Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Lerner, Nov 12, 2015.

Loading...
  1. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree

    Nanodegree Program Summary
    https://www.udacity.com/course/machine-learning-engineer-nanodegree--nd009?coupon=UMBX6CJAHCA46FM&utm_source=udacity&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20151110_MLND_Launch
     
  2. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    This is one of the reasons why Udacity has never enticed me in. They might as well just add that it has "electrolytes" because that's what "machines want."

    Could very well be an interesting program. But I think Stanford's certificate programs are probably going to provide a more valuable credential in the market place (and their MOOCs are a cheap way to get your feet wet).

    Still, interesting to see machine learning becoming so....mainstream.
     
  3. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Advertisement
    I like the pay range they show.

     
  4. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Somewhere in a university lab, a well-informed machine is probably grinding out its PhD dissertation right now, for a committee of six other machines that have gone through the same process... :smile:

    J.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2015
  5. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Well-said. Add me to the folks who don't like non-degree courses of any kind being termed nano-degrees, Mini-MBAs, pico-doctorates or anything else that suggests, however remotely, that they have any connection whatsoever with real degrees.

    We (here) all know they don't. Why perpetuate the fiction? Course providers (and everyone else) should just call 'em courses, seminars, MOOCs - whatever they really are.

    Johann - Micro-J.D. :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2015
  6. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    One thing I've asked (others have too) is why don't they just call them certificates? or graduate diplomas or whatever? I'm afraid that the answer I've come up with is that they don't qualify to be certs. There's probably some standard that needs to be met in order to offer a "certificate" and maybe they just don't rise to that level. So they have to sidestep the nomenclature and invent some nonsense that really doesn't mean anything.
     
  7. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    New York doesn't appear to regulate the use of the word "certificate," per se. You can't use degree titles (even religious degrees) without regents approval. I'd suspect that the nano-degree concept (for schools in a similar regulatory environment) is actually an attempt to sidestep that regulation. I can't offer an MBA, but I can offer a "mini-MBA."

    What's unique about my home state is that you aren't exempt from registration just because you don't offer degrees. If your education is described as "career training" or really anything that can prepare you for a career then it requires registration (the only exception is for purely religious instruction that does not result in a degree).

    So, I'm sure the regulations vary by jurisdiction. But ed2go awards cents for their quickie courses and so does Coursera for certain MOOCs. So the bar is probably low for certificates even in the strictest of jurisdictions. But I'm sure, to your point, that there is a fair amount of regulation skirting to either avoid greater scrutiny or to simply be able to market yourself better. The searches for "degree in machine learning" probably far exceed the searches for "certificate in machine learning" so calling your program a "nano-degree in machine learning" is a way to make sure you capture the most search traffic.

    My biggest issue is that prospective employees (knowingly or otherwise) then use these credentials in a somewhat misleading way like the former candidate who presented his Master Certificate from Villanova as a Masters degree. I'm still unsure if he intentionally tried to deceive me or if he said "yeah, so it's a Masters certificate.cjust like this is my bachelors certificate and this is my associates certificate..."
     
  8. Warpnow

    Warpnow Member


    To be fair, this costs a fraction of what the stanford certificate programs cost.

    As for the nano-degree nomenclature, I think it is mostly because of something Sebastian Thrun talks about alot-- which is lifelong learning replacing the traditional college degree. I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but the logic is that currently many people get a college degree and then stop learning. The idea is smaller, more modular education that you take slowly over time to build skills and stay up to date. A nano-degree is supposed to be a smaller, more agile approach to learning.
     
  9. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Yes, and the Stanford certificate was developed by one of the fathers of machine learning. Beyond that, you can enjoy the MOOCs for free.

    Well, there's no need to replace degrees. Universities are not vocational programs. Never have been. They teach a very small number of subjects that actually translate directly to a specific job upon graduation. The rest of the time they are trying to get you to expand your horizons.

    The creator of the game Diplomacy was, as I recall, a postal worker who had a degree from Harvard. There's nothing wrong with having a degree in something that isn't directly related to your job. The concept of lifelong learning doesn't belong to the founder of audacity (much as he might like us to believe otherwise). Nor does lifelong learning require a "credential" with a silly name or a monthly subscription. If you have machine learning skills then you have those skills. Jump on Kaggle and start working on projects. Having a "nano-degree" isn't going to impress an employer unless you have the skills to back that up.


    We have that already. It comes in the form of MOOCs, non-credit certificates, instructional videos, books, self-paced courses and any number of things. There's nothing "new" about the concept of a nano-degree. What's "new" is the silly name.
    Kaggle has a pretty helpful tutorial section for anyone wanting to get into machine learning. No monthly fee. And a Kaggle rank is much more likely to impress a potential employer than anything you are able to print off of Udacity.
     
  10. Warpnow

    Warpnow Member

    Udacity is not an alternative to MOOCs. It is MOOCs. You can browse all the content for free.

    Udacity was also developed by one of the fathers of machine learning. And of course you can access MOOCs for free. You can also go through Udacity's program for free. If you want the additional things-- certificates, and the capstone for Coursera or the mentorship for Udacity, you have to pay. They are not dissimilar.

    If you want to be couched and have a one on one mentor who will check and critique your code and help you on the way, you pay $200 per month. If you finish in under a year, you get half back. So depending on how long it takes you to complete it...it may be more or less expensive than a comparable specialization from coursera.

    Its probably more expensive, but its a diffierent product. If people want one on one coaching, they can pay for it. If not, they can browse all the content for free.

