Beyond the poetry of the machine, computer science is also immensely practical. Im not sure about this job but most of the work there is technology driven, hence very practical. There's also tendency to throw in a baseline qualification. It should never stop you from applying and seeking an interview if you feel qualified. You just probably need to follow a different process:-)

What you learn and what you do at work are really not the same. A lot of you know this. This is why startups are so much fun, you almost always get to do something you love. On the other hand, having 'papers' is a way of filtering that is every popular, sometimes it works. It's the system. Its all part of the journey.

I however have to ask that you at some levels learn to separate knowledge from accredition. The interview process in most cases especially for technical jobs tends to focus more on whether you fit in a team and know what you are doing (or can do what you say you can) in that order. Other things come in but being able to actually do the work accounts for more than anything else. Unfortunately that means going through a long process. Its also easy to 'game' the system with papers which as you can imagine can be very frustrating to everyone.

So to answer the question "Why can't the quality of the CS course be improved?" i'll dare say that regardless of its limitations, people who go an extra step to learn about the industry they want to be in tend to get 'jobs'; they work harder to get it since they tend to know what they want. And yes some luck is involved and it is not a fair world.

Gitau

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Phares Kariuki <pkariuki@gmail.com> wrote: