You can't teach at most public K-12 schools with a masters of engineering. Or even a PhD in engineering for that matter. You need a masters of education and a teaching certificate.
Right, that's what I said, that at one time the US made the best cars in the world. My point is that the US used to hold technology leadership in a variety of different areas and that's what made the US rich. One big reason why we held leadership is because we had a technology heavy workforce that could both develop new products and further refine and improve on existing products.
If we don't have a technology-heavy workforce we must either buy the technology from someone else to resell or we get out of the market. At some point, however, the technology developers will sell directly to the customer, eliminating the reseller, or drop margins so low that resellers have a hard time making any money.
As an aside, I have to say that American cars are quite a bit better than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. There are some that are worth considering if you can deal with the heckling.
It's an interesting cost-benefit analysis. I ran it once for a friend who was considering staying on as a biology PhD student or switching to be an MD. We computed a 17 year cross-over point. Not because she would make that much as a PhD in biology, but because the costs of med school ($200K at the time) + limited salaries during internship/residency/fellowship compared to free tuition and a graduate stipend were high.
From my experience on both sides of the academic hiring fence, it is very difficult to get a teaching job today, even a part-time one, at a major university if all you have is a masters degree. It's tough even with a PhD. The last adjunct we approved to teach a single class has a PhD from a top university and is a well known researcher in the field he would teach. Obviously, my experience only covers the universities I know about, but I am quite familiar with several and expect that many others are similar.
With a masters and a stellar industry record, you might be able to get a adjunct position teaching what you do in industry. But, then I would argue its your industry experience and not your masters getting you the job.
I agree there are faculty at major universities that only have masters. But, they tend to have been hired many years ago when the academic climate was different.
Thus, getting a masters with the intention to teach in the near future at a major university is a long shot proposition and not what I would recommend to a student who wants to teach in such an environment.
I guess it depends on the school. At my university, we have a couple of adjuncts with masters but they are all very senior, either having taught for a long time or headed up major projects in industry. A senior person doesn't require any degree. Bill Gates doesn't have a bachelors, but do you think there is a business school anywhere that would not give him a full professorship if he asked for it?
I have not seen a new adjunct who does not have a PhD. And, I have never met anyone who got their masters with the intention to teach at the university level (I'm a professor, so I've met a lot of masters students.)
I guess it depends on what you are doing. I'm a professor of computer engineering, specializing in computer architecture. Most bachelors that go directly into industry would have a very difficult time getting anywhere close to an architecture job. In fact, they would have trouble getting a position as an RTL designer. A good student from a ranked 5-10 school and an average student from a top 5 school might get a verification position.
The people from top processor/system companies who come to me looking for students are almost always looking for masters students, sometimes PhD students.
I don't agree with your assertion that a technology-heavy workforce is not necessary for a strong economy. That might be true for a small economy that has a strong influx of money for some other reason (Switzerland), but wealth is created by advancing technology. Why has the US economy been so strong for most of our lifetimes? Because we have the most lawyers? Or, because we had the best technology ranging from automobiles, to airplanes, to semiconductors to electronics, to some of the most efficient food production, to construction?
Looking through history, countries were economically strong compared to the rest of the world mostly because they had better technology. Most of the time, those countries raised their own standard of living and sold the products of that technology at great profit. Sure, there were colonizing powers that leveraged internal instability of their colonies to rule and steal, but for the most part such powers also had superior military technology. Which is still better technology.
My friends at NEC in Japan are very worried about Samsung because they are making stuff that people want to buy. Through better technology. That they originally learned from the Japanese and the US but have been refining.
There has been a marked increase in the number of Korean graduate students in top engineering schools over the last 10 to 15 years by the way.
Can't teach with a masters. At least, not at the university level.
A masters of computer or electrical engineer is useful. You can't learn everything you need to know to be a practicing engineer in a 4 undergraduate program. Most of the engineering recruiters I talk with are looking for masters grads. An average bachelors degree gets you essentially a technician job.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't teach at most public K-12 schools with a masters of engineering. Or even a PhD in engineering for that matter. You need a masters of education and a teaching certificate.
