Go For a Masters, Or Not?

mx12 writes "I'm currently an undergrad in computer engineering and have been thinking about getting my masters. I have a year left in school. Most of my professors seem to think that getting a masters is a great idea, but I wanted to hear from people out in the working world. Is a masters in computer engineering better than two years of experience at a company?"

Comments

Work Experience

[DiSKiLLeR]

Work Experience for sure.

And you should be getting some NOW.

But if you want to hang around uni, maybe become an academic, then sure, do your Masters.

Re:Work Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bad advice.

Here's the deal:

Masters is the highest route for payment in a professional environment. Just think of this as a 1-2 year pay increase for the investment.

If you want to go into academics, it's PhD or bust. Terminal Degrees = Academia. Masters != Terminal degree in CS/EE/CE fields.

Good luck.

Re:Work Experience

[Chrisq]

>

If you want to go into academics, it's PhD or bust. Terminal Degrees = Academia. Masters != Terminal degree in CS/EE/CE fields.

Good luck.

Unless you are one of the odd public-spirited people who have highly marketable qualifications but want to teach in high schools. I have a lot of admiration for the few really knowledgeable and intelligent school teachers in technology and science fields - they really do make a difference - but I would not like to be on a teacher's pay scale myself.

Re:Work Experience

[AuMatar]

In some fields, but not in CS. A masters doesn't get you more money. What gets you more money is experience, especially experience in the field you're looking for work in, and the ability to negotiate. There's just no point to extra years of school in CS, you learn on the job or through self study everything you'd learn in the masters courses.

Re:Work Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to work the rest of your life.
Have some fun now.

Re:Work Experience

[martyros]

Don't forget who is giving you the advice. It's just a fact that people tend to view the choices they've made as good, and the activities they do as important.

What do you expect to gain from a Master's degree? Do you want to have a deeper understanding of computer science, so that you can more effectively solve complex problems? Or are you hoping that it will impress people and increase your chances of getting a job / getting a higher paying job?

The problem with any degree is that it doesn't actually imply the ability to code effectively, or lead a team. A lot of people with degrees can't code worth anything. The first thing any real computer company will do in interviews is try to ascertain whether you can actually solve problems, write code, debug things, think independently, and so on.

I have a PhD in Computer Science, in the field of Operating Systems (which is a very practical, implement-it-and-test-it-on-real-hardware sort of field). Building my research prototype involved a ton of OS-level coding, and some pretty damn hard debugging. It also included a lot of deep thinking about fundamental issues, and exposure to a lot of really smart people whose job it was to have a deep understanding of what's going on. As a result, I feel well prepared to tackle complex real-world problems and implement a good solution.

But no one would hire me just based on my PhD. Everywhere I interviewed after graduation, I had to prove that I *can* code; and everyone I have subsequently interviewed, the degrees were only a mild interest; interviews were key to sort the wheat from the chaff.

So if you really find the class work interesting, if you're an abstract thinker, good at understanding and applying principles, and want to hone that capability with some extra classes, go for it. A focused time to study the theoretical basis of things can be useful. There's nothing more practical than good theory, in the hands of someone who enjoys both theory and practice. But if you're just looking to improve your resume with a couple of more years of slog-work, then I'd say go for work experience.

Re:Work Experience

[tvdbulck]

I strongly disagree, if you would like to obtain a high level function in a company at a later stage, your Masters will be an invaluable asset. And if you switch jobs in 5 or 10 years it will also make a difference on you CV. If you do start working immediately, make sure you end up in a job where you continuously learn (and not continuously do the same tasks for your company). That will increase YOUR value, which is the most important in the long run.

Re:Work Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

It does.

When HR people who have at least a hint of what cs is about see 2 candidates for a job, first one with 2 year experience (which frankly isn't much) and another one with master's degree the choice is pretty much obvious. And it's the second one.

Re:Work Experience

[Ash Vince]

Experience is certainly more valuable than a masters when it comes to getting most techie jobs. However with the current state of the job market I would certainly recommend putting off joining it for a year. It is also worth studying your masters in order to keep the door open to being an academic even if you do not know that is what you want to do.

I would also recommend doing a masters with a business and management studies component as techies with business skills generally earn more than those without and will be considered first for management positions all other things being equal. Remember, IT is one of the most ageist careers to chose from so you need to think about an exit strategy into IT management from as early as possible. You might not need it but planning for the worst is always a good idea in all walks of life.

Re:Work Experience

[javaxjb]

Really? In how many companies does HR choose the IT staff? In our company, the IT department managers review the resumes and (in addition to management) at least one person actively coding projects interviews the candidates. I'd bet nearly 75% don't have a CS degree, let alone a master's (and those that do are usually managers with an MBA, and an undergraduate degree in math or science). Business experience is way more important than the degree. So much so, that I really need to make a strong case to recommend anyone just out of school (even after one person we interviewed [a month before graduation] became one of our best team leads).

