I don't know much about such things, but if I were you I'd milk it for all it's worth. Physics is becoming a big thing in game development, so if you have a nice physics related demo or two and say that's your area of expertise, you might get some interest. Maybe make it sound like you chose the degree with that in mind.

I've heard that people will accept math and physics degrees anyway.

Quote:Original post by drakostar

Quote:Original post by JasonBlochowiak
If you don't have a degree, expect to have to demonstrate knowledge that at least matches that of a graduate, which isn't a whole lot in most cases.

Maybe it depends on the program. I'm in the last semester of a CS B.Sc. -- and one more semester away from a Chemistry B.Sc. as well -- and I honestly have to say that my programming ability has vastly improved because of it. You don't learn, say, the Operating Systems and Computer Organization side of things from work experience (which I've had) or reading C++ books (done lots of that too), but understanding the low-level stuff has made me write better code instinctively.

Sure, the piece of paper itself doesn't mean much. You can scrape by and get a degree with minimal effort. But if you actually learn and understand the material being taught, it's incredibly useful.

"Talent" is nice if you're an artist. Software development requires knowledge, experience, the ability to rapidly learn new things, a propensity for math and logic, and good communication skills.

I've got to say that there are a lot of CS Alumni who can't program their way out of some of the most trivial solutions. I would also argue University teaches you very little about programming unless you actually force it to. Beyond this, you learn sleightly dated techniques and a lot of stuff that a really interested person will research anyway. What I find I get from university isn't a good education, but rather, time and an excuse to give myself a good education.

I would argue that piece of paper is about the most valuable thing you can get out of University. If you teach yourself how to do something, don't give the university credit for it. I really don't learn much at all from profs unfortunately and that's sad because I spend thousands of dollars and sit through the courses, but at the end of the day what I learn comes from my own personal projects outside of university. I'm not trying to sound smug here, but that's the truth of it. I'm sure some people learn a lot at university, but the courses I take are either trivial or dull and by reading the textbook on my own I'd learn just as much as if they sat me in the lectures. How can I say "Yes, university teaches me a lot" when I can pick up a textbook for a course, read it cover to cover, and it teaches me everything I need to know about the subject and does it better than the actual professors in charge of directing the learning process?

""Talent" is nice if you're an artist. Software development requires knowledge, experience, the ability to rapidly learn new things, a propensity for math and logic, and good communication skills."

Talent IS the result of hard work and understanding. Are you so naive to believe that every single piece of art you see from the pros has been shat out without effort and that there isn't a mountain of crap and tossed sketches for every completed work? Being an artist requires knowledge, experience and the ability to rapidly learn new things. It also requires logic and a keen eye for design and quality that has to be developed through hard work over time.

Talent is equally important in the software field.

The problem is that the word talent is so misunderstood. It's as if people actually believe that things come without any work. I suppose it's the whole nature vs. nurture thing, but even people with a natural predisposition towards certain types of activities still have to work at it. In fact, they probably work at it harder than other people do because it's something they enjoy.