5 years of university education vs. 5 years of work experience - Which would you pick if hiring?

This depends on which kind of programmer I want: Do I want someone with more experience as the majority of other developers are rather green and thus haven't quite had to deal with real-world projects? If yes, then I'd take the 5 years of work as that could be very useful possibly. Do I want someone that may have little work experience as the majority of other developers have a lot of experience and would like to take on a more junior developer? If yes, then the 5 years of uni. may be better as this person hasn't been molded by experience yet. Another way to state this is whether or not that work experience can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing in hiring someone.

I'd hire the one who got better results at the interview, which would require the candidate to write code.

That really depends on what the work experience is. Myself, I would say I've learned more practical skills on the job than I ever did at university. But then again, as the saying goes, some people get 5 years of experience, other people just get 1 year of experience 5 times. Does the experienced guy have stable employment history? Did he work on important projects? Did he have important roles? So much is riding on the specifics. At least, with a Master's degree, you know exactly what you're getting. It's very possible for people to slug through 5 years of work without ever really accomplishing anything. I think you really need to evaluate the specifics of the experience. What did they learn/do in university and what did they do (and hopefully learn) on the job? Which is more relevant to the projects your company does? That is where your answer will lie.

Neither Seriously, I want someone with a education and some experience, so I'd advertise the post again. The problem with the education only programmer is that I can't be sure that she can apply theory to practice. She might know her big-O, but does she knows how to make pragmatic decisions that will make business sense for both my clients and my company? I can't possibly know, so despite the impressive paperwork and post-nominal acronyms she's too big a risk. OTOH, the experienced programmer might well able to hit the ground running. She has shown that she can hold down a job, so there is a good chance that she can add business value and crank out some code. On the other hand, she may not have the depth of understanding to progress beyond monkey-coding. She has shown little evidence that she has the analytical, problem-solving and creative skills that are required to become a first-class developer. To be blunt, she could well be a bit thick. I can't risk the future of my company on someone like that. Both these candidates have failed to demonstrate that they have what it takes to work with me. They might both be brilliant, but the risk is simply too great to hire either of them. For these reasons: it is a no hire from me. However... That need not be the end of the story: My advice to the person with the Masters is that she go get some real world experience and come back in a year or two, because we could use someone with her brains. To my experienced candidate I'd recommend that she spend some of her hard-earned on getting some higher education. If I have my way then there will be a post waiting for her if she can slog through the first year of her degree - at which point we can come to some arrangement over sponsorship for the rest of it. The ideal outcome is that they both heed my counsel. That way I'll get two great programmers. Perhaps I will even get a chance to pair them up - they certainly appear to be well situated to help each other make the best of what they have to offer. So now we're all happy, and I can revise my answer and hire them both!

With the information given its a coin toss. Neither metric, years of work experience or college experience, tells you which candidate has more value.

All other things being equal, the guy with the degree is likely to have broader knowledge in the computer field, and has been exposed to a lot more different concepts, while the guy without has real-world experience, preferably with reasonable software tools, and is more likely to be productive right off. Exactly what this means in terms of who you hire is entirely dependent on what you want.

it depends on the assignment. for example if the Master's thesis was in a research area that was critical to the project. in general, experience wins...but i don't have a large corporate HR department vetting candidates!

In the real world things like this don't happen a lot and the person hiring the candidate has a lot more to figure out who he/she wants. 5 years of university: which university are we talking about? What was his thesis? Someone that has gone to school for 5 years and has no experience/contribution to a project/some useful app is a big red flag in my opinion. If you need someone to work on a project that isn't very esoteric in terms of theory then the guy with 5 years of experience is more likely a better fit. Edit: I just wanted to add that non-degree programmers don't necessarily lack the conceptual/theoretical notion of CS that you think the degree person has. There are many degree-less people that know the CS theories enough to make informed decisions and vice-versa. I was reading Coders at Work by Peter Seibel and in many interviews, there are consecrated programmers that were self-taught (ex.: Jamie Zawinski), went to college briefly and dropped out, or just found it too limited. "When it did get interesting, it was over." I'm a non-degree person (taking a break from college, just took one full year worth of CS) and I've been working for about a year as a developer and whenever I think I lack the "theory," I research, read books, watch university lectures online, etc. The difference between a college student and I is that I know what I need to or should know for a particular task or project that I need to implement, whereas a college student studies it with the aim of getting a grade on the class project, midterms, and final exam. Most forget what they learned due to the fact that they didn't have a real clue how it would become useful later. Since I've been a CS college student, although briefly, I know how many of my CS mates felt when it came to CS classes and projects. I have a feeling that if I stay productive at work, keep learning on my own, get sponsored training, my accomplishments will be worth a lot more than a diploma because I'll be able to say that I made my clients cut down costs, be more productive, not to mention the value to my own company. In case I feel I need a formal education, I'll go back to college and finish my degree and benefit from the perspective I gained from working in industry.

Since there isn't enough information to go on, I'm going to assume they are equal in every way but education v. experience; otherwise, if I can identify one being a better programmer than the other, that's who I'm going to select regardless. That is not the case, so I'll hire the one who is cheaper. Sorry, but if you're just as good as someone coming out of school, you don't deserve more money-you're suppose to be better. Also, is the non-graduate better educated/more learned?