upvote
That's funny, one of the best programmers I've ever know had a physics degree

I think those type of people just have really good analytical thinking

reply
> Many of the best co-workers that I remember had physics degrees. In fact, it was so pronounced I personally consider a physics degree to be a top tier signal of programming ability, but that's my own personal prejudice.

Hah, I also noticed that. For some reason, ex-army programmers really excel in their junior years (or sometimes even just months), too. Do you think it's the attitude towards problem-solving?

reply
I really don't know. This is spitballing, but I think maybe physicists are clever analysts while CS people are prone to "clever" implementations.

I remember thinking "oh, you understand, like actually understand" to them in particular, so maybe it's that they spend more time understanding before doing.

reply
"ex-army programmers really excel in their junior years"

My feeling is that they're just built different, military, especially in US will either teach you or make you disciplined (not something I'd say about my country, you'll learn how to get hazed and drink). If you have a task, well, you better solve it quick, no distractions.

reply
> I personally consider a physics degree to be a top tier signal of programming ability

Some CS programs have moved away from heavy maths requirements over the last 2 decades, outside a few maths-heavy specific CS courses.

Physics degrees still mean you have very decent maths, but CS degrees are not necessarily as strong a signifier of it.

I suspect that is the difference, particularly if you are actually working on tricky programming tasks.

reply
> Many of the best co-workers that I remember had physics degrees. In fact, it was so pronounced I personally consider a physics degree to be a top tier signal of programming ability, but that's my own personal prejudice.

You're basically just using it as a proxy for general intelligence, the _average_ physics major's IQ is around 130.

reply
I don't know about that. I feel like if big tech moved away from IQ test like questions like the MS/FB of old then there was a reason.
reply
And that reason was legal precedent: it's illegal to administer an IQ test as a condition of employment. So they administer a disguised IQ test in the form of Leetcode questions instead.
reply
Huh? They used to ask brain teaser like questions, not anything that I would consider to actually be an IQ test or really even all that close to one in a legal way.
reply
deleted
reply
Yep. IMO that's the way ANY degree is looked at (aside from Medical, Law, etc.. you know the drill).

You want a lower level administrative job? You better have a degree so we know that you're not stupid. Now you get to pay off your loans with 20 bucks an hour.

reply
As below, Physics and Maths degrees tend to have high entry requirements, large amounts of hands on (classroom or labs) hours, lots of highly focussed students. I observed this while studying Electronic Engineering, which I would say is similar but more practical and with lower entrance requirements. I'm not sure where computer science would fit into this as it's a newer discipline with less stringent core requirements. Other IT courses may be less rigorous and include people that are less focussed on their education relatively.

As above I would say that the physics students I know are often the ones going furthest in their careers either in research, computing (know a few at google), consulting e.g. PWC etc

reply
Physics degrees are the low-key blanket STEM degree.

You can find people with physics degrees working in pretty much any technical field.

reply
> Many of the best co-workers that I remember had physics degrees. In fact, it was so pronounced I personally consider a physics degree to be a top tier signal of programming ability, but that's my own personal prejudice.

In my experience those with math degrees too. Maybe the structured methods of analysis and problem solving.

reply
In my experience, math majors can do some pretty incredible acrobatics (in a good way), but their documentation, systemic performance awareness, and overall design sense often lag behind. These are things they usually pick up outside of the degree, and they have to break some bad habits learned during it (e.g., single-character-variable soup).

I agree with a sibling comment that physicists often seem to make the best coders, for some reason.

My hypothesis: it's because physicists are rigorously trained to model real-world systems directly. What would be considered an "advanced" modeling problem to most would be an intro problem to a physics student.

Math is absolutely related, but I think the secret ingredient is "mathematical maturity" — the ability to fluidly jump between layers of abstraction. Mathematicians are good at this too, but physicists go a step further: they are trained to ground their abstractions in concrete physical phenomena.

Mathematicians ground systems in axioms, sure. But physicists have to tether models back to reality — to processes and measurements — which turns out to be exactly the skill set that makes for good programmers and system designers.

Huge generalization, obviously.

But personally, I've noticed my own programming ability increases the more physics I learn. Physics gives you a systematic framework to reason about complexity — and physicists get the luxury of a "relatively simple" universe compared to fields like chemistry or biology. They're working with rich systems described by just a few tightly-coupled parameters. And the kicker: a lot of those systems are 100% repeatable, every time.

That kind of structure — and the habit of respecting it — is priceless for engineering.

reply
> Many of the best co-workers that I remember had physics degrees. In fact, it was so pronounced I personally consider a physics degree to be a top tier signal of programming ability, but that's my own personal prejudice.

I’ve also found this to be true. And math degrees.

reply
I understand the concept of "liberal education". Perhaps if I lived in a country that values having an educated populous, I would go that route. The truth of the matter is that I am a 41 year old adult in the USA. It's not in the cards for me.
reply
> but I can say that people I interviewed with degrees generally did better

I can also confirm that.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that people with a formal degree are on average better prepared to interviews.

But sadly, it has absolutely no correlation with work performance. Zero, none.

In fact, I can say that the overwhelming majority of non graduates did far better on the job: more motivated, stays longer, hungrier to learn and prove themselves.

reply