No one is going to hire you because you have a degree, whether from a university or from Udacity. They'll hire you because:
A) your overall resume is impressive
B) you either have a portfolio of things you've built, or else you agree to do a take home assignment and successfully complete it
C) you can pass both technical and non-technical interviews
To get hired you need A && B && C. Doing Udacity will probably help with each of those things, but no one is ever going to hire you because of an academic credential alone.
15 years ago I went to MIT for a 1.5-month internship, while still in my high school. Companies still ask about that.
As much as I would like it to be otherwise, signaling (namedropping of famous universities, companies, and people) works a lot. I guess mostly because people prefer to delegate decision making. The backside of that is that unless you finished (or dropped out) from a well-respected univ., you have an uphill battle of proving one's worth.
In a lot of companies you will NOT get hired without degree. It's pretty much the barrier to entry before you can show your skills or experience . Not sure if Udacity degrees count for this.
I don't think it's quite that simple. For example there are many companies out there who will filter out resumes without particular degrees or degrees from less prestigious universities. But maybe that is subsumed by your A)
It's really about how much you can convince the employer. I got my first job only because my late father (who was the boss's business partner) recommended me. The degree was enough to convince him I was technically capable, even though I flunked the technical interview (which was all PHP). No resume was needed.
I'd say to get hired, you just need to convince the employer of your personality, current skill, and potential.
In a lot of industries, the main factor is your network, and you just need A, B, and C to be adequate to check the boxes.
If that's the case, and someone's trying to hire you because someone they trust thinks you can get the job done, the question is whether or not a nanodegree can allow your interviewer to check a box for "has training in X" that will make the difference in sliding your resume past HR's desk.
When I come across an applicant with a nanodegree, it almost sends a negative signal. If anything, do the course, leave it off your resume, and if you get an interview, you might impress your interviewer with all this unexpected technical knowledge.
I, on the other hand, treat it as a positive signal, albeit a weak one. But at the end of the day, for me at least, a hiring decision is never about any one feature on a resume... you have to look at the whole thing holistically and try to get a complete picture of the candidate.
Somebody with just a nano-degree maybe doesn't impress so much. Somebody with a couple of interesting open source projects, a nano-degree, and some other miscellaneous education may well impress me depending on the details.
But really, it (should) all come down to the ability to demonstrate competence in your claimed skills, regardless of where/how you acquired the skills you claim.
I'm surprised that it sends an negative signal. Is there a reasoning for it? Does completing an online course signify unwanted behavior/personality? I feel like if you leave it off your resume, you probably wouldn't be able to land the interview to begin with.
> I feel like if you leave it off your resume, you probably wouldn't be able to land the interview to begin with.
The nanodegree is step zero in teaching yourself to program and definitely isn't necessary. Demonstrating what you can do is several orders of magnitude more important, and is the real end goal. Most competent self-taught programmers understand this, and understand how trivial a nanodegree actually is as a signal of being able to build good software as part of a team. I typically invite about half of self-taught people with a coding portfolio for an interview, mainly because about half have one that demonstrates the kind of back-end work we do. I invite literally everyone who has launched a product, no matter how small or in what domain, for an interview. I have never invited someone to interview on the basis of a nano-degree. Granted, every application I see is filtered through the sausage grinder of HR, so that's maybe a consideration.
I’ve done online courses myself and found them immensely useful.
Unfortunately, I think that to some extent, it signals that “I’m interested, but not committed enough to get a full degree.”
Your nanodegree realistically will never come close to competing with a formal CS degree. So don’t bother with listing it. List your github projects and apps you’ve released. Get the interview. “Oh and by the way, in my spare time, I’ve self-studied XYZ.”
The nanodegree will never be the deciding factor when I consider granting an interview. At best it's a minor positive signal, but I'd certainly never consider it a negative signal. I know people who do and I think they're gatekeeping.
If the mention of the nanodegree fits into a broader narrative corroborated by other parts of the resume that this person is a self-learner, then I consider it favorably. I think the way I would describe it is that the nanodegree says this person "tried," but I need to see separate evidence that this person internalized the material.