Re:Work Experience

[Tony Hoyle]

Except you'll be two years behind on the promotion ladder and have to make that up... and exams don't mean shit once you've got 6 months experience - employers won't even *look* at what you studied once you have relevant experience under your belt.

Re:Work Experience

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

This may be dependent on the country in which you work. In Australia (from whence I come), there is no benefit to a masters degree whatsoever. In fact, there is a negative perception associated with a Masters for the very reasons stated in the previous post! People with a Masters degree expect a higher income, and are rarely any more useful than a totally green 3 year graduate (and less so than one who has been spending their spare time coding; someone who actually loves the code). Those who can DO. Get out there, and get some experience, don't waste your time getting bits of paper that just tell people "I would like some more money please..." In my experience (approx 8 years in the field), only very average coders ever had Masters Degree's (perhaps an attempt to compensate for average coding skills). Some of the very best have no degree at all! The thing that seems to separate the good from the great, is that the great guys never stop learning. They're the guys whose book-shelf is full, are showing you F#, listening to pod-casts. Your Master's degree won't mean squat in a couple of years. So don't waste your time.

Re:Work Experience

[vlm]

Unless you are one of the odd public-spirited people who have highly marketable qualifications but want to teach in high schools. I have a lot of admiration for the few really knowledgeable and intelligent school teachers in technology and science fields - they really do make a difference - but I would not like to be on a teacher's pay scale myself.

I have relatives in the field. Multiple relatives in multiple districts. Generally, to teach HS and below, the only degree allowable is an education degree. A PHD in math will not be allowed to teach algebra, and a Nobel prive winning physicist will not be allowed to teach physics, unless of course they additionally have a BA in education. The HR drones would simply toss out any ex-college professor resume, unless they of course had the all important education degree. There are exceptions in areas of teacher shortage, like if you know Spanish or are willing to wear a bullet proof vest and teach in the worst inner city schools, preferably both, but even those exceptions require evidence of night school progress on an education degree. I cannot stress how much of a requirement an ed degree is... its not like programming where a degree gets you an interview but you can do just fine without one if you're good (err, good and lucky, I mean). No ed degree (or at least serious progress toward it) means no teaching job, period.

The teachers pay scale is actually pretty good in most areas, if you correct for legendarily good retirement and medical benefits, and historically high job security. Most "technical" teachers I knew, contracted during the summer for big bucks. Finally the odds of being outsourced as just a coding drone are somewhat higher than the odds of being outsourced as a kindergarten teacher. Also they get a lot of respect from most people below 18 and virtually all people above 18...

The main problems I hear, is the friction between getting retirement vs starting over in a good district, management so bad it would make a dilbert pointy haired boss blush, and the average IQ level of the "problem parents" must be single digits at best. I don't have relatives working with older kids... I guess they have a different set of problems to deal with, like drug use, pregnancies, drug dealing in school, gang problems, fights/shootouts, basically becoming the father/parents for the kids, basically they are social workers first, teachers second, and their skill area (computer guy, chemist, etc) third.

Re:Work Experience

[jez9999]

My father is a really talented guy. But he's 50 now with a Bachelor's and is passed up on every promotion and pay raise. He's already at the top of the metrics for pay and title, he literally can't go any higher because of corporate policy.

Your father should find a better comapany to work for.

Re:Work Experience

[billsnow]

but in all fairness to your degree, out of school, how many of the jobs you interviewed for were interviewing 4-yr degree candidates?

Re:Work Experience

[NastyNate]

As someone who has done quite a bit of hiring over the past few years, ranging from interns in college to senior level developers with 20 or more years of experience in the field, I will tell you once you have some significant job experience to hang your hat on, the difference between a masters and a bachelors is fairly insignificant. Hopefully you are getting some real world work experience now as an intern while working on your degree. The only time where the difference between a masters degree and a bachelors degree has made a difference in our interview process is in deciding between similar entry level candidates with little to no job experience. Also in hiring interns we will typically favor masters students over undergrad students.

Re:Work Experience

[odoketa]

This is only partially true.

Education will delay your earnings. However, given the current environment, your earnings may be delayed anyway.

More important, and I've had this conversation again and again with decision makers, is that the Master's degree is the new Bachelor's degree.

In the US, and in much of the English speaking world, university degrees are becoming more common. A Master's is a signal that you have put in extra effort, basically.

We recently hired a helpdesk position, and the HR drones were requiring a Master's. While this is an extreme example of HR going crazy, it doesn't change the fact that, before any calls, before any interviews, the non-Master's people were thrown out.