Right, that's what I said, that at one time the US made the best cars in the world. My point is that the US used to hold technology leadership in a variety of different areas and that's what made the US rich. One big reason why we held leadership is because we had a technology heavy workforce that could both develop new products and further refine and improve on existing products.
If we don't have a technology-heavy workforce we must either buy the technology from someone else to resell or we get out of the market. At some point, however, the technology developers will sell directly to the customer, eliminating the reseller, or drop margins so low that resellers have a hard time making any money.
As an aside, I have to say that American cars are quite a bit better than they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s. There are some that are worth considering if you can deal with the heckling.It's an interesting cost-benefit analysis. I ran it once for a friend who was considering staying on as a biology PhD student or switching to be an MD. We computed a 17 year cross-over point. Not because she would make that much as a PhD in biology, but because the costs of med school ($200K at the time) + limited salaries during internship/residency/fellowship compared to free tuition and a graduate stipend were high.
From my experience on both sides of the academic hiring fence, it is very difficult to get a teaching job today, even a part-time one, at a major university if all you have is a masters degree. It's tough even with a PhD. The last adjunct we approved to teach a single class has a PhD from a top university and is a well known researcher in the field he would teach. Obviously, my experience only covers the universities I know about, but I am quite familiar with several and expect that many others are similar.
With a masters and a stellar industry record, you might be able to get a adjunct position teaching what you do in industry. But, then I would argue its your industry experience and not your masters getting you the job.
I agree there are faculty at major universities that only have masters. But, they tend to have been hired many years ago when the academic climate was different.
Thus, getting a masters with the intention to teach in the near future at a major university is a long shot proposition and not what I would recommend to a student who wants to teach in such an environment.
I guess it depends on the school. At my university, we have a couple of adjuncts with masters but they are all very senior, either having taught for a long time or headed up major projects in industry. A senior person doesn't require any degree. Bill Gates doesn't have a bachelors, but do you think there is a business school anywhere that would not give him a full professorship if he asked for it?
I have not seen a new adjunct who does not have a PhD. And, I have never met anyone who got their masters with the intention to teach at the university level (I'm a professor, so I've met a lot of masters students.)
I guess it depends on what you are doing. I'm a professor of computer engineering, specializing in computer architecture. Most bachelors that go directly into industry would have a very difficult time getting anywhere close to an architecture job. In fact, they would have trouble getting a position as an RTL designer. A good student from a ranked 5-10 school and an average student from a top 5 school might get a verification position.
The people from top processor/system companies who come to me looking for students are almost always looking for masters students, sometimes PhD students.I don't agree with your assertion that a technology-heavy workforce is not necessary for a strong economy. That might be true for a small economy that has a strong influx of money for some other reason (Switzerland), but wealth is created by advancing technology. Why has the US economy been so strong for most of our lifetimes? Because we have the most lawyers? Or, because we had the best technology ranging from automobiles, to airplanes, to semiconductors to electronics, to some of the most efficient food production, to construction?
Looking through history, countries were economically strong compared to the rest of the world mostly because they had better technology. Most of the time, those countries raised their own standard of living and sold the products of that technology at great profit. Sure, there were colonizing powers that leveraged internal instability of their colonies to rule and steal, but for the most part such powers also had superior military technology. Which is still better technology.
My friends at NEC in Japan are very worried about Samsung because they are making stuff that people want to buy. Through better technology. That they originally learned from the Japanese and the US but have been refining.
There has been a marked increase in the number of Korean graduate students in top engineering schools over the last 10 to 15 years by the way.
Can't teach with a masters. At least, not at the university level. A masters of computer or electrical engineer is useful. You can't learn everything you need to know to be a practicing engineer in a 4 undergraduate program. Most of the engineering recruiters I talk with are looking for masters grads. An average bachelors degree gets you essentially a technician job.