Slashdot Mirror
State Colleges May Offer Best ROI On Comp Sci Degrees
jfruh (300774) writes "PayScale has recently released a survey of various U.S. colleges and majors, and determined, perhaps unsurprisingly, that computer science graduates of elite colleges make the most money in post-graduate life. However, blogger Phil Johnson approached the problem in a different way, taking into account the amount students and their families need to pay in tuition, [and found] that the best return on investment in comp sci degrees often comes from top-tier public universities, which cost significantly less for in-state students but still offer great rewards in terms of salaries for grads."
Unfortunately, you have to be a finance major to understand the report.
But the Finance major can't possibly be a CS major, unless he went to college twice, which would means he can't plan anyway. Regardless, if he went for Finance first, then to CS, he obviously realized that CS was better. But, if he went for CS first, then for Finance, he would then realize that CS was better. This catch 22 is the best proof why Agile is the preferred method even when taking college courses.
Have you read my journal today?
Combine that with lower salaries and you've got a winning combination for an employer.
You proved the point of the article with this statement alone.
A degree from a state university is basically toilet paper as compared to, say, MIT or Harvard or any other prestigious college/university.
Prestige isn't worth that much. Sure, I occasionally see job ads for people with pretty degrees - especially in status driven fields like finance. But they don't pay that much of a premium for those people.
Employers like indebted fresh graduates, because they're 1) idealistic and enthusiastic, having not had their souls crushed yet, and 2) a $1000 student loan payment makes it harder to quit when they treat you like shit and make you do the work of 3 people.
While that is plausible, do you have any evidence of such a bias?
A couple of intro classes, programming languages, discrete maths, use of the popular programming language d'jour, operating systems, data structures, algorithms and computability, compilers etc. Am I close to most people?
So basically the degree itself is a commodity, though not the person. So it doesn't really matter at the undergrad level if you go to Ivy or State. The foundation is the same. There may be differentiation at the graduate level, but that often depends more on your adviser and the adviser's reputation.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The MIT or Harvard, for a degree in Computer Science doesn't offer you superior education, it just looks nice on your resume. This is all fine and good to try to get a job first job. However after time less and less is dependent on where you got your degree from, just that you got a degree.
Now we have some employers who get impressed by the fancy name, but those balance out by the ones who get turned off by it. Because they often create pretentious workers who think they know it all and are not willing to learn the real way of doing things, or listen to the experience from the guy who doesn't have such a fancy degree.
In general companies do not like their employees with a lot of debt, because they are under more stress, and stress causes more irrational behavior. Sell their car, sleep in the office, or just get snappy at customers.
A degree from a State University vs a prestigious college isn't toilet paper, especially if you are interested in going to the corporate world. Your education in a State School espectially for undergrad work is probably better then the big names. Why? They get more professors who want to teach undergrads, vs the big names where you have more professors involved in their own research projects and teaching undergrads is one of those useless chores they need to do. So you have undergrads getting better teaching, and more time understanding the content, and less time just being bullied by the professor who wants the class to fail out so he can use the rest of the semester on his research.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yes, brag about that Harvard CS degree. lol.
So it's not actually based on evidence? Two can play at that game.
There's the other side of the coin, namely, that a employee who wracks up a lot of debt is more likely to making bad workplace decisions (since they've already demonstrated an inclination for doing so) or engage in theft and embezzlement (because they have huge financial incentive to do so).
I've worked in various different work environments, but thankfully nothing as horrible as that. I do know that employees with kids and a mortgage are seen as being easier to manage than contractors with large nest eggs or even employees with a sufficiently large "f.u. fund", for authoritarian managers that is. On the flip side, people in the work force who are rich and independent enough to not have to put up with any crap from their manager, are there of their own volition, and probably like what they do. Such self-motivated, happy employees generally make for better employees.
I have certainly never come across an employer who favours or actively seeks out indebted job seekers in order to have a tighter control over their workforce.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
What makes you think employers base the salaries they offer on what you need or want? You'll take what they give you and you will like it, or go fuck yourself.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
If you're after a good solid education, state schools do offer the best ROI for undergrad studies. I went to one, and was able to (barely) pay for it myself with a small amount of student loans, summer work and a little savings. Undergraduate education, from a content perspective, is very similar everywhere. I have a chemistry degree, and almost all undergrad chemistry programs are the same -- 2 survey courses, 2 organic chem, 2 physical chem, 2 analytical chem, 4 or 5 different lab courses, 4 or 5 electives (which vary based on what the schools' professors are concentrating on.)