So to return to the post I am replying to, while you might benefit from earnings now, you might not, and in future, you will definitely want the second degree if you plan to earn anything.

For the first job, though, it probably isn't necessary, and taking a couple years off from school to see what the 'real world' is all about isn't a bad idea. It will also, if the degree means more to you than a sheet of paper, make the Master's program more useful to you, because you might have a better idea of why the stuff matters.

Re:Work Experience

[Lumpy]

Actually a couple of places I worked at they had a "no masters" rule in HR. They figured that masters holders will not stick around long and will ask to top pay. Many masters holders will tell their bosses to go have intimate intercourse with themselves themselves without hesitation than the guy with a GED.

Many companies put the ability to abuse you daily far higher on the requirements list than education.

Re:Work Experience

[flithm]

In some fields, but not in CS. A masters doesn't get you more money. What gets you more money is experience, especially experience in the field you're looking for work in, and the ability to negotiate. There's just no point to extra years of school in CS, you learn on the job or through self study everything you'd learn in the masters courses.

Untrue. As someone who has (in the past 3 years) both tried to find a job with a Bachelor's degree and then with a Master's degree, I have personal first hand experience on this.

First of all a job will never teach you what you learn in a Master's program and vice versa. The experience of focusing on one problem and becoming a world expert on it is hugely different that working in a commercial setting. Unless your job is working in R&D and doing academic research, the two things are pretty polar.

Which brings me to my next point. In computer science _especially_ not only will a Master's degree open up doors that would have never been there if you simply had a Bachelor's but the pay will be higher.

This is a world where every one has an undergrad degree, and it's also a world in an economic recession. The best way to differentiate yourself from your peers is to spend the two years, and prove you that you can focus on one thing and become super knowledgeable. You'll have your undergrad degree to show you can learn a breadth of topics, and the Master's will be something that sets you apart from the other applicants.

I do agree that spending the time on a PhD is a complete waste, unless you want to go the pure academics route (and become a professor, etc). The pay over a Master's degree is negligible, and it may actually close some doors since the perception is there that you'll want a lot more money.

That being said I also agree that experience matters more than anything. Spend every summer working in your field. Take advantage of co-op and internship programs. Work part time doing anything related to the job you eventually want to get.

And absolutely yes, if you want a Master's degree, get one. It will help significantly, and it will also get you more money.

Re:Work Experience

[Lumpy]

Here's a fact.

you want to get promoted? then go find another job. Honestly today in "corporate life" you NEVER promote from within unless the person was set up for it... I.E. I'll hire you at this, and then promote you in 6 months to the job I want you for. At least that is how it was at Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T.. It's not what you know or what you can do, but WHO you know and who you are buddies with.

also if your DAD is really good at his job, he will never get promoted because he screwed up and became "indispensable" and will NEVER be promoted. His only way up is to start looking for other jobs. Mine was to do that loudly at work, I got 3 promotions by letting everyone I knew at work that I was looking for a new job. Showing up to work in a suit and when asked you say " I have an interview this afternoon" works wonders when you are the guy that get's verbal kudos all the time but never get's a raise or promotion.

Problem is that that tactic takes balls and confidence. You gotta be ready to follow through.

Re:Work Experience

[apoc.famine]

As an addendum, I have a Masters in Education. The "Education" coursework which you correctly point out as being the most important thing is garbage.
 
Most college "Education" courses are taught by people with a PhD in Education. How do you get a PhD in Education? By taking college classes in Education. And what do you do, after you take hundreds of hours of college Education coursework? You teach Education to people taking your college classes.
 
Notice anything striking there? Of all my "Education" professors, none had taught in a non-college classroom in the last two decades. Some never had. What made them *qualified* to teach me? A PhD in Education. Did they have anything useful to teach? No. How could they, when their entire background was full-time immersion in college-level educational philosophy? My "Education" professors were philosophers,(PhD) not teachers.
 
A good teacher will get nothing out of "Education" coursework, and bad teachers won't get anything either. Yet our entire system revolves around non-teaching-experts teaching teachers about Educational Philosophy in a college setting. It's truly mind-boggling that the nuts and bolts of teaching at a non-college level are never touched.

Re:Work Experience

[exploder]

The main problems I hear, is the friction between getting retirement vs starting over in a good district, management so bad it would make a dilbert pointy haired boss blush, and the average IQ level of the "problem parents" must be single digits at best. I don't have relatives working with older kids... I guess they have a different set of problems to deal with, like drug use, pregnancies, drug dealing in school, gang problems, fights/shootouts, basically becoming the father/parents for the kids, basically they are social workers first, teachers second, and their skill area (computer guy, chemist, etc) third.

