Absolutely- in saying that schools exist to *create* more professors- I wasn't trying to imply that *everyone* going to graduate school *becomes* a professor, certainly not. Just trying to make clear the purpose of the institution, which is to act as a filter.
Academia is (still) very much a closed world environment, very different from industry, and one in which industry credentials have little or no value (in contrast to industry, which does place value in academic credentials, though fairly often in error).
Another side of the coin is illustrated in the fact that professors *never* come from industry. Industry leaders can and often do come from academia, but *not* the other way around.
Professors never lack a PhD, never lack a substantial *research* publication history, never lack fund raising and grant writing experience- but they *often* lack industry experience.
Industry experience is simply not in the top 5 issues of importance in the academic space. Thus, this is reflected in the admissions process, more so in PhD than MS admissions, but still in MS admissions as well.
Once in school, again, the teaching and evaluation process for PhDs is structured to identify those that could possibly become professors, and feed them further along in the system. The teaching and evaluation process for MS students is geared to maximize revenue, to primarily provide a coursework (not a research) credential in exchange for dollars.
These are important things to understand for someone wanting to go back to "academia." What they may be wanting is a taste of the PhD experience, but in reality, what they are more likely to get is the MS experience, since they lack in academic credentials, and thus lack in "promise" to become professors.
Again to contrast with industry, while it's a necessity now to work for some time before going back to get an MBA, it is very rare for a student to leave school, work for a while, then go back and wind up becoming a professor. Once you leave, you're off the track.
Personally I'm under no illusions about becoming a professor.:) Though I *do* want to get a PhD, it's simply because the type of work involved and the mental and publication training is what I'm looking to gain. I'm not operating as though the outcome is that I'll become a professor.
What I do imagine the outcome being is that I'll start another company, but with a better sense of exactly what I want to be doing, and thus will be better able to structure the business so that I can be doing what I want to be doing. And a PhD in some cases is an aid in gathering resources to start certain kinds of companies. There is no corresponding aid that industry experience lends when returning to academia.
I did this in 2001. I took a BS from a top US engineering school in a combination of CS/Psychology in the early 90s, worked for 9 years, started two companies, made some money, but found myself especially towards the end of the boom getting too far away from what I found interesting.
So I went back for CS, and am currently in the process of completing an MS thesis, which should also carry me into a PhD.
It's been a *great* experience, but not without hiccups...
1) Typically, how do graduate admissions officials view work experience? Note that I haven't been working as a Computer Engineer but as a Software Engineer.
The better (top 40-50 in the US) graduate schools exist primarily to create more professors. So your re-entry to the graduate community will be evaluated in academic terms. Despite the greater integration of the commercial and academic worlds through the Internet, academia still is an ivory tower that operates according to its own rules.
Meaning: the better schools generally don't consider work experience relevant *at all*. Unless you were doing *research* or research-type work- had papers or other relevant public/peer reviewed published materials to show for your time- work experience is irrelevant. In fact, it's unhelpful, because you spent productive years *not* doing research.
Don't even bother to submit recommendations from employers, unless those employers themselves have recognized academic credentials (meaning, a professorship. PhDs don't count.).
Put another way, I found that schools considered my *undergraduate* academic performance- from *10 years* prior- to be more relevant in their evaluations than *any* of the innovative, creative professional work I had done since.
This is startling and dismaying, but you'll get over it.
2) What are the differences between graduate studies at the Masters level in the US, Canada and the UK? I already know a bit from what is available on the websites, so I'm looking for some deeper insights.
I can't speak for Canada or the UK, but MS work in the US is viewed in academic circles as *professional*, almost like a trade school. It is of course possible to do research as an MS student, but at most schools there is a class distinction between MS and PhD students that limits access to professors or funding or other academic resources. Most schools expect MS students to *have* another job, while for PhD students, getting a PhD *is* their job.
3) I'd like to hear from people who've done this, i.e. quit their jobs and gone back to get a higher engineering degree. What problems did you face and what advice do you have?
It's been a tremendously *positive* experience for me. However, it was a challenge adjusting after not being in an academic environment for 10 years.
The biggest adjustment for me, frankly, was ego. I came in as an MS student, so it was a challenge coming in at the bottom of the academic food chain, after being at the top in the professional world for the last several years. But humility is a virtue, so I consider this to be a great adjustment to have to go through.
The second biggest adjustment was working/learning style. In academia, especially in research, you get points for completeness and correctness, while in the professional world, you get points for efficiency.
The strategies you learn and the risks you take in the professional world to be efficient, to get quickly to market, to employ FUD effectively to thwart your competitors and deal with the crazy needs of clients/customers- these are the wrong strategies and behaviors in the academic world.
There of course is hand-waving and FUD and all that in academia, and a strong competitive dynamic (getting papers into conferences, etc)- but the way the game is played, as I found it at least, is completely different.
