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.
A taught Masters (eg two more years of lectures) is a waste of time compared to two years experience, but a research Masters (two years of independent research under a mentor) is a good opportunity to make a name for yourself in a computing niche. The research one is more difficult, more expensive because you'll need to get to the right conferences and 'market' yourself, and only worthwhile if there's an aspect of computing that fascinates you more than it interests other people.
But...
The economy is shot. There's a chance that you won't be able to get a solid two years of work experience. If ever there was a time to not be in work for a while and take some time to improve your skills and get some "me time" where you're doing what you want to do this is it. If you do a Masters when you finish you'll be entering a work environment where there are lots of people who've graduated with you and then been unemployed for a large proportion of the past 2 years. You'll have an advantage over them.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
I'm not a professor, I do computer support for an engineering department so I see an academic environment, but I'm not an academic. That said:
Don't get a masters just for the sake of getting one. You will not get yourself any sort of real leg up. The reason to get a masters is because you want to do research. If there is something that interests you, something you want to study, particularly a research professor you'd like to work under, then it is a good idea. Education for its own sake is never a bad thing. However to just get a masters just to try and get a better job, nah not a good idea.
We have all kinds of students like that in the department where I work. They are hoop jumpers. They see a masters as just another hoop to jump through. However they don't really learn anything from it. They don't do any research, just take a comprehensive exam, and still go out in to the world with a ton of theoretical knowledge and no ability to actually apply it.
What you see is the opposite of what you'd think: The bad students go on, the good ones don't. The top students go and get a job. The bottom students go on to get a masters since they can't find a good job. However the problem isn't education.
Also, if your company wants you to get a masters, they'll send you back. My cousin did this. Got his bachelors and went to work for Boeing. After a few years they said "Hey, you are doing well on this, how about go get your masters?" So he did.
Now the one confounding factor right now might be the crappy job market. If you can't get a job, then maybe staying in school makes more sense. That's a question of finances, and I can't answer it for you since I don't know your situation. However if the option is no job living in poverty or full scholarship living as a student, well then it isn't hard to figure out which you should do.
So, reasons to get your masters:
1) You have something you are really interested in researching, or you know a professor who you are really interested in working with. You are getting it because you want to learn more and enrich yourself.
2) You have a good financial incentive to get it, like a scholarship, and poor financial incentive to go work.
3) You are working in a field that requires a masters. Computer engineering isn't generally one of those, but there are some exceptions. There are some subfields that a masters or PhD is necessary. If you wanted to be a professor that would be an example.
Now these are NOT reasons to get a masters:
1) You want a better job. Probably not really going to help you. It might, and I emphasize might, get you a better entry level position, but work experience counts way more than education after that. So you might find that in 5 years, you were better off getting more work experience than education.
2) You want to put off working because you aren't sure what you want to do. Bad idea. Only way you will know what you like is to try it. So get the job, and if it doesn't work out get another. Don't use school to avoid work, because that doesn't solve anything since work is coming at some point.
3) You "need it to compete." No, you don't. Most CE people don't go on to get a masters. It really isn't needed. If you find yourself unable to compete, the problem is likely not a lack of education, but something else. I mean if you are the sort of person with no problem solving skills (something engineering requires) no amount of school will teach that.
So I can't say if it is the right decision for you since I don't know you or your situation. All I can say is that it is the right decision, so long as it is made for the right reason(s).
>
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.
You're going to work the rest of your life.
Have some fun now.
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.
The OP should be getting relevant work experience while working on a masters.
A 25 yr old colleague will be expected to have about 4 years of work experience in the field. Whether they will be expected also to have a masters depends on the position. A programmer probably doesn't need a masters, but for a more responsible job, you'll need a lot of work experience to compensate for the lack of one.
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
Masters isn't going to increase your starting pay grade or get you a job easier, work experience is going to do that. You need work experience now.
BUT here's the thing. When you're 10+ years into your job, suddenly that masters means *everything*. Expect to start hitting some barriers, like maximum pay-grade. You really need to do both, and you need to make sure you get work experience before you graduate AND make sure you get your Masters while you still can manage it.