Don't forget a total lack of academic freedom as you're forced to "teach the test". That's the part that drove me from my original plan to teach HS math and into a PhD program to eventually (with luck) become a professor.

Re:Work Experience

[Farmer Pete]

Go to dice.com. Do a search in a location you are interested in. Look at the job requirements. What percentage list Masters degrees as a requirement? If not many, I would not get my Masters. My understanding is that a Masters is a great way to get promoted, but it can actually hurt you to get hired. If I had to choose two people for a job, everything identical except for masters vs B.S., I would pick the B.S. most of the time. Why? Because I can pay him less and he wont feel (as) insulted. There is a thing called being "overqualified" and it is a place you do NOT want to be.

My advice is to look for a job, work for a year, and reevaluate. I don't know what a Masters will cost you in your neck of the woods, but around here (Michigan State University), it's somewhere around $18k a year just for the schooling. I wouldn't spend $40k on something unless I thought I needed it or that I would get my investment back. I was personally looking at getting a Masters in Information Security, but in my area, I've never seen a job posting for an InfoSec job. Closest is a Network Admin who also does security. So I decided to not do that for now.

Re:Work Experience

[JPLemme]

I'm married to a teacher, and I wanted to expand on your excellent points.

The pay scale also needs to be corrected for the 16 weeks of vacation most teachers get. If they teach during the summer it's for a stipend on top of their salary. They earn their money, but the money is certainly good. (At least in the Northeast).

As far as the main problems, it's an interesting issue. In RI, at least, teachers can switch school districts without losing retirement benefits or seniority-based pay (the pension system is run by the state for at least some school districts). But because a teacher with 10 years of experience is more expensive to hire than one right out of college, it's not all that common for teachers to move around. So good ideas don't spread as rapidly as we're used to in the computer field.

As far as management, I wouldn't disagree that it can be bad. But the bigger issue seems to be that everybody's priorities are for themselves; in a company everybody benefits (to different degrees) when the company prospers, and everybody is hurt (again, to different degrees*) when the company does poorly. But in the school system everybody's rewards are based on how well they help themselves rather than the students. The school committee needs to hold the budget (and thus taxes) down or they don't get re-elected. The administration needs to hold costs down and test scores up or they get fired. The union leaders (teachers, janitors, bus drivers, cafeteria workers) all need to get as much for their union members as possible or they get booted out of office. The legislative politicians need to look like they're doing *something* or they get accused of not supporting education. For the most part, everybody really wants the children to get the best education possible, but their immediate rewards are rarely in alignment with that, so EVERYBODY is frustrated and feels that the system prevents them from doing what needs to be done. And unlike a corporation, there really isn't any one person in charge who can set a vision and coerce everybody to move towards it.

As for the parents, the problem parents are just as likely to be the ones with the high IQs. There are certainly low-end parents who do nothing at home to help their child succeed in school. But the difficult ones are often the highly-educated types with lawyers and advocates who know how to make the school system bend over backwards for their kid. They constitute another interested party in a giant zero-sum game.

As for the problems faced by junior high and high school teachers, I have no first-hand knowledge. I just know that I wouldn't want to spend every day working with kids who don't want to be there. :-)

*CEOs excepted, of course

Re:Work Experience

[cervo]

In most companies, who filters the resumes first? HR has a bigger say on the staff than you give them credit for. They are generally negligent on many technologies. They often filter resumes for key words.

Is someone a superstar programmer without a college degree? They will probably filter him/her out.

Did someone get a 4.0 GPA in CS and program in SQL Server/C# on their jobs? Well sorry you asked for a mid level candidate which they put as 5+ years Java experience.

Sure you choose among the candidates whose resumes you get. But HR gets to apply a filter before you even see them generally. Their filter tends to favor people who did the exact same thing as the job you are posting for in their previous jobs. Basically it leads to a lot of bored employees.....

Re:Work Experience

[internerdj]

I have to agree with this. The CS field is still relatively young. We have bunches and bunches of self-taught people, so there is a huge community of people who think that experience is the end all be all. Some of those folks are mind-blowingly incredible and some we had to rewrite all their stuff after they left, but the thing is they all thought they were mind-blowingly incredible.

A BS in CS will get you what you need to know to do your job and learn the technical skills to do about anything in the CS field. A master's is about how to make up new stuff technically, how to make new algorithms, new processes, new operating systems,... You can learn it through experience but it is better to not ignore what has been learned by everyone else over the past 40 years.

Re:Work Experience

[stewbacca]

Or, you could be like me and get your Master's from a giant-turd of an online University that spends their profit on naming football stadiums. They make the claim that their classes are better, because they are facilitated (not taught, because they aren't PhDs) by working professionals in the field of education. Every course I took facilitated by a public school teacher was an absolute waste of time, as they don't know how to teach education--they know how to push the buttons of adolescents.