The main differentiating factors I've noticed with private schools are the networking opportunities in and out of school, and the "cushy" factor. Even in a high tax state like New York, the state universities are pretty Spartan as far as accommodations go. Lately, states have been spending lavish sums trying to catch up in terms of sports facilities, etc. but they're still not a Harvard or Yale. Students going the state university route need to understand that they're going to get what they pay for, and likely be ahead of their private university peers in terms of raw dollars in debt when they get out. They need to be self-motivated and mature enough to handle their own affairs -- outside of class, everything at a state university is like dealing with a state agency. You're one student of thousands, and no one but you is going to care if you fail out. As far as opportunities go, private schools do give you a leg up. There are certain jobs you can't even hope to interview for such as white-shoe consulting firms or investment banking, who almost exclusively recruit from Ivy League schools. In my experience, this only applies to your first job or two, however. I've interviewed both public and private college grads, and there's an equal distribution of qualified people in each camp.
Since tuition is going way up at both the public and private levels, students who don't already have the money saved really do need to do a cost-benefit analysis. I probably would have had a better experience at somewhere like MIT or Stanford, just because I would have been studying with more smart people. But, I didn't have the money for $100K+ tuition. Students need to stop and think whether the caché of a big name school offsets the huge expense. They need to think about things like:
If the answer to any of these is "yes" and the student has a pot of money, they should go to private school. Otherwise, they should save their money. If a student is willing to hustle a little to get their first job, their accomplishments at that job and the connections they make will carry them through the rest of their careers. They probably won't reach stratospheric heights of corporate power, but talented students graduating with in-demand degrees can still do well.
I have certainly never come across an employer who favours or actively seeks out indebted job seekers in order to have a tighter control over their workforce.
I have only once: it was an Indian who loved H1-Bs as he could abuse them all he wanted because they'd have a hard time leaving. I did a couple months of contract work there and I could tell that it didn't take long for him to grow to dislike me as I would stand up to him all of the time.
Only if they are clueless.
They are assholes and you really don't want to be working for them. Run!
Anyone with a 4.0 from anywhere deserves a phone screen at a minimum, assuming they have relevant experience. As others have noted, as you get more experience, what you have done professionally becomes far more important than where you spent your undergrad days. Where you did your grad degree(s) is given more weight, but even then, it's what you did with your time there.
You have apparently had bad experiences in corporateland. I would suggest a few years in startups maybe.
Having worked with bosses, and been part of the hiring process... Those big college names mean very little. Perhaps an equivalent of 2 more years of experience.
So we got Person A with 4 years experience and a State Degree and we got a Person with 2 years experience and a Ivy League Degree, then we will have a crap shoot. Just because of the difficulty of getting in the school means that this person has a good track record of working hard. But that is about it.
However the real value of a good education isn't getting the job, but keeping and advancing in the job. If you know your stuff then you will advance, if you just an arrogant prick unless you truly mastered the art of BS and Networking (not common with people with just a CS degree) then you will probably stay at your position while others work up.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
> The MIT or Harvard, for a degree in Computer Science doesn't offer you superior education, it just looks nice on your resume.
Computer Science is severely improving in many universities, but the top-tier univeristies for Computer Science really do provide a CS education that's a step above what's available in most places.
This isn't liberal arts where it's money and alumni politics. Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, Carnagie Mellon, and Harvard have *fantastic* undergraduate education for computing and engineering. There are a good number of state schools that have become comparable, but they've earned their reputation for a good reason.
This comes from someone without a degree.
I know very few people who actually went to university to get an education. And even fewer employers who care more about "Education" than "degree." Nearly all of the people I work with and went to college with went for a degree.
If you could do the job you want to have for the rest of your life the day you leave high school (like most software engineers who actually write code for a living - assuming some learning on the job) then your greatest ROI is to get an accredited diploma from the cheapest, fastest university you can go to.
You are filling in a checkbox, not seeking an education... don't fool yourself.
A degree is a practical expense for most people. An "education" is a luxury afforded only for the very rich. Don't go into crippling debt to get an education, you (basically everyone) can't afford that crap. You can study and learn on your own, later. You are there for a degree, and don't forget it.
An entire generation of people seem confused about this. They think an "education" is worth going into massive debt, they think an "education" will get them a job that will pay the bills... well, I should use the past tense, because nobody thinks that anymore. According to what I have read about "Millennials"
Degree as part of a structured career plan = good idea
Education as a "career will follow" plan is OVER, it was the case in 1965, but you will enjoy a lifetime full of debt and meager earnings if you use that "plan" now.
If it seems harsh and anti-education I am sorry. I am all about learning, but novelty $100,000 sheepskins, sold at 4% interest to first generation college students with no career plan - really boils my blood.
It is really disappointing that in my lifetime we have managed to shift seeking an education from an empowering experience to hopelessly and permanently hindering the lives of middle and lower class people.
I applied for other universities, but when it came down to it I found that going to Oregon State University was the best bang for my then-limited buck. And I've been very happy with my CS degree.
You don't have to be a finance major to understand that the calculations were flawed. They only count the amount spent on tuition. They don't count the cost of your human capital and the opportunity costs involved. Investing in yourself is not like investing in the stock market because you only have one life to invest in. So you cannot just compare the difference in tuition between a state school and Stanford because you are also giving up a portion of your young life to your educational pursuits.
