[codezero]

This is interesting. I had heard good things about the program, so I'd love to hear more about what ultimately went wrong.

What track were you on? Do you think that had anything to do with it? What did your peers think about the program?

A $95 to $115k bump sounds pretty darn good. Did you already have a CS undergrad degree? Where from? Sorry for all the questions, feel free to share as little or as much as you're willing.

[throwawayGT]

I was on the Machine Learning track. Already had a CS degree from a prestigious school. I took classes primarily in the ML concentration, although I had to take some courses in theoretical cs and they were similar.

I'd say my peers generally shared my opinion (classes not being very good). Many of them were trying to get into PhD programs so they were focusing on finding research opportunities and didn't care about the quality of classes much. Some struggled but blamed themselves for this rather than the class. (I'd say this was very common amongst the undergrads too).

Of the PhD students I knew, most were discouraged from taking classes altogether, since it took away time from research. This was true even in the first year of their program. The general attitude from that side was that classes were a waste of time.

Many higher-level classes were run as mini-research projects. You'd get some content, then the rest of the class would be forming teams, proposing project ideas, implementing, writing up results and having 'mini conferences'. I think faculty liked this since it was a good way to try out research ideas, recruit potential PhD students, and give their current students extra time to work on their research.

Nothing wrong with that format, of course, but the actual coverage of content was typically superficial. If you weren't already familiar with the area, you had to figure it out on your own as you went along. Also, this is not a class format that translates to online very well.

[el_benhameen]

>Already had a CS degree from a prestigious school.

I do not. I'm self-taught and considering the online MS for the purpose of signaling that my skills are legitimate (and filling in some theoretical gaps). As a hiring manager, would this change the value of an MS in your eyes? Or still unimportant compared to projects?

[randcraw]

As someone who had a BS in biology before earning a part-time MS in CS (in 1990) I can say unequivocally -- the degree was a life transforming game changer.

With a non-tech BS degree, all too few HR departments (esp in bigger companies) will invite you interview for a software job. Without the CS degree, I was a pariah with very limited prospects. Frankly I doubt that POV has changed appreciably, even after 27 years. Business-men/women are a conservative lot. They take as little risk as possible. If you lack credentials, they hire you, and you fail... they look bad and have a hard time explaining why they hired you. But if you had a relevant tech degree, their ass has far better cover.

Of course, if you already have a BS in CS, I can't speak to the value of adding a MS. Even when I earned mine, the incremental added value beyond the BS wasn't overwhelming. But some employers care more for advanced degrees than others. Uncle Sam and most large companies automatically kick you into a higher salary bracket if you have one.

It also doesn't hurt if the school granting your MS is renowned. Aside from silicon valley (apparently), I suspect 95% of employers will be very positively impressed by a degree from GT. I know several employers responded favorably over the years to the mere fact I had a degree from Johns Hopkins. Like it or not, your alma mater often matters.

[geebee]

Great point. MS degrees may have changed somewhat since 1990, though.

One problem is that MS degrees don't really cover the general curriculum. They're often, even when rigorous, used to allow students to focus on a topic or project that isn't as lengthy as a PhD. For instance, someone with a CS might be interested in numerical computing, and work on ways to solve various differential equations.

The downside here is that this means a math or physics major might get an MS in CS, and do some programming in numerical computing, but not know much about algorithms or data structures.

I'm presenting this in the context of a genuine, rigorous MS degree, because it doesn't need to be a watered-down experience to still show the pitfalls.

Some MS degrees do require certain core courses before you can apply - so they'll take a math major, but they'll require that this student complete certain undergraduate courses - some before applying, some while enrolled. This can add time to the MS degree but avoids that scenario I described above.

Of course, once you've actually taken those courses (say, a math major passes courses in data structures, algorithms, compilers, and operating systems), then the MS may not be critical for finding a job anymore. But the degree can help.

Unfortunately, I've noticed a trend toward discounting MS degrees or even holding them as a negative indicator. This is probably because people get an interview because they have an MS, but then are tested during a technical interview on general CS that they may not have taken.

Not sure of the solution. I think the best approach is to take promising students from other fields, but then make sure they've taken the additional core coursework. This would add some time to the degree, but if all MS students did this, I think the degree would be more respected.

As it stands, the BS in CS is respected, because it (if the school is accredited) must contain all those core courses that tech companies love to quiz people on.

Whether those topics are actually relevant to the job is an entirely different topic!

[throwawayGT]

I'm an engineer that does hiring as part of my duties. I don't ever look at the degree.

To signal your skills, I'd think about the industry you want to work in, and try and work on a project that is similar to work you'd like to do.

For example, if you're wanting to get into Data Science, find a data set, pick a question and answer it. Build visualisations, implement ML algorithms, etc. Put your code up online and write a blog post (or several) about the process.

A year spent doing that would be worth more in my eyes than a MS.

[thanatropism]

Or start doing Kaggle competitions, which signals some objective performance too.

[rubidium]

Depends a lot on the company. You will have more leverage with HR to negotiate salary with an M.S. for certain positions and companies.

I'd recommend it if you have the time. As much as HN likes to push "just show your github contribution", degrees do matter to companies.

[tedmiston]

That bump was written ambiguously / confusingly. I think parent comment met a $20k bump from $95k to $115k, not BS base + $95k–115k.

[codezero]

Ah, of course, you're right. That makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure what I was thinking :P

[rconti]

ah. First thing I did was search the page for "95" to figure out WTF was going on. thanks.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

At least one prof there takes UML seriously, and demands that his online students use it. I count that as a bad thing, but what do I know?