I for one welcome the PhD in education teaching me about education, as opposed to trying to teach me how to teach. There are lots of jobs in education (like mine, software simulation training development) that require a strong understanding of education but don't require a single ounce of teaching skill. Leave teaching teachers how to teach to those 4 year plus 1 BA in education degrees.

Re:Work Experience

[stewbacca]

Lightweight, eh? Care to elaborate, or are you just projecting your (most likely) heavy science background and biases into your post?

I'm seriously tired of the disparaging remarks towards education degrees. Sure, a four-year degree isn't much (in any field, if you ask me), but any work in any post-graduate field is an accomplishment in my book. I don't understand rocket science, but I notice the rocket scientists I work with don't understand the art of instructional design either.

Re:Work Experience

[foniksonik]

If his father has a house, a wife and a gaggle of teen age kids to provide for he better live in a major city... cause otherwise there may not be another company close by worth working for.

Relocating a mature family is not an easy decision to make. It is possible but it becomes a pros/cons thing and it may be that the cons out weigh the pros even when there's a substantial pay increase involved.

Re:Work Experience

[PsiCTO]

He's not an IT grad. He's a Comp.E.

for the love of god, slashdot, stop confusing engineers with sysadmins.

Thank goodness, finally a thread that starts with the core issue. I believe the question encompasses the trade-off between further education and earnings. I can only relate that to my own experience.

As a Computer Engineering grad I chose to stay around for a Masters (though in a field of applied engineering) out of interest in further courses and to see if I could succeed at it. It was partly a question of figuring out what I was best suited to. However, my plan was to definitely get real-world experience thereafter and see if I could hack it in industry. I did that for a few years after the M.Sc. and then wondered if a Ph.D. was worth doing. I knew I could fall back to a job in industry so the risk was minimal (also wasn't married with kids at the time).

I've always thought an M.Sc. was like an intro to research, while a Ph.D. required passion for it (or a specific problem). You gotta have the passion to finish a Ph.D.

Professors are always keen to see students do advanced degrees (partly) because they are rated on the number of students they churn out. Being cynical, that's why it's hard to fail a grad course ;-) Grant values are tied to # of students.

Last, I found that by doing extra degrees and varying my jobs every 2-4 years, I've acquired some very broad experience (from embedded/server level software through digital HW to RF and on to R&D management). This allows me to consider all kinds of jobs with good qualifications in hand.

If varied/broad experience is what you want, consider the above. But if not, there's nothing wrong with focusing on what you have and carving a strong career in a narrower domain.

BTW, the money may or may not even out, depending on your opportunities. Is money important to you? then start earning and saving ASAP, and maybe start an Apple/Google-killer...and give me a call if you need help ;-)

Re:Work Experience

[stewbacca]

Well you got one thing right and one thing very wrong. First, most companies do pay more for a masters over a bachelors, even if both candidates have zero experience. That's the magic of HR metrics. When you get into contracting-land, companies have to have a specific percentage of PhDs, masters, and 4-year college grads to be competitive. If you can't win a contract, there's no point in having a bunch of highly experienced (but uneducated) techs.

You are VERY right about getting a masters while you still can manage. For most people, this is when you are young and dumb. Most of us move beyond living in a one bedroom apartment with five of our friends and driving a 10 year old beater car because that saves money for the case of Natural Light. Get your masters while you are young and poor! As soon as you start working, you'll rarely find time. You'll get married, you'll get a mortgage, you'll buy two cars, you'll have a couple kids. Then one day when you are 35, you'll realize "had I just stayed in school for two more years when I was 23, I could have been DONE with school forever".

Re:Work Experience

[JPLemme]

You're right, but in the corporate world there are two differences:

1. The company can fail, and if it does it takes everybody with it. The various parties in the GM fiasco all had competing interests, but GM's collapse is ultimately bad for the UAW workers, bad for GM's management, and bad for the shareholders. So they all had a strong incentive to cooperate in order to insure GM remained healthy. (Not that they did...)

There is hardly a similar incentive for public school systems. Virtually every person involved is protected by a union contract, state law, or both. And there's no equivalent to profits to measure the success of the whole enterprise. (Standardized test scores are a lot less objective than dollars.)

2. In the corporate world, there's a boss. I may not want to cooperate with the Finance department on a project, but there is a boss of both them and me who can force us to cooperate under penalty of termination.

But just about the only way to force teachers to do things (in most schools) is through the union contract. The only way to force the school committee to do anything is through bi-annual elections. Even the janitors and school principals are in unions. And parents can't be forced to do anything but make sure their kid shows up. There are some people in the administration who can actually be relieved of their duties for not cooperating, but they are in charge of a whole lot of people who barely have to obey them.

