> Unfortunately, almost all computer science education nowadays focuses on pure technical skills
I'm not sure I'd really call that unfortunate. CS education isn't about making you a more well-rounded person: It's about giving you a basic education in Computer Science.
Similarly I don't really lament that CS programs don't have a course in basic financial literacy, even though it would be incredibly useful.
These are really topics that should be addressed much, much earlier (empathy in particular is something we should start teaching children as young as possible) and should be mature ideas by the time people reach college-age.
> The impact is that many engineers plateau in their careers because they've underinvested in (and oftentimes looked down upon) the "soft skills" that actually separate the top engineers from everyone else.
To mirror the other comment, I hate to say it but if you're a software engineer at Google you're likely already a "top" engineer.
You're trying to explain what differentiates the top 0.1% from the top 1%, but I'm not sure it's a super useful distinction for the other 99%. For them, investment in hard skills might actually be considerably more fruitful (and land them that Google job in the first place).
Maybe not, I'll admit I could easily be wrong on that.
I'm not sure I'd really call that unfortunate. CS education isn't about making you a more well-rounded person: It's about giving you a basic education in Computer Science.
Similarly I don't really lament that CS programs don't have a course in basic financial literacy, even though it would be incredibly useful.
These are really topics that should be addressed much, much earlier (empathy in particular is something we should start teaching children as young as possible) and should be mature ideas by the time people reach college-age.
> The impact is that many engineers plateau in their careers because they've underinvested in (and oftentimes looked down upon) the "soft skills" that actually separate the top engineers from everyone else.
To mirror the other comment, I hate to say it but if you're a software engineer at Google you're likely already a "top" engineer.
You're trying to explain what differentiates the top 0.1% from the top 1%, but I'm not sure it's a super useful distinction for the other 99%. For them, investment in hard skills might actually be considerably more fruitful (and land them that Google job in the first place).
Maybe not, I'll admit I could easily be wrong on that.