep them under the rug.

If you think you know what is going on after university, you are now very naive. I'd say, most of the kids at least know this now, that they are not going to have a career in one company, but many, and in a lot of different fields too. EE will bleed into neuroscience and geology and ME into bioengineering and FDA food stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]