It's not a recipe for effectiveness.

Re:Work Experience

[DrgnDancer]

1) Because they are ignorant of the age of a technology, or the speed with which it moves. This is getting better, but I recall LOTS of this with Java back before it became mature technology. A programmer says to a manager, "When we hire that new guy, see if you can get someone who know some of this new Java stuff... I think we can use that." The manager says to HR, "They should know Java." HR consults previous job ads, sees that normally when you want someone that "knows" a language you ask for 5 years of experience. Then they write an ad that requests five years of experience in a 3 year old technology.

2) They fail to understand that experience with a specific technology is rarely as useful in a technology environment as the skills to learn and adapt to new technologies. You seem to falling into this trap to an extent as well, but you haven't been specific enough for me to know for sure. I won't deny that there ARE time when you need someone who will be up to speed on day 1. Those times are (or should be) the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking, a programmer can program in a variety of languages, give him a few weeks and he'll learn the one you need. I encountered this a lot in my most recent job hunt.

"Have you worked with Veritas?"
"Well, no, but I've worked with the San Management and file system tools from HP and SGI, I understand Veritas is very similar... It shouldn't be a problem"
"So you've worked with Veritas?".

La. The fact of the matter is that you will likely never find someone with "x" years of experience in every technology you use unless you hire from within, or have an incredibly vanilla configuration. The industry is to heterogeneous, and moves to fast. Often in the time it takes to find the guy with the perfect resume, you could have hired three guys and got them up to speed (Again, this depends on how vanilla your requirements are, if all you ask for is "3 years of Unix experience" or "5 years of Java programming", you're probably gonna find someone. I've seen lots of job descriptions with 10 or 11 bullet points all asking for multiple years of experience with very specific things.)

3) They lack the ability to judge a candidates skills except by looking at the number of years they've been doing something. Absent that measure they are at a loss, so they ask for impossibilities like "5 years of Android experience". I've worked for a few small companies with only one or two IT guys where this is a big problem. Management just lists the technologies they have and asks for 3-5 years of experience in all of them. Especially if the small IT staff is all younger people (as often happens at small companies, it's all they can afford), they simply have to look at experience years and hope they get lucky.

4) They somehow have a different definition of the term "entry level" than the rest of the world. I'm sorry, people with 5 years of experience in any aspect of IT or programming have ceased to be entry level. In fact, that's the definition of the term to the rest of us.

I'm not saying that YOU do any of these things, I don't know you. These are however some of the many reasons that managers and HR ask for stupid, impossible, or pointless things in job adverts. In turn these are the reasons that many of us ignore the requirements in job adverts and apply for things that we know we can do, even if we only have 2 years of java experience instead of 4. Usually once the managers get the actual pile of resumes and realize that no living human on Earth actually has 5 years of experience in every technology they happen to have in their particular data center they start looking for the people that are close enough to get the job done. I've almost never met all the requirements of any job I've ever applied for, unless it was a particularly well written ad. Inevitably there is SOME technology that the writer chose to highlight which I have never worked with, or have only used something similar. I've never had any problem picking up the new tech on hire either though.

Only do your masters on a topic you will use

[MichaelSmith]

I know a lot of people who don't work in the area which they studied for their masters. Thats a waste of time IMO. I think you should decide now what type of work you are going to do after university and make sure you can directly benefit from the extra time you spend on your education.

Re:Only do your masters on a topic you will use

[backwardMechanic]

If you learn nothing in your Masters that you can transfer to any other field, then yeah, true. But then it was a pretty poor Masters, wasn't it?

Re:Only do your masters on a topic you will use

[MrMr]

I know a lot of people who don't work in the area which they studied for their masters. These time wasters are invariably more interesting and more capable than the people who already knew at 18 what they'd be doing the rest of their lives.
Why do you presume your chosen profession even exists in 30 years?

Re:Only do your masters on a topic you will use

[backwardMechanic]

I did a Masters in artificial intelligence. I now work (as a physicist) developing MRI machines. But I can still hold a half-sensible conversation about neurons, to the general surprise of the local physiologists. Knowing something about image processing is also useful. The early scientists had it right - you knew something about all science. Of course science is bigger now, but we're all too specialised. I've never met a scientist disadvantaged by a broad background. Or an engineer. It's good for the imagination.

its not about money

[wjh31]

when you are considering taking on a masters/Ph.D/etc, its not really about money. Its about you, how much you are enjoying academic life, and how far you want to pursue it. if the only reason you are considering postgraduate courses is that it might increase your employability, then you shouldnt be considering them.