It's sort of like having MS Word or Git on your resume. It's a signal that you've run out of impressive things.
I do believe you can learn more from nanodegrees than a generic full degree. But nanodegrees are also quite easy to get through. Nobody checks your stuff, and there's much less protection against plagiarism. As a learning tool, it's great. As a certification, it's very poor.
How do you compare it to someone completely self taught with similar experience? At least with someone that completed a course you know the minimum extent of their knowledge and understanding.
I think in both cases you'll need to discuss the details of the projects you've done, whether in the ND or on your own. Without getting your hands dirty, any degree is just a piece of paper. Its the work you've done that proves you have real skills, and you're not just a trained chimp.
I think the negative signal is that they think it's worth mentioning. It's like if you go on a date with someone and say "you know, I have to tell you, I've kissed someone before." They're probably going to be concerned that this is notable information.
They're likely viewing them as similar to certifications. Different industries treat certifications differently.
Enterprise technologies like Java and .NET and IBM products are helpful if you are aiming for that sort of job.
But, if you are looking at more open-source oriented shop, they give the impression that you are focusing on trying to look accomplished. It can look like you are trying to appeal to the wrong crowd, which means your priorities don't align with what they are looking for.
I'm software engineer without a degree, i've done ML nanodegree recently. I don't plan to shift my career to ML and did it only to gain high level understanding. I didn't have to put a lot of effort to complete. I wouldn't consider myself hireable for ML role but i've seen that other people treating nd courses much more seriously than myself putting a lot of effort and producing great projects.
In the end is about the skills you have and a way to present them. I think udacity courses do teach relevant stuff but it's up to you to put the effort in
Ultimately people will hire you if they can understand the value you’ll bring to their org. I.e, the dollars you will help them earn, or the impact your efforts will have on a goal that’s primary to them. Education is one signal out of many.
That means that if you can get in front of the hiring manager, your resume is going to be less important than the impression you make on that person, and how compelling a case you can make about the value you’ll generate.
There are gate keepers out there who will discard perfectly good candidates because their resume doesn’t exactly match the job description; focus your energy on discovering ways to skip over those people and get in front of the decision makers — and then be prepared to articulate and demonstrate the value you’ll bring.
I don't have anything specific to nanodegrees or specific online courses, but its a lot easier if you know specifically what job/industry you're targeting.
In my experience a Master's/Bachelor's/PhD might get you into the interview room because of your resume or recruiters coming to campus, but in my experience I've been disappointed about the knowledge gaps in recent graduates from well-known schools. I've also interviewed Masters/PhDs who studied my field, but were interviewing for user-facing support roles when they're clearly better suited for something more focused on r&d. Or they've focused so much on a specific subset, they're lacking the general knowledge needed for that job. IMHO, degrees don't guarantee anything for me. At most, they're a jumping off point for how your interests and background apply to that job.
More important than the degree are the projects you've worked on, your role in them, and challenges you've overcome. You could take the nanodegree and omit it from your resume, but put the projects on there as personal projects. Just don't misrepresent your work. It can be a surprisingly small industry. Someone might recognize a project as something they saw online, or know someone who worked on it.
I think there is a big difference between an academic course that anyone can take (assuming you can pay or it's free!) and a university course that you need to compete with other students to get a place - employers may like that as indirectly the course has done some pre-screening of candidates for them
Readit News
A) your overall resume is impressive
B) you either have a portfolio of things you've built, or else you agree to do a take home assignment and successfully complete it
C) you can pass both technical and non-technical interviews
To get hired you need A && B && C. Doing Udacity will probably help with each of those things, but no one is ever going to hire you because of an academic credential alone.
As much as I would like it to be otherwise, signaling (namedropping of famous universities, companies, and people) works a lot. I guess mostly because people prefer to delegate decision making. The backside of that is that unless you finished (or dropped out) from a well-respected univ., you have an uphill battle of proving one's worth.
You definitely don't need all A && B && C.
Sometimes being like-able and knowing someone is enough.
I'd say to get hired, you just need to convince the employer of your personality, current skill, and potential.
