Well...while I wasn't a master, I knew a helluva lot more than most. In fact, some of the guys that I worked with said that they had noticed a trend - companies weren't looking for specialists - they preferred people who had a working knowledge of many different areas.
That is the trend as well today. Most companies prefer someone with well rounded skills over specialist (in fact they want 5 people worth of skill sets in one person..... that is called casting a wide net). That works most of the time however they do tend to hire specialist by way of consultant (and pay HUGE) when things go sideways or the ask exceeds the skill level of their well rounded employee.
We had a company in Tulsa that was having tech related issues Their people could not figure out what the issue was so they had to call in a consultant. He was there less than an hour and handed them a 6 figure bill. Their "well rounded" individual knew just enough to be dangerous and cost them a lot of money (far beyond the bill).
After that they hired a specialist.
My area was applications...and because it was applications, in order to do my job to the best of my abilities, I had to gain an understanding of what end users were using it for. So you can learn a lot that isn't related to "your job". Anybody can write code to make a computer do something, but when you understand what your "customer" is doing, you can make sure that what you are doing will benefit them and not cause other problems. When you understand what they are doing you can pull the data that is relevant to their mission. But....you need to understand their mission. None of that makes someone an "expert"...but it immerses you in their business.
Makes sense to me.
I really hate to blow my own horn, but I've had more than one person or group who said "you're a rock star". FWIW, my core systems were Electronic Medical Records and Medical Billing. And when I worked for the EPI's, my job was to pull data from those records to allow them to see trends in our data. And...I don't have a college degree. When I started with EDS, I knew banking. They wanted people who knew the business. From that, I learned how to make the computer do things to make my job easier. While I was there, I pretty much automated the on site conversion process for the reps. It was adopted for everyone in my division.
I don't have a degree either.
When you get out in the real world you learn there is a difference between having an education and being able to put knowledge to practical use.
I think you and I are a lot alike in that respect.
When I left there, I had a knowledge of midrange computer systems. I took another job with International Paper in their graphic arts supply business. I didn't know order entry systems, so instead of spending a lot of time in front of a computer screen, I was at the branch offices, learning what they did. And by that time I knew that midrange system like the back of my hand. As hardware made advances, we upgraded to a new platform. And I learned that platform well enough that I was hired as a "systems engineer" for another company. I managed the system, I did performance analysis and tuning for existing clients and system sizing for new clients. Along the way, I learned networking so that I wouldn't have to go find some specialist to resolve issues. It allowed me to talk to them instead of saying "it ain't working".
That brings me to another point. It is a lot easier to grow with the technology than it is to come in after the technology has matured. I say that because the ask is ever greater and the implementation is ever more complex. That is one advantage you had that I did not.
The people who came after me have a harder time of it simply because they are being asked to do more than I was when I first entered the field. It gets harder and harder to train new people because they are being asked to learn more and more at an exponential rate.
Another advantage you had is when you started in the field, companies were more willing to sink time and money into training someone. These days most companies expect you to hit the ground running. It is a real sink or swim kind of environment.
When I started in public health 20 years ago, I didn't know what they did...I only knew the computer they were running. So I had to learn. From that I learned a lot about government programs such as Title X FAmily Planning and Title IX Maternal Health. I was also introduced to the CDC and vaccine tracking. And then I worked with the EPI's on outbreaks. From that, I learned what they do in a communicable disease investigation, which also involved working with the CDC. About the time I started with public health, PC's were replacing dumb terminals and more and more things became PC based. So I learned the app as well as how to make the PC perform better. So you can call me a jack of all trades and a "master" of none, but there were very few people in the county who could do what I did.
I think that is because you learned early that "architecture" takes a back seat to code.
What I mean by that is most people only ever learn if a do b, if c do d. They never question the why. they just accept that is the way of things. Sometimes they don't even understand what the changes they are implementing actually do, they just know it makes it work.
Once you understand "architecture" you get a deeper understanding of the whole picture.
At least that is the way it is in my field. I am sure you have experienced that yourself.
Oh yeah...while I worked for government, my county is the "wealthiest" in the state of Kansas. And while our systems weren't "bleeding edge", we WERE leading edge. We stayed out front in systems and applications.
So
No such thing. Tech moves at such a rapid pace "leading edge" is a target no one really ever hits. Not for long anyway.
I will admit it was a bit arrogant of me to state I know more than you about PC's. However I happen to know quite a bit about them myself. Certainly enough to find an effective ad blocker.