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.
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
He's not an IT grad. He's a Comp.E.
for the love of god, slashdot, stop confusing engineers with sysadmins.
And the way to do this is look for co-op or internship work while doing your undergrad and Master's. Then you end up with work experience and academic credentials on your resume.
Alternatively, after you get your bachelor's and get a job see if your company will pay for your master's. Many companies will do "tuition reimbursement" as long as its a relevant degree field and you make good grades. Its a lot of work but trust me, its worth it, and you should get it done now before you get married and have kids.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
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.
Your area needs to modernise it's teaching requirements.
Where I am, in a effort to get "highly qualified"* teachers the state allows them to get an MA in education while teaching simply by taking 5 classes, 2-3 of which are free, and the the rest very affordable in-state. The program is not too widely publicised, as the idea is that qualified individuals thinking about teaching will find it, but the people who simply "can't do" are not constantly having it advertised to them.
If someone values time off teaching is a job with fantastic pay (try getting anything reasonable at a traditional job with a 190 day work year. With 4 weeks of vacation mine is still over 230).
As a competent person
* term used by the state, it is defined as 30+ credits in a subject area.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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
Alternatively, after you get your bachelor's and get a job see if your company will pay for your master's. Many companies will do "tuition reimbursement" as long as its a relevant degree field and you make good grades. Its a lot of work but trust me, its worth it, and you should get it done now before you get married and have kids.
I'm torn on this. I just completed an M.S. in CS while working full-time as a developer, and now that it's all over, I'm not sure how I feel about the decision I made to do the two concurrently. On one hand, the expensive parts of school were free (before my in-state residency kicked in and I paid my own much cheaper way). I've been getting a pretty good paycheck which has funded an engagement ring, much of a wedding, and a couple of years of my fiancee's college education. Now that I'm done, I have a graduate degree with 3 years experience instead of a graduate degree with 1 year. In theory this will help with my current job hunt. Even though the economy is down, I've got a couple of promising leads that I strongly doubt I would have without both the work experience and the graduate degree. While those leads are pretty much hot air until they turn into interviews / offers, I got them with only a couple of weeks looking around and so I believe I'm in a better spot than I was after college.
HOWEVER, I feel like I didn't get as much out of my degree as I wanted. I didn't have the time to spend really digging into courses that challenged me (namely a theory of computation course). I had to pass on a number of courses that would have been interesting, but couldn't be made to work with my professional schedule. I wasn't able to go to department colloquia or talks because they were during work hours. I had a funded summer research project that I wasn't able to take as far as I wanted because research is not something you can do "after hours". For the same reason, I had to abandon my thesis after a literature review because there wasn't any way I was going to be able to put out good work, and I thought it better to just graduate with a comprehensive exam to get the damned thing over with. I don't regret that decision, but I regret not changing the circumstances that led to it. As I look back, I realize that the time in school was far more rewarding to me.
On mornings when I just didn't want to get out of bed (sucky weather, didn't sleep well), it wasn't my job that made me get up. What got me out of bed was the thought of learning something new, of figuring out how some small part of the computer science world worked. Now, in one hand I've got an M.S. that I'm only superficially proud of because it does not represent the full extent of my abilities. In the other hand, I've got excellent performance reviews for a job I have no pride in and a bunch of clueless co-workers and managers who are congratulating me for "finally finishing college".
I guess the point of this Slashdot-confession post is that working full-time and doing an M.S. concurrently is not a decision to be undertaken lightly. I'm not talking about a lack of social life, as that's a relatively easy problem to solve. The problem is prioritization. Something will have to play second fiddle, and YOU are the ultimate arbiter of what needs to give if you do this. Otherwise, you'll wind up half-assing one or the other, and you may not like where that leaves you. Good luck, though - I wish you well!
I'm disabling ads until because I choose not to reward redesigns that are less usable than "view source".
Anecdote vs Anecdote WHO WILL WIN?!!?!11