TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I agree with the comments made so far on this issue, but I'd
like to add something in favour of university degrees...
A technical writer must have basic skills in grammar and
rhetoric (if I can still use such an old-fashioned word), and
must be able to start a project and see it through to the end.
Someone with a university degree has proven that he or she can
do this.
Having said this, a university degree doesn't prove that you have
any talent as a technical writer (as Bill points out, it's more
than just being grammatically correct). Ideally, I'd want to look
for someone with a university background AND relevant experience.
But I'd take a writer with proven experience and no degree before
I'd take a university grad with no experience as a writer.
This brings me to a pet peeve: University and college technical
writing programmes persist in hiring professors who have never
had to make a living working as writers (at least that's the way
it works around here). Why is this?
Penny Staples
-------------------
Bill Sullivan wrote:
>>My opinion is that employers are missing out on a lot of incredibly
>>gifted people because they think someone who has spent four years
>>learning to think like the rest of his/her class is better... (I'm
>>sorry - I'm a tad biased as some of my 'degree' people have proved to
>>be as about as creative as a bar of soap with thought processes to
>>match)
>Funny. I was thinking this very thing the other day when Robert
>Plamondon insisted to Peter Ring that we all should study technical
>illustration. I think you are right, but it is a truth that nobody
>understands. To be a tech writer, you need a certain fire, a certain
>compulsion to explain and describe things. It's good to explain
>things the way a drunk drinks, compulsively, without thinking about
>it, staying up late, getting up early, missing meals because it's
>what you do. Education is ancillary.
>Education, however, is what companies know. I believe, however, that
>there are still a lot of managers in the world who value what I call
>"fire." A person just has to be lucky enough to find them.