I've got around another year of coursework, and possibly another year after that to finish out a dissertation. When I started my PhD programme, the work I did for the first month was somewhat bland and didn't challenge me. After that initial period, I had the chance to work on some interesting research in medical engineering, authored a few conference papers with my adviser, finished up a journal publication and took a few courses in my discipline. Once I started to touch on the interesting subjects, like pattern recognition, neural networks, machine vision, computational microbiology, etc., I started to really enjoy being a student and yearned for more knowledge. Of course, I also wanted to have a firm background in my area of focus, so I could venture forth into industry once I finally graduate.
Yes, the days were long, and there were plenty of times I thought that I wouldn't have everything done, that I'd do poorly on my exams, etc., but everything just boils down to your perseverance and your adviser's willingness to work with you. Since I'm an RA, I'm expected to work a certain number of hours per week, but often my adviser allows me to work on my publications instead. Whenever I need to bounce some ideas off of him, or just get his approval, I sit down with the guy for at least half an hour. Considering we meet two or three times per week, and the fact that he's heavily knowledgeable and respected in his field, I walk out of his office with a very good insight into a particular problem. Of course, had my adviser not been so willing to work with me, provided me with some fun and engaging research projects, let alone take a chance and fund me, I honestly wouldn't have stayed past a Masters degree.
In retrospect, I feel that we were both vague, with respect to our comments and the fields that the comments applied to. As an engineer, I can definitely see that having more education is definitely a better thing; though, as you have pointed out, the experience is often just as valuable, if not more so. So for me, having an M.Sc or a Ph.D. in an engineering discipline automatically translates to a much higher salary, since a lot of what I learned I had actively applied in research, large projects, a thesis, etc. Depending on what you quantify as IT (which seems to be somewhat of a moving target definition), I could see instances where having an education versus having experience may cause someone to be compensated more for one than the other.
However, on a tangent note, I wouldn't necessarily consider your formal education a waste, since that, in itself, is a form of experience. While I have shifted away from areas like analog electronics and signal processing, into areas like computational intelligence/biology and machine vision, everything I learned helped as a stepping stone for something larger.
Although I'm not an education major, I can say that SAT/GRE scores are fairly pointless in the grand scheme of things. I performed somewhat abysmally on mine, thanks to biologically and chemically related influences and never bothered to retake them. However, performance on the GRE is not at all indicative of performance in graduate school, let alone capability.
I went to a school similar to the one you mentioned you would like to see, since it was located at a community college (http://www.owcollegiatehigh.org/). The school was open to sophomores-seniors in high school, provided those individuals came in with a good GPA and could handle the academic rigor of the various courses. In addition, the tuition for these courses, along with the books, and a laptop, were paid for by the school, which amounted to a huge savings for many students, and parents, once the individual graduated and moved on to a university setting.
Back when I went through the programme, I had the advantage of taking nearly, if not more than, 50 courses during those three years at the institution. At the time, I was considering medicine and engineering as possible professions, so I took the initiative and knocked out all of the mathematics courses up to Calc. III and all of the science-related courses, up to Uni. Physics II and Organic Chem. II. When I transferred to a university, the route to completing a B.Sc/M.Sc EE took all of around 3 years, and I was definitely thankful for the choice I had made in the years prior.
This is a rather sudden change of heart, when compared to the "IP addresses can't be used as undeniable proof of copyright infringement" antics if the RIAA is involved.
To contribute two things to your comment, back when I was applying for work, I had a rather generous offer to work in designing and implementing both hardware and software solutions for short/medium range telemetry systems, along with some related pattern recognition work for UAVs. The the primary individual I interviewed with was impressed at my knowledge and work in the respective fields, and also graduated from my alma mater, and wanted to bring me in at a rather high starting salary. Of course, I was delighted about the prospects, and he jokingly chimed in how I'd be compensated better than most of the suits in middle to upper management. Fast forward a few days, when we were finalizing the deal, and some upper management guy comes down pitching a fit and throwing chairs, a la Steve Ballmer. Apparently, he was upset that the guy had decided to use the entire budget for my offer, as opposed to dividing it between an Electrical Engineer and a Computer Scientist position, despite my having a fair amount of experience and research in both fields. Granted, I don't fancy myself as an über-programmer, nor even an expert, but it was nice to know that all of those hours in graduate school, and slaving over research, paid off, even if all it did was give me that one chance to see a true Ballmer-esque performance.