    If you wanted to display all of the MOOCs aligned to a topic on your resume, it would get very long very fast. With Coursera's specializations, and Udacity's nano-degree, its just a grouping of MOOCs, certificated, videos, etc, into one "package" that represents a single topic.

    You're not going to win a kaggle competition while learning machine learning. People who've won kaggle competitions are going to be competing for $200k+ jobs. People taking the udacity nano-degree are trying to break into the industry.

    You seem really hostile to the idea of calling something a nano-degree. Do you feel it cheapens your degrees to be compared to udacity's degrees? Udacity is just a MOOC provider with a slightly different business model and they want to give students something they can easily put on a resume. Nano-degree, xseries, specialization...just words. I don't get why we should care very much which one they use.
     
  11. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Udacity courses are self-paced, unlike MOOCs. If any online self-paced course is now a MOOC then Penn Foster and Ashworth were doing MOOCs before the term was ever coined. Such definitions render the term meaningless.


    Yes, and I'm tired of people printing out verified certificates from Coursera and attaching them to their resume for this reason. There is no need to list all of your MOOCs on a resume (or even to have a certificate for all of them). Nobody gets a job because they took MOOCs. It just doesn't happen. People try and most fail. The most successful use of MOOCs (in terms of marketability) is when people simply use them to build skill without regard for the PDF certificate at the end. I've had finance people come through my office for interviews who mention in their cover letters and resume that they are proficient in R or Python. Oh, how did you build such proficiency? Took a few MOOCs and worked in building the skill? Fantastic. I don't care which MOOCs you specifically completed (or even that you completed the,) I care about the skill you supposedly developed from taking those courses. If you can't demonstrate that skill then no "nano-degree" is going to land you a job.

    This was just ignorant. I'm not sure what skills you think people trying to "break into the industry" are showing up with. I suggest browsing the Kaggle forum for a bit of insight. Many of the "newbies" have years of experience in data analysis with R, Python and a variety of other languages. They are new to machine learning but not new to the underlying concepts of machine learning. Perhaps more importantly, you don't need to personally win a Kaggle competition to boost your rankings. You can join a team. And even a team of "beginners" may have quite a number of skilled professionals who, together, can do some really impressive work.

    I've been very clear about what I like and don't like about udacity and why. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to break out your amateur psychoanalysis. Nano-degrees don't cheapen real degrees. They wrongly imply that they are more valuable than certificates or diplomas. The mini-MBA has been one of the most abused certificates I've seen. I suspect it's a combination of naive students thinking they have something more than a certificate and unscrupulous students knowing full well that they have a certificate but choosing to use it as a degree in the workforce.

    Lastly, the thing that irks me about udacity (and many other companies today) is the fact that it's so trendy to be into "social entrepreneurship" that for-profit companies pretend like they don't care about making a profit. Worse yet, some people equate making a profit with cranking out an inferior service. The udacity website could be a bit more honest "we are selling courses at a great value but they are really good and we think they will benefit you." Instead, they opt for salesy double-talk hidden behind vague allusions to how they are changing the world.

    That last thing isn't a specifically udacity problem. The rise in social entrpreneurship has been like every other trend. There are companies that are trying to be socially responsible. But there's a difference between opening a store that sells the handmade crafts of villagers in East Timor (for which you pay a fair, competitive market price) and starting a for-profit education company which peddles the same sort of learning that other organizations are peddling (but with a hefty subscription price).

    None of this means I would throw out the resume of anyone who lists udacity among their education. I don't roll like that. But, realistically, we recruit most of our entry level coders directly from undergrad CS programs at Binghamton and Syracuse Universities. Our senior level coders and developers have years of experience in the field. People without those undergrad degrees do, indeed, break in. But they have to do a hell of a lot more to prove they belong there than show up with a "nano-degree" from Udacity. They have to show up with a pretty impressive portfolio (which can be built while acquiring skills without spending any money at all). And all of our self-taught coders are exactly that. They're self-taught. They didn't walk in with a big list of MOOCs and then look at me like I should be impressed.

    You like Udacity? Good, give them your money. Graduate. Use the skills you acquire in good health. But acting like it's the "cure" to continuing education when it's really just more of the same thing is disingenuous. And over selling the value of an oddly named "credential" isn't going to help their long term success, either.
     
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    cMOOCs probably can't be self-paced, but there's no reason xMOOCs can't be. And it shouldn't be any surprise that a newly hyped term in education turns out to describe something that people have been doing for a long time. After all, that's true with "competency".

    So assuming Udacity's business model is that anyone can take the course, and students have to pay iff they want to sit an exam or get a certificate of completion, I don't see why that's not a MOOC.
     
  13. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Well, that doesn't seem to be the case.

    So, if I take a course on Coursera I can take the entire course for free and then swoop in at the last minute and pay for the course to get a certificate.

    That doesn't appear to be the case with, say, the Machine Learning nanodegree program. I'm offered a free "preview" with access to four courses and info specific to projects 1 and 4. Beyond that, I get a free trial to enroll, after which, my monthly payments start.

    The total program seems to have four projects and a capstone. Do the supporting courses provided for free constitute the entirety of the program? It's hard to say because Udacity takes great efforts to not actually share that information.

    This is a subscription service with "sneak peaks" not a MOOC, in my opinion.

    I do agree with you, however, that whenever a new term is introduced it usually does end up being usurped by the countless organizations and people that jump onto the bandwagon.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    In that case we agree. The first O is for "open".
     

Share This Page