A career question
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Please explain how a PhD is useful.
People will call you a doctor! Doctor Gary. How does it sound? :)
[My Blog]
"Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn
"Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne MetcalfeYes, they will call you Doctor. With anything less than a Ph.D, they will still call you an ass. hahahahaha
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
Well, I know what you feel. I've always learned programming languages by myself, but could never find a job. I realized I had to have a degree. So I started Computer Engineering college. And when I was inside college, oportunities started to rise (as trainee), and after that things were only getting better, now I have a full time job (still didn't finsih college and still attending to) at a multi-national spanish software developing company called GFT. So I think the real challenge here is to get the first job, then when you have experience in the market, doors start to open and better positions become available. Of course a degree is never a bad thing, that is why I'm still attending to the college, besides, Computer Engineering (like I do) prepares you to lots of different scenarios on your career path, including working with whole different things, from high-level software develping to low level micro-processor development and programming. I would recommend, work + college as you get a great foundation you only get on the university and experience you only get at work. It is a bit of a bitter path though: I have little time for myself and when I'm not working I'm in college and sometimes I get the weekend for myself and I use it to enjoy myself, my frineds and the ladies :-\ . Just be careful to not take an important decision without deep thought and planning and you should consider many things before you do, not just what other people think, but how you feel, and what you beleive is better for yourself. Regards, Fábio
-
If you were in a western country Canada/US/Europe I would say blow off programming all together and try get an MBA with a Project Management Certification. If you were in India/China/Former Soviet block your choices sound good. But you live in Turkey, and are in-between. The question is how does your compensation rates compare with the rent-a-coder people.?
MrPlankton
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
A PhD is over the top - you get too deep into too many things that will never have any relevance in most jobs. However, a master's degree may be an excellent choice. You learn, in depth, a broad range of theories and technologies, which you can then apply in many job related settings. For example, you'll be equipped to pick the right language or algorithm for some new project. People without the same educational background will be less likely to make the same intelligent, well thought out choices, and often times will simply stick with what they already know. My choice would be a.3 - Try to do both. Make the master's degree the primary focus, but then work part time or as an intern at a company in a field which interests you. Then by the time you graduate you'll have both the degree and experience.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
sacoskun wrote:
Of course there is no direct right way
Correct. Although I have both a Masters and years of experience, I was turned down for a position because I had had too many contracts, not enough stability they said. No way to please the bastards.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
jhaga wrote:
It is fun and useful
Please explain how a PhD is useful. I've been a computer engineer with just a lowly B.S. for 24 years. In all that time I've not once met a software professional with a PhD who was not a college professor. Frankly, I don't believe there is a significant job market for software PhD's outside of universities.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]A PHD is works nicely if you want to lead a research team at any National Lab, NASA center, Google or Microsoft. I think Sergey Brin and Larry Page appreciate their PHDs. Kao and Burrell did nicely with Garmin though Burrell only has a masters. The research of PHD's can lead to new technologies that prove popular. Just a thought.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
When I am interviewing developers, I'm generally more interested in their career experience. I am interested in how long they held their last position, did they grow in their position (ie. promoted from developer to senior developer, or senior developer to lead, etc). Finally I am interested in the scope of work that they engaged in. The best developers that I have encountered were mostly self taught, had exceptional career histories, had a long track record of success and promotions and took on jobs of greater complexity and company significance. More than the eduction and work experience though are the soft skills. I've always felt that I can teach you the technical skills to become successful, but I cannot teach attitude. The employees that differentiate themselves are those with a positive attitude, who are self motivated and have a passion for the field that they work in. I have turned down quite a few who were technically superior, had better educations, outstanding qualifications, but poor working attitudes. If the rest of the team does not want to work on a project with you because they don't like interacting with you on a personal or professional level, then you become an anchor that drags the whole department down. So, in order of importance (to me at least): 1. Attitude and soft skills 2. Work experience 3. Education
-
Hi there, I am planning to work in/for Europe and you suggest me to go with MBA & PM, right? "The question is how does your compensation rates compare with the rent-a-coder people.?" I could not get this point?