The second item I wanted to contribute was another story, though this is a recount of a true über-programmer. A few years back, I knew this one engineer who worked for a sizable company. This guy excelled at what he did, and would come in around 0900 hours each morning and leave at around 1500 hours in the afternoon, along with taking a lunch break. Although this guy worked, on average, 5 hours per day, he was paid as if he had worked 8 or 10 hours, depending on the project he was put on.
One day, his immediate boss retired and the company filled the position with a new individual, who came in from outside of the company. After a few days of watching the über-programmer, the manager brought the guy into the office and chewed him out for all sorts of things, ranging from cheating the company out of money to ignoring the dress code (since this guy would come in with shorts/jeans and a t-shirt every day). Of course, the über-programmer sat there and smiled while the guy continued to chew him out, with the manager apparently making threats of terminating his contract for poor work, despite not seeing what the programmer did.
The next day, the über-programmer left the company, and one of the bigwigs, who had worked with the programmer before, came down a few days after that to ask the manager why he had left suddenly after all of the years he'd been working for the company. Of course, the manager recounted what he had seen and told this individual, and the bigwig left nearly immediately to call up the über-programmer, offering him $20k/year more on top of his salary as a compensation for what had occurred, and to try and recruit him back. Come to find, after the über-programmer left, the company had to hire 5 engineers and 10 programmers to fill the void from the work and research this guy had been doing over a number of years. Soon after, the manager's position was terminated, though I'm sure it wasn't a coincidence.;)
An overwhelming number of those people managed to start their own businesses in places like New York City, Boston, etc. The rest of them were sucked back up into academia, mostly at the Public Ivies, or do a hefty amount of Gov't research. Humorously enough, it was the entrepreneurs that really pushed for the PhD; the engineers in academia gave the analogy that a lot of doors open when you finish a Masters and a lot of them will shut if you go for a PhD. If nothing else, however, I figured that I would use the tuition stipend to jump into an MBA programme after I finish my thesis. Granted, I doubt the MBA would do much up front, in terms of a higher starting salary, but I would like to have it available if the opportunity to bump into a project leader, or programme director, position ever presents itself. I was also considering a Juris Doctor, but aside from being a patent lawyer or a legal consultant, I feel it would be an interesting, albeit fairly pointless, degree.
While I can sympathize with those who overspecialize, such as one guy in my office who has a background almost entirely in control systems, I've been lucky to avoid being ensnared by that trap. My coursework at the undergraduate level focused a fair amount in computer vision and robotics, while my undergraduate thesis focused heavily on embedded devices and wireless technologies (Bluetooth). I also had a chance to pair up with a top researcher in fuzzy sets and clustering, and published two articles with him before being snagged up by my current adviser. Right now, my coursework focuses on DSP and pattern recognition, while my research for work is in computational intelligence and medical engineering, and my publications still in fuzzy systems and clustering (with the occasional work-related one). I figure that, if anything, being well-rounded has more advantages than disadvantages; though I have a scant idea as to where I'll be working, or what I'll be doing, once I graduate. Since both of my parents have worked a fair number of years for the DoD, I was heavily considering working for a company like Harris or Raytheon to start out. I've also considered going into the medical industry, since a lot of the defense-related work seems to be slowly drying up.
You've pretty much reiterated the sentiments of my mother, despite her having a PhD EE, and some others I've spoken to. However, I've heard from friends of his, who went to places like MIT or Cornell for their PhD EE, that going for one is well worth the effort. I'm almost done with my M.Sc EE, but have a free ride to continue, and I'm trying to gather enough information about one before going further. I enjoy the lure of researching, since I've been able to publish from the time I was an undergrad, but beyond that, I've been wary to give up some good years of my early/mid twenties for something that may not be worth the venture this early on.
To diverge the conversation for a moment - just how high of a demand is there for someone with a Ph.D. in an engineering discipline? Also, if you know, what is the salary difference between someone with a Ph.D. and someone with an M.Sc, if the amount of work experience is the same for the two? I ask because I cannot obtain a good answer, at least from my adviser, and the engineers with Ph.D.s just tell me that going for one would be "worth it" in the long run.
I'm only 25, so why is there such a gap between me and these people who are only a couple years younger than I am? The gap is due to the fact that someone would rather make a quick buck than enjoy the field that he or she got into. Unfortunately, the overwhelming consensus, though certainly not universal, is to take the path, hopefully with the least resistance, that will reap the most monetary rewards. In this instance, it means going to a prestigious institution, or sometimes even a lesser one, and venturing forth either into a Law or MBA programme, which when coupled with a technology-based degree offers a high salary, or into industry. Of course, this further drains the talent pool, in areas such as CS, EE, applied mathematics, et cetera.
