As someone who attended ITT Tech for software I would strongly recommend going for a traditional BS in Comp Sci or something similar. Initially once I landed a job I was okay, but as I have advanced in my career I have more and more moments when I really miss a fundamental understanding of various computer science topics. Whether that is a better grasp of algorithms and how to judge performance of various designs or database theory and its implications for complex data driven systems - I find myself wishing I had taken the "hard road" instead of going for the quick degree.
There have been a number of times I have sat staring at my monitor thinking that I just don't know enough to solve the problem at hand. That instead of spending days on the issue for someone better educated it would take hours.
As someone who attended ITT Tech I feel that their recruitment practices were at least somewhat predatory. The same sort of practice whereby used care salesmen will tell you what you need to pay per month without ever making it clear what the total cost is. All the while of course they knew that most of the money would come from federal student loans. These happen to be loans that the students can never escape. Buyer beware for sure.
> The same sort of practice whereby used care salesmen will tell you what you need to pay per month without ever making it clear what the total cost is.
The instructor of my accounting class was a former used car salesman. He said that his customers didn't want to hear about total cost, they were only interested in the monthly payment. He'd try to explain, and they'd cut him off and go for whatever had the lowest monthly payment.
they'd cut him off and go for whatever had the lowest monthly payment
What if this were a rational decision? For a person with low disposable income and no savings choosing the lowest monthly payment is the most rational decision.
Well, it seems like the most rational decision. Whether or not it is, I guess, depends very much on the persons situation.
For example, if you need to buy a car now (eg because you rely on it for work or something and can't wait to buy), then sure, it might very well be. On the other hand, if that's not true, then saving the monthly payment until you can buy it outright is much more rational (and cheaper). I understand that many people can't do that, however.
I neglected to mention a key point. When he'd show them a plan with a much lower total cost, but a higher monthly payment, they'd accuse him of trying to trick them into a higher payment. No way were they going to fall for that one.
They certainly believed they were making the most rational decision. It didn't help that used car salesmen don't have a reputation for honest dealings.
I went to ITT Tech and had mixed experiences in different classes. All in all it would have been cheaper and much better for me to have attended the state university and gotten a BS rather than the two years at ITT for an associates degree.
In terms of the classes, I had some taught by really great instructors, local professionals who were great about teaching skills that companies would actually care about. I also had some totally worthless instructors. In one instance I ended up standing up in front of the class and teaching everyone - instructor included - what polymorphism is.
How do you tell the difference? You interview with them and find out what they are willing to offer - the whole package including getting an idea of the human side.
There are many, many different roles in any large company. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I think the key is recognizing what people the company truly values. In some companies it's the software folks, in others it's sales, and in others it may even be front line support. If you are outside the in group, then it may still be a good company to work for as long as you a) recognize you are but a cog in the machine, and b) can be happy doing your non-glamorous work and going home to your (hopefully happy) life. Just make sure you are a well compensated cog.
By depression, I assume you mean sadness? Existential angst? Because if someone found smiling could curtail depression I'm sure they'd win the Nobel prize.
I thing it's evident that smiling can make a ratty external situation more humorous, but for internal darkness it's like bottling things up, which I'm surprised psychologists might have thought to be a good idea.
Yep. In my experience, external factors such as smiling, laughing, joking and being active are completely disconnected from and have no bearing on someones internal emotional state when depressed.
That is, in my personal experience and in my experience knowing others who have suffered from depression, you can feel completely down and hopeless and emotionally distraught without this being visible to those around you, who simply see you being active, acting happy, smiling, joking and so on. These things do not mean that you aren't depressed. The thing that makes depression what it is, is the feeling of hopelessness and/or emptiness even when these other things are present and even when there's seemingly no reason for it.
Many depressed people get very good at bottling up and hiding their emotions.
> if someone found smiling could curtail depression I'm sure they'd win the Nobel prize.
You're reading way too far into that. If something brings you from -100 to -95 it's notable but not world-changing. yamike didn't say anything about actually fixing the depression, just adding a slight bit of happiness.
> I think it's evident
Are you basing that on anything? There's a reason we're actually doing this study and not just reasoning out the answer.
You don't think it's evident people smile to make others feel more comfortable? (Sounds like a question in an Autism checklist)
And on the other side of the coin: You don't find it rather ironic that you discount experiential self-reporting in this thread, yet psychology relies on it so heavily?
>You don't think it's evident people smile to make others feel more comfortable? (Sounds like a question in an Autism checklist)
That is not what the post I replied to said, and I especially want a citation for the "bottling things up" portion.
>You don't find it rather ironic that you discount experiential self-reporting in this thread, yet psychology relies on it so heavily?
I don't see any irony once we remove the oversimplifications. It's a terrible data source so we need a whole lot of data points and careful collection to get anything meaningful. We can still use it, but we very much need to discount single anecdotes and going by what's 'evident' without checking.
Bottling things up, with regards to depression -- pretending to be what you are not -- is exhausting. If you don't have depression exhaustion can be overcome. A big part of depression is the inability to recover from stress, therefore pretending to smile, over time, would be obviously detrimental to depression. I know this from experience.
The studies on depression and stress are many and numerous, although they are neuroscientific in nature (actual science).
No offence dude, but the field of psychology is to neuroscience as alchemy is to chemistry and physics. Welcome to the twenty-first century.
PS: Psychology has done a pretty good job of getting depression wrong at every possible turn. And people like me have been the butt of their half-baked ideas since the beginning. gives psychology the middle finger
There have been a number of times I have sat staring at my monitor thinking that I just don't know enough to solve the problem at hand. That instead of spending days on the issue for someone better educated it would take hours.