4) People who've studied in the UK at the MSc, MPhil, MEngg level - how did you fund your education? Were you able to get things like teaching or research assis
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely- in saying that schools exist to *create* more professors- I wasn't trying to imply that *everyone* going to graduate school *becomes* a professor, certainly not. Just trying to make clear the purpose of the institution, which is to act as a filter.
:) Though I *do* want to get a PhD, it's simply because the type of work involved and the mental and publication training is what I'm looking to gain. I'm not operating as though the outcome is that I'll become a professor.
Academia is (still) very much a closed world environment, very different from industry, and one in which industry credentials have little or no value (in contrast to industry, which does place value in academic credentials, though fairly often in error).
Another side of the coin is illustrated in the fact that professors *never* come from industry. Industry leaders can and often do come from academia, but *not* the other way around.
Professors never lack a PhD, never lack a substantial *research* publication history, never lack fund raising and grant writing experience- but they *often* lack industry experience.
Industry experience is simply not in the top 5 issues of importance in the academic space. Thus, this is reflected in the admissions process, more so in PhD than MS admissions, but still in MS admissions as well.
Once in school, again, the teaching and evaluation process for PhDs is structured to identify those that could possibly become professors, and feed them further along in the system. The teaching and evaluation process for MS students is geared to maximize revenue, to primarily provide a coursework (not a research) credential in exchange for dollars.
These are important things to understand for someone wanting to go back to "academia." What they may be wanting is a taste of the PhD experience, but in reality, what they are more likely to get is the MS experience, since they lack in academic credentials, and thus lack in "promise" to become professors.
Again to contrast with industry, while it's a necessity now to work for some time before going back to get an MBA, it is very rare for a student to leave school, work for a while, then go back and wind up becoming a professor. Once you leave, you're off the track.
Personally I'm under no illusions about becoming a professor.
What I do imagine the outcome being is that I'll start another company, but with a better sense of exactly what I want to be doing, and thus will be better able to structure the business so that I can be doing what I want to be doing. And a PhD in some cases is an aid in gathering resources to start certain kinds of companies. There is no corresponding aid that industry experience lends when returning to academia.
I did this in 2001. I took a BS from a top US engineering school in a combination of CS/Psychology in the early 90s, worked for 9 years, started two companies, made some money, but found myself especially towards the end of the boom getting too far away from what I found interesting.
So I went back for CS, and am currently in the process of completing an MS thesis, which should also carry me into a PhD.
It's been a *great* experience, but not without hiccups...
1) Typically, how do graduate admissions officials view work experience? Note that I haven't been working as a Computer Engineer but as a Software Engineer.
The better (top 40-50 in the US) graduate schools exist primarily to create more professors. So your re-entry to the graduate community will be evaluated in academic terms. Despite the greater integration of the commercial and academic worlds through the Internet, academia still is an ivory tower that operates according to its own rules.
Meaning: the better schools generally don't consider work experience relevant *at all*. Unless you were doing *research* or research-type work- had papers or other relevant public/peer reviewed published materials to show for your time- work experience is irrelevant. In fact, it's unhelpful, because you spent productive years *not* doing research.
Don't even bother to submit recommendations from employers, unless those employers themselves have recognized academic credentials (meaning, a professorship. PhDs don't count.).
Put another way, I found that schools considered my *undergraduate* academic performance- from *10 years* prior- to be more relevant in their evaluations than *any* of the innovative, creative professional work I had done since.
This is startling and dismaying, but you'll get over it.
2) What are the differences between graduate studies at the Masters level in the US, Canada and the UK? I already know a bit from what is available on the websites, so I'm looking for some deeper insights.
I can't speak for Canada or the UK, but MS work in the US is viewed in academic circles as *professional*, almost like a trade school. It is of course possible to do research as an MS student, but at most schools there is a class distinction between MS and PhD students that limits access to professors or funding or other academic resources. Most schools expect MS students to *have* another job, while for PhD students, getting a PhD *is* their job.
3) I'd like to hear from people who've done this, i.e. quit their jobs and gone back to get a higher engineering degree. What problems did you face and what advice do you have?
It's been a tremendously *positive* experience for me. However, it was a challenge adjusting after not being in an academic environment for 10 years.
The biggest adjustment for me, frankly, was ego. I came in as an MS student, so it was a challenge coming in at the bottom of the academic food chain, after being at the top in the professional world for the last several years. But humility is a virtue, so I consider this to be a great adjustment to have to go through.
The second biggest adjustment was working/learning style. In academia, especially in research, you get points for completeness and correctness, while in the professional world, you get points for efficiency.
The strategies you learn and the risks you take in the professional world to be efficient, to get quickly to market, to employ FUD effectively to thwart your competitors and deal with the crazy needs of clients/customers- these are the wrong strategies and behaviors in the academic world.
There of course is hand-waving and FUD and all that in academia, and a strong competitive dynamic (getting papers into conferences, etc)- but the way the game is played, as I found it at least, is completely different.
4) People who've studied in the UK at the MSc, MPhil, MEngg level - how did you fund your education? Were you able to get things like teaching or research assis