Re:its not about money

[Anonymusing]

Actually, I was going to say that the best part about my master's degree is not really the degree itself, or the income, but the people I came to know: incredibly smart professionals in the field, both as my instructors and my fellow students. It has given me a lot of good connections, which in turn gave me a much bigger job field and led me my current job (which I love). So while greater income potential is a good thing, there are many other benefits to a grad degree. I studied things and met people that I would not have had time to do if I was just kept working at my prior job.

Re:its not about money

[xouumalperxe]

Whatever happened to education being its own reward? Education for hedonism is called (...)

Education for hedonism is called "education for its own reward". Think about it.

Re:its not about money

[ivan256]

The "learn what you enjoy" theory has always seemed like a giant load of bull to me.

Education is hugely expensive. Going to school for what you want instead of for something practical is a massive, massive luxury. Unless you're wealthy, or on scholarship, you should go to school for something that pays the bills. By the time you get to college, you're an adult. It's time to start acting like one.

What does that mean for getting a masters? If somebody is going to pay for it for you, you'd be a fool not to do it. Beyond that, you need to do a cost/benefit analysis. Remember that if you choose incorrectly, paying for your education will have enormous impact on your quality of life for decades.

This is a dead parrot. It's dead.

[berenixium]

The IT industry isn't so great at the moment, and as soon as job cuts come about in a company, the IT people are always the first ones to have their heads put on the block, then get chopped.

Companies seem to think that the IT dept is the most expendable for some reason. Now things are so bad that when a vacancy does crop up, there are more jobless candidates applying now than ever before. It's ridiculous until the economy gets better and God knows when that is going to happen.

My advice is to spend another year in study and sharpen your skills and knowledge. You really haven't got anything to lose until things get better. Except money. But there are always ways of making money, eh? Websites, your own ventures, freelancing while studying, part-time work in other industries like retail. The pre-bubble era of plenty in the early 2000's is long gone, but it happened once and I can easily predict it will happen again as more turn to online purchasing to save some cash in these troubled times. So such plentiful times will come again. Enjoy your studies if you decide to carry them on.

Re:This is a dead parrot. It's dead.

[Xoron101]

My previous boss told me this once, and so true it is:
It'll never be cheaper to get more education, so if you're going to do it, do it now.

In a few years, you'll likely have a spouse, kids, mortgage, car payment. Those things will be a huge factor if you ever wanted to go back and do your Masters.

And if the economy is in the tank for the next year or two, then it's probably the best time to be doing more education.

Re:This is a dead parrot. It's dead.

[Ibag]

Companies seem to think that the IT dept is the most expendable for some reason.

You say this as if it is a mystery why a company would feel this way. But regardless of whether IT is as expendable as some companies may treat it, I think it is important to understand why things are the way they are.

To any large company, there are essentially two parts. First, there is the part of the company devoted to whatever the company sells. This will include engineering and design, product, sales and marketing, and perhaps some portion of management.

On there other side, there is the part of the company that is there so that the company runs smoothly. This is the part of the company that is there to facilitate and support the first part of the company. IT is in this group (in a non-IT company), as are janitorial staff, a certain other amount of management, and other random departments which might vary from company to company.

There is, of course, some overlap between the two sides. For example, while you might consider the running of the website an IT role, it is also essential to sales. Still, viewing a company as having the two sides is helpful for understanding why companies see IT the way they do.

When money is tight, and a person needs to decide where to cut money, they cut the things they deem less important to their survival. They can refuse to buy a new stereo or new underwear, but they can't refuse to buy any more food.

Similarly, when money is tight and a company needs to decide what to cut, they get rid of what they deem to be the least important to their survival. From upper management's point of view, they see what the impact of laying off staff in their core business will be, and will be less likely to view management as just support. However, it is harder for them to see why they can't just halve their IT staff or janitorial staff. Maybe the floors will get vacuumed less often or it will take slightly longer to deploy Windows 7, but the company will still do what it does roughly as well as it currently does, right? (That is not to say that IT isn't crucial to a company's success, just that it is much harder for upper management to appreciate the relative worth of IT staff).

It's much harder to appreciate exactly how expendable support staff is, but it isn't that hard to see why management would view support staff as more expendable than others.

Do both Masters + work experience

[jools33]

I took a Masters in Software Engineering - back in the 90s. My masters was specially setup so that an industrial placement with a company was an integral part of the course. By all means take a job now - if you can get a good one - on the other hand - combining your masters course with an industrial placement at a well known company will get you the best of both worlds - and usually there are several bigname companies interested in taking on a motivated masters student as an industrial placement.

