Slashdot Mirror
Is Attending a CS Conference Worth the Time?
An Anonymous Coward writes"Hello Slashdot readers, I am a CS student nearing graduation and i had a couple of questions. One of my professors is recommending submitting a paper to the CCSC (consortium of computing sciences in colleges) in Utah this year for a chance to have my work published in a journal. I realize the value in having thesis work published but i don't really have the money to travel to Utah and stay for two nights. So i guess i am wondering, has anyone ever attended a conference of this nature and if so was it worth the time and money?"
The main reason to attend these things is to meet people. This can either help you get a job or help find professors to partner with in the next stage of your education.
If you have no interest in either, then the only reason to go is out of your own curiosity.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I usually don't have to add comments to items on /., as usually the right answer or comment is already there. But, in this case, it's not.
I am one of the decision-makers on hiring at my company, as VC-funded startup. (If you like, come interview; we're profitable and hiring). Having a publication is a very good thing for *your entire life*, and it's often something you only get a chance to do young. Yes, when you're young, the cost seems high. But, relative to your future income, it is a drop in the bucket. Lost weekend, $500 flight, $300 hotel... Borrow it from a 30- or 40- something who trusts you, and pay it back over a year.
Why is it such a good thing? It's irrelevant who you meet there. Maybe you'll get lucky, but, it's not likely. The value is in company you share by being a published author. Software company decision-makers often went to CS grad school, and like to hire people who they can relate to! They will have pubs, you will have a pub. Simple as that.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.
I have to second ren-n-stimpy's comment as someone who did NOT take advantage of such an opportunity, and further second that this might be your only chance to publish. Do it!
This is the most sage comment thus far. I would add the following to it.
Every single successful academician that I know -- and I mean every single one -- went to lots of conferences when they were young. Most still go to conferences, but typically become more selective as they become more successful. Since I'm fortunate enough to have made it to upper-end institutions, that biases my sample, but the correlation is still 100%.
When I was young, my professor didn't have much of a travel budget. Hell, until I became the head of a lab, none of my supervisors had much of a travel budget. I typically was able to get funding, often just partial, for one domestic US conference per year. I like to travel, so I spent my own money, even going into debt, to attend one or two other conferences per year as well, usually one in Europe and one somewhere in the US. I got to meet many, many people. Giving presentations at these conferences was important in developing my communication skills. As a result, I now get four or five invitations to speak at international conferences per year.
And that's arguably the second most important reason for going to a conference, after networking. As a scientist, assuming you are thinking of the academic track, you have to sell yourself and your research. Only a very small handful of scientists ever do anything so remarkable that they become famous just for that one thing. Most of the rest become well-known because of hard work at becoming well-known. That includes doing good work, but it also, importantly, involves building a reputation for good work. Reputations are built upon interactions that display skill and knowledge. You, as a scientist, are building a brand -- of yourself. Being able to communicate well, and having the skill to do so, is a vital part of that. Attending conferences, with the necessary preparations, works on those skills.
Going to a conference to present work is not just taking a mini-vacation. Unless you want to waste your time and money. It involves writing a carefully-thought-out presentation, creating good slides or a poster, and practicing over and over again until you can do it in your sleep. You will find, at conferences, that most people do not do this, and the difference between a good presentation and a poor one is not just striking, but feeds back into all of the issues above, including reputation. You should reserve about a week to create your presentation, be it a slide or poster, and then several days to practice it. Give it to colleagues and friends, and tell them to be brutal. Take their feedback to heart. Re-write. Give another practice talk. Repeat.
Are conferences worthwhile? Absolutely. Will you see the results right away? Probably not.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
No.
AC is completely right, but the answer is too short. Here is the long answer:
No, but as a professional computer scientist you need to go to conferences because it's part of your job.
What's a 'professional' computer scientist? PARC and Bell Labs are long gone, and I know of no places that actually employ people to do CS work these days. And as a student, I'd hardly call him a professional. It's not like he's getting paid..