You have to compete with other programmers in the world. Rent a coder [^] may be a fair standard of were compensation is going for programmers, therefore consider carefully your carreer choice.
MrPlankton
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
Having the bach. degree will help get interviews and the initial job experience. Larger companies are more likely to "require" a degree than a smaller company as part of the qualifications (though some allow experience to count, they also tend to pay a lot more to someone with the piece of paper). On the other hand, most larger companies will also help you obtain a master's degree by reimbursing you for your tuition, .... One of my former employers (larger company) also liked to see employees learning new things either through training or attending classes (which led to higher ratings and thus, pay increases). Overall, I would suggest getting a job before the master's degree and see if they are willing to help by paying you to get the master's degree. As for the Phd, I would only consider that if the career you decide to follow somehow (e.g. some upper echelons of government work, research and development companies, ...) rewards or requires it... or if you discover that you just like the academic challenge without much return on investment. Most companies do not care one way or the other if you have one and it does not really help, though if you still want one, try to get them to pay for it.
-
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
I used to hide my Ph.D. when looking for a job.
If you had to hide it, you were looking for the wrong kind of job.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you had to hide it, you were looking for the wrong kind of job.
No, I would say too many bosses got the wrong job. ;P
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
I find it interesting that the simple state "on the field". It seems to me that it depends a great deal on what field you might be interested in. If you are just interested in maximizing your income I'm not sure that an advanced degree (particularly in CS) is that useful, you just need krazy skillz. If you are looking for big company security an advanced degree can be helpful, but you still need some skillz. If you want to teach (@ university) the Phd is mandatory, but skillz are optional and often a hindrance. A lot depends on what field you are interested in. If you want to study database systems you will likely quickly find gainful employ. If you want to study AI with a focus on understanding large group behavior, your opportunities will likely be constrained. CS 101: First decide what you want to do ... then figure out how you want to do it. I wish you good luck and godspeed in reaching your goals
-
Xiangyang Liu wrote:
I used to hide my Ph.D. when looking for a job.
If you had to hide it, you were looking for the wrong kind of job.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
True to a degree (pun intended). Ph.Ds are handy if you're looking for a scientific or academic career, but in the business world they can be a hold back as it gives you the aura of a professional student.
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
-
sacoskun wrote:
b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years)
Sounds fine, more years of parties, girls, drinking etc. .. or whatever students do these days. :)
[My Blog]
"Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn
"Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne MetcalfeAnd many more years of paying off huge debts (unless you had really nice, wealthy parents). BUT .. more years of parties, girls, drinking and whatever else students may do these days does sound enticing, huh?
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
sacoskun wrote:
Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
you are correct, there is no "right way." First you must make some distinctions, something that few graduates do. College does not tell you how to do any job, it provides you with a few tools that "could" be used in something similar to a field you want to be in. Since each field differs in the specifics, it cannot, in any way directly be 100% applicable. Experience in your chosen field is. College is a foundation of future experience, not the be-all-end-all of existance. Experience and college education are not equal and cannot even be compared to each other. BUT the honest truth, is they are. That is life, fair or unfair, that is the way of the world. You can do a lot without a college education, but you have to work your buns off to do it. But part of that is your determination, and your field of study, as well as your employer and their customer(s). Thus with all those variables, there is no one answer, but many answers, and all are true in different perspectives. I have no college education, someday I hope to get at least a BS if I stay in the specifics of the field. Not because it will gain me anything more than a piece of paper on a wall. I have written many white papers that would qualify for Masters or PhD thesis material. In one case it did. one of our customers used my work as his Master's thesis, though only understanding half of what I did, he managed to pass it through. When you draw the line between doing the work, and getting an eduction, it becomes obvious that you are more dependant on you than anything else. If you are capable of learning on your own, a college is not necessary to learn. BUT some people hold value in those pieces of paper. Many times my papers have to be co-authored at least in name only because my education is votech, not college. Yet my ideas, and my algorithms are spreading throughout my industry. When you sperate the two, you can look at them independantly and qualify their worth to you independantly. In many industries a college education is less worth than experience, in others it is more, in others they are equal. Since I do not know who you want to work for, and you may not know either, you can't really answer it in absolutes either. But you can narrow your choices. I say take the BS into the workforce, get the experience, and add the Masters later if it will
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
I have some college, but no degree. I was recently denied a promotion because I do not have a Bachelor’s degree. I am the acting software development manager. I mentor several people who have Bachelor’s degrees in computer science. The division director decided to formalize the current working relationship by promoting me. Once HR discovered that I don’t have a degree they fought the promotion. I lost. Get a degree! It is a criteria used by employers.