Despite this, there are a few who go into their respective fields, not due to the lure of a high salary, but because the work is fun and enjoyable. Back when I was an engineering undergraduate, I saw a lot of "poor" engineers, but very few "good" engineers. The "poor" engineers were there to make the money, but were capable enough to ease on through the engineering programme, and wanted nothing more than to earn the degree and go into a leadership development position. Some of the "good" engineers were also there for the money, but all of them took interest in what was taught. These students would go the extra mile in projects, stay awake and ask questions in lectures, and had an encompassing command of engineering knowledge when it was time to graduate.
However, as time progressed, less and less "good" engineers were enrolling, and an overwhelming amount of "poor" engineers started to flood the available entrance slots. Even transferring to a different institution, I've found that a majority of the undergraduate students don't want to learn and just want to be paid. At the postgraduate level, especially in a technical discipline, this mindset hasn't taken a major foothold, since the students going for an M.Sc or Ph.D. typically are continuing on to learn more about a particular field.
Slashdot Mirror
Plane ticket to Boston - $239
Sweater vest and bow tie - $72
Hahvahd tuition - $40,450
Realizing that an education isn't included. Priceless.
Of course, not everyone can get into MIT. IHTP, though.
You couldn't be farther from the truth.
I've got around another year of coursework, and possibly another year after that to finish out a dissertation. When I started my PhD programme, the work I did for the first month was somewhat bland and didn't challenge me. After that initial period, I had the chance to work on some interesting research in medical engineering, authored a few conference papers with my adviser, finished up a journal publication and took a few courses in my discipline. Once I started to touch on the interesting subjects, like pattern recognition, neural networks, machine vision, computational microbiology, etc., I started to really enjoy being a student and yearned for more knowledge. Of course, I also wanted to have a firm background in my area of focus, so I could venture forth into industry once I finally graduate.
Yes, the days were long, and there were plenty of times I thought that I wouldn't have everything done, that I'd do poorly on my exams, etc., but everything just boils down to your perseverance and your adviser's willingness to work with you. Since I'm an RA, I'm expected to work a certain number of hours per week, but often my adviser allows me to work on my publications instead. Whenever I need to bounce some ideas off of him, or just get his approval, I sit down with the guy for at least half an hour. Considering we meet two or three times per week, and the fact that he's heavily knowledgeable and respected in his field, I walk out of his office with a very good insight into a particular problem. Of course, had my adviser not been so willing to work with me, provided me with some fun and engaging research projects, let alone take a chance and fund me, I honestly wouldn't have stayed past a Masters degree.
In retrospect, I feel that we were both vague, with respect to our comments and the fields that the comments applied to. As an engineer, I can definitely see that having more education is definitely a better thing; though, as you have pointed out, the experience is often just as valuable, if not more so. So for me, having an M.Sc or a Ph.D. in an engineering discipline automatically translates to a much higher salary, since a lot of what I learned I had actively applied in research, large projects, a thesis, etc. Depending on what you quantify as IT (which seems to be somewhat of a moving target definition), I could see instances where having an education versus having experience may cause someone to be compensated more for one than the other.
However, on a tangent note, I wouldn't necessarily consider your formal education a waste, since that, in itself, is a form of experience. While I have shifted away from areas like analog electronics and signal processing, into areas like computational intelligence/biology and machine vision, everything I learned helped as a stepping stone for something larger.
Six figures is definitely not out of the realm of any university educated professional, such as an engineer, working in a technical area.
I had my adviser jokingly ask if I wanted to be department chair, since the position was vacant and none of the faculty members wanted to take it.
Although I'm not an education major, I can say that SAT/GRE scores are fairly pointless in the grand scheme of things. I performed somewhat abysmally on mine, thanks to biologically and chemically related influences and never bothered to retake them. However, performance on the GRE is not at all indicative of performance in graduate school, let alone capability.
Back when I went through the programme, I had the advantage of taking nearly, if not more than, 50 courses during those three years at the institution. At the time, I was considering medicine and engineering as possible professions, so I took the initiative and knocked out all of the mathematics courses up to Calc. III and all of the science-related courses, up to Uni. Physics II and Organic Chem. II. When I transferred to a university, the route to completing a B.Sc/M.Sc EE took all of around 3 years, and I was definitely thankful for the choice I had made in the years prior.