Their highest 20 year net ROI/yr school was University of Virginia, but they only returned $1.3 million in total. Stanford returned $1.7 million. So even though the annual ROI was greater at the University of Virginia, you are still leaving $400k on the table by not choosing Stanford. And considering you can borrow money at 6.8% interest, it only costs you $90k more after interest to go to Stanford instead of the University of Virginia (if the loans are paid over a 20 year period).
So the only correct calculation is that going to Stanford will net you an extra $300k versus going to the University of Virginia (obviously this is not a very precise calculation though).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
...what you put in to it. I went to a local state university for CS, and I studied hard and did well in school. Four years later I had my BS in CS in hand having paid less than $15K in tuition (and that wasn't all that long ago). I got a job locally with the help of referrals by professors who had good working relationships with many of the local tech employers. In short, my entire education was a helluva bargain, and helped launch my career.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
What makes you think employers base the salaries they offer on what you need or want? You'll take what they give you and you will like it, or go fuck yourself.
It is sad that you not only posted this but that someone else marked it as insightful. Companies will pay you what it takes to keep you and what it takes to keep you motivated. Complaining that companies don't pay you more than you are worth is no different than companies complaining that they have to pay you at all.
Would you rather have a job was just some form of charity because your boss feels bad for you? If you answer yes to that then I am not surprised that you have had such bad luck in the job market.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I pity today's college student burdened with obscene tuition. When I decided to go back to school (because of a non-existant social life) my choices were pretty open - I had good undergrad grades and a mind-blowing GRE. Tuition/fees at UT Austin c. 1970 was under $700 a *year* and I rented a quite decent duplex for $135 a month. Planning to spend most of my time chasing coeds, I opted for a not-so-high-pressure state school over an expensive, high-pressure, prestige school. Never regretted it - chasing coeds was great fun until one caught me and I had to finish my PhD. But I came out w/o any debt and I'm still head-over-heels crazy about that girl.
Alas such school fun is no longer possible, both tuition and academic pressure is now obscene at UT. It's today's students who have to walk 5 miles in the snow to school, uphill both ways. Damn, but I wish they could share my lawn.
Prestige isn't worth that much. Sure, I occasionally see job ads for people with pretty degrees - especially in status driven fields like finance. But they don't pay that much of a premium for those people.
The prestige is a very small part of an Ivy degree's worth. The true worth comes in the connections made. Do you want all of your friends from college to be average state school graduates or Stanford graduates? I only went to a state school because I slacked off so much in my younger years, but even then my best early job opportunities came from past classmates tracking me down when they were starting companies (one startup and one consulting company). I can only imagine how much better those job opportunities would have been if my past classmates had been from Stanford, MIT, or Harvard.
One interesting theory about the value of weaker schools is that you will shine more in that environment. I got my last two jobs because former classmates remembered me as the one guy they wanted to work with. If I had went to Stanford I might not have had as good of opportunities because I could have just blended in. I may have been one of the brightest students at my state school, but probably would have been about average at Stanford or MIT.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
One thing I've found in the work world that they don't prepare you for at all in college is the work environment. In college, you take CS or engineering classes, and you do the work on your own, frequently in the solitude of your own apartment, or at the library where it's quiet. Then, when it's time for an exam, you take it in the classroom, and talking and discussion and other noises are not allowed. This should all be changed, because it doesn't reflect the modern work environment.
First off, students should be required to do all their programming assignments and exercises together in one large room, at rows of open tables with no dividers between them. A class full of business majors or better yet marketing majors should be brought in and sat right next to them, so they can do their collaborative projects next to the CS/engr majors. The business/marketing majors can talk loudly all they want, and interrupt the CS/engr majors while they're working with various useless comments ("How's it going!"). The CS/engr majors should not be allowed to take their work anywhere else; they have to do it only in this environment.
When it's test time, the test should be held in a busy corridor. Put all the students at long tables together on the side of the corridor, so that all the foot traffic passes right next to them.
If you can't do your programming work with lots of noise and commotion and people talking to you and walking by you constantly, you have NO business being a programmer in today's corporate world where open-plan work areas are now the norm.
This article misses the fact that elite colleges are also typically the most generous when it comes to financial aid. I am studying CS at Yale. Yale's tuition + room and board cost is nowhere near affordable by my family. Nevertheless, I got a Yale scholarship that covers everything I cannot pay, and I will not be indebted when I graduate. My tuition is probably lower than a state college's (although they might provide some aid for cases like mine, but not me since I'm an international). And I am by no means a special case, 50% of the student body is on financial aid. The perception that elite colleges are out to strip you of your money and put you on a life-long debt is false. They are willing to throw money at you if you get admitted. Also, it is rare that anybody graduates from the CS department without any job offers. I admit that what I learn is probably not drastically different than what people learn at a state college. Still, it is much harder to make it above the curve here than it will be at a state college, and much more effort/focus will be needed to stay afloat. There is certainly a discrepancy in difficulty, and employers will probably appreciate that.