> And in our modern world, universities are still the best place for such apprenticeship

> Universities produce job skills incidentally, if at all. It's simply not their goal [1]. Even today, at the best CS programs in the country, it's possible to get a degree and still not be better than a very junior engineer at a software company (and quite a few graduates are worse). Having been self taught in both software and electrical engineering, I’ve experienced a lot of this. In EE, it’s amazing how many graduates come into the job without ever having used Altium/KiCAD/Cadence for a nontrivial project or who can give you a very precise definition of impedance but don’t know how to break out an engineering calculator to set design rules for impedance controlled differential pairs. Or worse yet, people who can give you all the theory of switching model power supply but can’t read datasheets and select parts in practice.

Yea, I started to learn how to program in my early teens and made a lot of progress just messing around on my own. Then I went to University for a CSE degree and spent 4 years basically doing applied math. Yuck. Finally once I got out of University and into industry, I started learning again practical things like debugging, build systems, unit testing, application development, and so on. My programming skill growth quickly restarted. Looking back, I'd consider my University degree to be essentially a 4 year pause on growing my programming skills.

Thank you for saying this clearly. I love universities. They are so far from supporting apprenticeships. Even phds — they don’t do enough work for the senior professors to count as apprenticeships. Maybe postdocs. But the system is not great—we need guilds.

I studied computer science in a university, not because I wanted to learn programming, but because I wanted to study computer science. I admit that most development tasks don't need the knowledge you get from a CS degree, but some do. But in computer science, it's also totally possible to be self-taught. I've learnt a lot on my own, especially after university. Computer science is good for that because it's generally accessible: you don't need an expensive lab or equipments, you can just practice at home on your laptop.

I'll disagree with your "disagreement" - of course, I went to a relatively unique school: Waterloo computer engineering with co-op in the 90s. 8 study semesters, 6 work semesters. Clearly lets you see what "work" is like, and which parts of your studies seem relevant. Obviously, no one will use 100% of their engineering courses - they're designed to cover a lot of material but not specialize in anything. True, grad school was focused on making professors - I did a master's, ended up being a lecturer for a while. Now a 20+ year software developer in the valley. But undergrad was focused on blending theoretical and practical skills. If they didn't, employers would have stopped coming back to hire co-op students, and would stop hiring the students at a high rate when they graduate. I COULD have learned a lot of software myself - I was already coding in multiple languages before attending an…

> Even today, at the best CS programs in the country, it's possible to get a degree and still not be better than a very junior engineer at a software company (and quite a few graduates are worse). I think it's important to differentiate the personal achievement of students and the training offered by their universities. For instance, the courses offered by CMU and MIT are super useful - insightful, practical, intense, and sufficiently deep. That said, it does not mean that every MIT/CMU graduate will reap the benefit of the courses, even though many will. It goes without saying that it does NOT mean people can't teach themselves. I'm just saying universities offer a compelling alternative to training next gen of engineers.

I agree, however the model was clearly designed that the university considers first employment to be the apprenticeship and the university education to be rhetorical background education that makes it possible to follow and keep up in an apprenticeship. So really, the issue is companies don’t properly invest in training juniors… because they will leave after 2 years anyway… which is because they won’t provide them pay bumps equivalent to a change in position, which is also their fault, leading them to hire pricier individuals who just left another company looking for a pay bump instead. They pay the same in the end but trade individuals around pointlessly to do it, and have to retrain them on their software stack. Kinda funny when you think about it.