If that's the case, and someone's trying to hire you because someone they trust thinks you can get the job done, the question is whether or not a nanodegree can allow your interviewer to check a box for "has training in X" that will make the difference in sliding your resume past HR's desk.
Somebody with just a nano-degree maybe doesn't impress so much. Somebody with a couple of interesting open source projects, a nano-degree, and some other miscellaneous education may well impress me depending on the details.
But really, it (should) all come down to the ability to demonstrate competence in your claimed skills, regardless of where/how you acquired the skills you claim.
The nanodegree is step zero in teaching yourself to program and definitely isn't necessary. Demonstrating what you can do is several orders of magnitude more important, and is the real end goal. Most competent self-taught programmers understand this, and understand how trivial a nanodegree actually is as a signal of being able to build good software as part of a team. I typically invite about half of self-taught people with a coding portfolio for an interview, mainly because about half have one that demonstrates the kind of back-end work we do. I invite literally everyone who has launched a product, no matter how small or in what domain, for an interview. I have never invited someone to interview on the basis of a nano-degree. Granted, every application I see is filtered through the sausage grinder of HR, so that's maybe a consideration.
Unfortunately, I think that to some extent, it signals that “I’m interested, but not committed enough to get a full degree.”
Your nanodegree realistically will never come close to competing with a formal CS degree. So don’t bother with listing it. List your github projects and apps you’ve released. Get the interview. “Oh and by the way, in my spare time, I’ve self-studied XYZ.”
That’ll impress me.
If the mention of the nanodegree fits into a broader narrative corroborated by other parts of the resume that this person is a self-learner, then I consider it favorably. I think the way I would describe it is that the nanodegree says this person "tried," but I need to see separate evidence that this person internalized the material.
I do believe you can learn more from nanodegrees than a generic full degree. But nanodegrees are also quite easy to get through. Nobody checks your stuff, and there's much less protection against plagiarism. As a learning tool, it's great. As a certification, it's very poor.
Could you expand on that? Is there some common feature of people who have completed nanodegree courses?
They're likely viewing them as similar to certifications. Different industries treat certifications differently.
Enterprise technologies like Java and .NET and IBM products are helpful if you are aiming for that sort of job.
But, if you are looking at more open-source oriented shop, they give the impression that you are focusing on trying to look accomplished. It can look like you are trying to appeal to the wrong crowd, which means your priorities don't align with what they are looking for.
I'm software engineer without a degree, i've done ML nanodegree recently. I don't plan to shift my career to ML and did it only to gain high level understanding. I didn't have to put a lot of effort to complete. I wouldn't consider myself hireable for ML role but i've seen that other people treating nd courses much more seriously than myself putting a lot of effort and producing great projects.
In the end is about the skills you have and a way to present them. I think udacity courses do teach relevant stuff but it's up to you to put the effort in
It was impossible for me to get a job with those (basic) skills. A lot more is needed.
I have been on the other side also as a hiring manager. I would never screen (let alone hire) anyone just on the basis of the nanodegree
That means that if you can get in front of the hiring manager, your resume is going to be less important than the impression you make on that person, and how compelling a case you can make about the value you’ll generate.
There are gate keepers out there who will discard perfectly good candidates because their resume doesn’t exactly match the job description; focus your energy on discovering ways to skip over those people and get in front of the decision makers — and then be prepared to articulate and demonstrate the value you’ll bring.
In my experience a Master's/Bachelor's/PhD might get you into the interview room because of your resume or recruiters coming to campus, but in my experience I've been disappointed about the knowledge gaps in recent graduates from well-known schools. I've also interviewed Masters/PhDs who studied my field, but were interviewing for user-facing support roles when they're clearly better suited for something more focused on r&d. Or they've focused so much on a specific subset, they're lacking the general knowledge needed for that job. IMHO, degrees don't guarantee anything for me. At most, they're a jumping off point for how your interests and background apply to that job.
More important than the degree are the projects you've worked on, your role in them, and challenges you've overcome. You could take the nanodegree and omit it from your resume, but put the projects on there as personal projects. Just don't misrepresent your work. It can be a surprisingly small industry. Someone might recognize a project as something they saw online, or know someone who worked on it.