Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
>
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.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
You're going to work the rest of your life.
Have some fun now.
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.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
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.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
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.
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.
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.
I dont read
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).
Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
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?
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
-- $G
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
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
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.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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.