This is a rather sudden change of heart, when compared to the "IP addresses can't be used as undeniable proof of copyright infringement" antics if the RIAA is involved.
The second item I wanted to contribute was another story, though this is a recount of a true über-programmer. A few years back, I knew this one engineer who worked for a sizable company. This guy excelled at what he did, and would come in around 0900 hours each morning and leave at around 1500 hours in the afternoon, along with taking a lunch break. Although this guy worked, on average, 5 hours per day, he was paid as if he had worked 8 or 10 hours, depending on the project he was put on.
One day, his immediate boss retired and the company filled the position with a new individual, who came in from outside of the company. After a few days of watching the über-programmer, the manager brought the guy into the office and chewed him out for all sorts of things, ranging from cheating the company out of money to ignoring the dress code (since this guy would come in with shorts/jeans and a t-shirt every day). Of course, the über-programmer sat there and smiled while the guy continued to chew him out, with the manager apparently making threats of terminating his contract for poor work, despite not seeing what the programmer did.
The next day, the über-programmer left the company, and one of the bigwigs, who had worked with the programmer before, came down a few days after that to ask the manager why he had left suddenly after all of the years he'd been working for the company. Of course, the manager recounted what he had seen and told this individual, and the bigwig left nearly immediately to call up the über-programmer, offering him $20k/year more on top of his salary as a compensation for what had occurred, and to try and recruit him back. Come to find, after the über-programmer left, the company had to hire 5 engineers and 10 programmers to fill the void from the work and research this guy had been doing over a number of years. Soon after, the manager's position was terminated, though I'm sure it wasn't a coincidence. ;)
While I can sympathize with those who overspecialize, such as one guy in my office who has a background almost entirely in control systems, I've been lucky to avoid being ensnared by that trap. My coursework at the undergraduate level focused a fair amount in computer vision and robotics, while my undergraduate thesis focused heavily on embedded devices and wireless technologies (Bluetooth). I also had a chance to pair up with a top researcher in fuzzy sets and clustering, and published two articles with him before being snagged up by my current adviser. Right now, my coursework focuses on DSP and pattern recognition, while my research for work is in computational intelligence and medical engineering, and my publications still in fuzzy systems and clustering (with the occasional work-related one). I figure that, if anything, being well-rounded has more advantages than disadvantages; though I have a scant idea as to where I'll be working, or what I'll be doing, once I graduate. Since both of my parents have worked a fair number of years for the DoD, I was heavily considering working for a company like Harris or Raytheon to start out. I've also considered going into the medical industry, since a lot of the defense-related work seems to be slowly drying up.
You've pretty much reiterated the sentiments of my mother, despite her having a PhD EE, and some others I've spoken to. However, I've heard from friends of his, who went to places like MIT or Cornell for their PhD EE, that going for one is well worth the effort. I'm almost done with my M.Sc EE, but have a free ride to continue, and I'm trying to gather enough information about one before going further. I enjoy the lure of researching, since I've been able to publish from the time I was an undergrad, but beyond that, I've been wary to give up some good years of my early/mid twenties for something that may not be worth the venture this early on.
To diverge the conversation for a moment - just how high of a demand is there for someone with a Ph.D. in an engineering discipline? Also, if you know, what is the salary difference between someone with a Ph.D. and someone with an M.Sc, if the amount of work experience is the same for the two? I ask because I cannot obtain a good answer, at least from my adviser, and the engineers with Ph.D.s just tell me that going for one would be "worth it" in the long run.
Despite this, there are a few who go into their respective fields, not due to the lure of a high salary, but because the work is fun and enjoyable. Back when I was an engineering undergraduate, I saw a lot of "poor" engineers, but very few "good" engineers. The "poor" engineers were there to make the money, but were capable enough to ease on through the engineering programme, and wanted nothing more than to earn the degree and go into a leadership development position. Some of the "good" engineers were also there for the money, but all of them took interest in what was taught. These students would go the extra mile in projects, stay awake and ask questions in lectures, and had an encompassing command of engineering knowledge when it was time to graduate.
However, as time progressed, less and less "good" engineers were enrolling, and an overwhelming amount of "poor" engineers started to flood the available entrance slots. Even transferring to a different institution, I've found that a majority of the undergraduate students don't want to learn and just want to be paid. At the postgraduate level, especially in a technical discipline, this mindset hasn't taken a major foothold, since the students going for an M.Sc or Ph.D. typically are continuing on to learn more about a particular field.