You can't say you have a degree in computer science, but you can certainly learn and practice the theory and concepts just as well as anyone else. And to that end: I see lots of good material!
alienation from any community. from peers, from elders, from others that are passionate about sharing knowledge via human-to-human transmission. and no - automated learning is not a computer-mediated transmission in the very sense that reading 12 books by 12 authors does not mean you had 12 teachers.
Who cares? The academic community is often alienating everybody who is not in academia, degree or not. And where it isn't, it doesn't care if you have a degree or not.
The hard truth is that there isn't much "science" in most computer "science" jobs. The world needs brick layers too. Nothing wrong with that as such, but confusing computer scientists with programming workers is one of the root causes for the software mess these days.
self-educated know-it-alls are much more responsible for the appalling level of alienation of people in IT in general. since so many people are self-taught they are eventually not learned into exchanging knowledge with other humans.
I have multiple degrees in history yet I’m completely detached from the academic community because I don’t do research and don’t publish anything. So if I follow your logic it means I (and many thousands like me) have no degree at all?
Most people that do computer science degrees don't call themselves computer scientists afterward. In fact, the only people I've ever known that call themselves that title are those in academia.
better computer scientist needs interaction with other people, needs to learn to respect their views or at least understand them, evaluate. perhaps needs to meet other scientists. to exchange ideas and approaches. this is what schools and academia is for.
this whole self-taught thing is a time-bomb. we already have too many self-taught engineers, architects and what-nots who can only work with themselves, listen to themselves, and agree to their own designs. not okay.
being good at anything more often than not means also being good in working with people.
even though you can also call yourself better piper or better kiter, doesn't mean you actually are better at anything just like this.
This is a red herring. This is for improving your technical competency, not for improving your social skills. It doesn't mean social skills are unimportant, it just means that this doesn't focus on that part of the equation. Do you have any issues with the technical material they suggest you focus on?
automated tools are top for improving certain tech skills. like Duolingo is good for as a language starter. But only talking with other people will really teach you the language - people teach each other even if they don't have the intent to do it. Same with technology.
Social skills are very important, cannot be more important in these times. 15+ years in academia, not as researcher, but as teacher, showed one thing - the best learners are those who are best at listening, at interacting with others, not the top-bookshelf-worms. Usually not the top kids, but most usually become top contributors to teams and companies at later point.
Surely now and then an Einstein is born, but we also know of people who were very active in their social interaction without all the academia fuss about it. and academia is one place to find people to interact with. and academia is not only Oxford and MIT where entry level is very hard, nearly impossible.
So all of this is not about academia, rather about being human with humans.