Phd or don't bother

[AuMatar]

There's no real point to a masters in CS. If you want to do research, you need a PHD to get a good spot at a uni. If you want to teach collegiately, you need the PHD if you don't want to be treated like shit by the administration. If you want to do heavy duty research while hired by industry, a phd is respected, anything else has a huge burden of proof, usually in the form of similar experience in the real world. If you want to go into the real world and work, a masters won't make you extra money and won't get you more respect than a BS- a masters with no experience is treated just like a bs with no experience.

So what do you want to do? If it's research or teach, get a PHD. If it's go out and program for a living, stick with the BS.

Re:Actually, not sure about the answer

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

On the one hand, it will never again be as easy to learn as it is now. The older you get and the more time passes between having been in school and then doing it again, the harder it will be. Not only to find the motivation (unless you really do like school), but also to get your brain into learning mode again.

Well there's your problem--you're not supposed to stop learning just because you stopped going to school. ;)

I worked for about 15 years before starting on my 4-year degree full-time. So far (at the end of my second year of grad school) I've found academic life easier than having a job. Maybe it's because I developed some time and priority management skills while I was working. Maybe it's because I was frequently in "learning mode" when I was working.

Whatever the reason, I haven't found it significantly harder to learn at age 40 than it was at age 20.

Both - in whatever order and whatever pace works.

[Shag]

Right now, you've presumably got non-zero earning potential. Earning some money might feel good. Getting rid of some student loans might feel good.

Sooner or later, maybe you'll start spotting jobs that you could get if, on top of your natural talent, you had more education. When you start thinking that, go get more education.

I spent about 15 years in IT (went from $18K to $100K+) and never needed more education than I had. If I had more education, I suppose I might have been pushed into management... but I don't really like managing, I like doing.

5 years ago, took my IT skills and went into scientific and policy fields where I got to apply my IT skills, but got to learn a bunch of entirely new stuff, and do completely different work that made my old cubicle-dwelling buddies extremely jealous. Of course, it did put my pay back down to $18K... and I realized that everyone around me had a PhD or JD or something similar! So after racking up some experience, I'm now taking grad classes... and in these fields, just being in grad school makes people take my job applications a lot more seriously.

Yes, do it.

[damburger]

For a start, education is worth more than your final salary. Your time at university should be more about expanding your horizons and using the spare time that you will not have in the working world to pursue your own projects. Savour it whilst you can.

Secondly, if you hadn't noticed, it isn't a great time for anybody to be graduating with anything right now. Staying in university longer will, hopefully, save you from having to look for a job in the middle of a crisis where companies are having to cut costs.

Thirdly, the idea that you must find work as soon as you graduate often leads people into jobs they dislike, jobs they feel trapped in, and jobs that are considerably below what they are capable of. This will, I speak from personal experience, make you very unhappy.

Forget the work ethic bullshit you've had thrust upon you. The purpose of life is to enjoy yourself and to fulfill your potential in the way you choose. Work should not be a means to this, but a part of it. Poverty is preferable to drudgery.

Don't look for money. Look for a vocation that really appeals to you, rather than just a job, and let the money sort itself out later. Don't think about getting a mortgage and a pile of expensive crap as soon as you graduate it because you'll end up making yourself little more than an indentured servant.

Lots of bad advice

[salesgeek]

One thing I regret is listening to the advice of so many people. If you feel like you will learn more, and be able to do more of value for others with a Masters Degree, then get one. Even more important, make sure that you will enjoy earning the degree.

Money is not the most important thing in life.

Work Experience with Free Money toward Masters

[evansomd.com]

Wouldn't this be simpler with a poll? I agree with those that said a technical Masters doesn't get you much, fresh out of college. Find a good job, then (after a year or two) get them to pay for your Masters. You will be getting something for nothing (perhaps obligation to work a certain period), and you'll have time to consider exactly which Masters degree you want. I waited 10 years after my BSEE, and I wish I hadn't, but I'm happy that I realized an MSEE is not my preferred career path. I got a MBA, and I think it was the best choice :)

Absolutely true

[wonkavader]

It is an unfortunately reality that changing employers at a reasonable pace is the only way to get yourself on a good raise schedule.

Re:Normally...

[RevWaldo]

Agreed. In a down economy education is an excellent investment. Sometime after you graduate the economy will turn around, another bubble-enhanced can-you-start-yesterday hiring frenzy will start, and you'll be awfully glad you have the MA when it does.

Just remember to watch your debts and put some money in the bank. Nothing lasts forever.

Counter Example

[Ruzty]

My mother has a doctorate in education. She has 15 years of classroom experience in K-8 and another 10 in administration (principal and curriculum development). She spent over 6 years teaching for Vanderbilt University's graduate school of education after retiring from her real world experience.

How things are at the school you attended does not extend to the world at large. There are universities out there who hire professors with real classroom experience. Perhaps you should find a better school?