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
This seems like an opportunity to re-hash a conversation I had with my 14 year old son. Learning is a life-style. You don't just learn at school then stop learning once you enter the "real world". If that is your approach, even those with 4 PHDs will fail... unless, all you are doing is re-teaching acedamia. I admire those who make the effort and put out the money to get advanced degrees. However, you need to keep it all in perspective. The purpose of schooling is to prepare you to be a productive member of society. Every individual who has the opportunity for an advanced degree needs to determine where they want to be or what they want to do once they are done with their degree. This is a very personal decision. The purpose of a 4 year degree is to expose you to a variety of topics and to show you how much you don't know so, once you're done, you should know where you want to specialize. However, my experience shows me that, no matter how good the schooling is at imparting knowledge, it'll never really give you the wisdom (knowledge-applied) that living life will. Personally, I have a hard time with the concept that you should spend the first half of your life preparing for life. My recommendation is that you don't take our (or my) advise :omg: . You need to follow your own path. My 2 cents, is that it'd be good to get your 4 year degree, work a while in the field you think you'll like. Then, after gaining some insight, pursue your advanced degree.
Joel Palmer Data Integration Application Developer www.Novaspect.com
-
a.1)Having a master degree.(2 years) a.2)Working and gaining experience on the field rather than master.(2 years) a.3)Try to do both. b.1)Having a doctorate degree.(+5 years) b.2)Working and gaining experience on the field.(+5 years) b.3)Try to do both. Which way is the right way? Of course there is no direct right way but I would be happy if pros and cons are provided also.
Depends on what kind of job you're after. If you want one where you are expected to do original work (ie. invent new technologies), then a doctorate or prior work experience doing just that is important. It is really difficult to get anyone to give you a chance to do that unless you have the doctorate degree, especially in large companies. Small companies will give you the chance, but you won't get an official title and larger companies will usually derate the experience (kinda stupid, but true). If all you want is a good paying job designing and implementing apps, then the doctorate is overkill and prior experience is more important. Doesn't hurt, and can tip the candidate selection in your favor, but it isn't _required_. In large companies, more education will be more important to get any job, but it doesn't replace experience in desired technologies. Academia jobs? They're all about education, so what do you think?
patbob
-
I am not interested in how for long someone has worked or what their paper qualifications are. I want to find out how good they are at what I need them to do. Neither of work experience or qualifications are more than rough indicators of this. One needs to find out the quality of the work experience and this is not found from what the candidate inflates into a CV, but only by speaking with a number of their colleagues in their previous employments, which is not practical. Grades from qualifications tell you that the candidate was able to work out what they were likely to be asked in an exam and retain the answers over a short period of time long enough to get them on paper. A PhD does not fit this model, but shows a specialised analysis and logic with the ability to write a coherent report. Unfortunately many do not have a realistic view of life or the necessities of commerce where 'good enough' is often more desirable than 'perfection'. There is no good way to find out except to employ them and watch. However, with experience a full interview can fairly reliably pick out those that are bluffing their way through life. We, at Ischus, are interested in candidate's ability to think and to find solutions within the domain of program design and writing applied to engineering problems and so a background and interest in these is necessary. Lamentably however we find many 'qualified' applicants do not have an interest in either although they have made one or the other their career choice. Martin Wells (for clarification: I have a degree in Physics) Managing Director Ischus Limited (in the UK)
Martin - what you state rings so true! It's nice to see reason espoused. My own opinions stem from a bias accumulated over 30 years doing s/w development. I often have had to work with other programmers that held the title but probably shouldn't have, sort of like they were a square peg trying to fit in a round hole - they just didn't think the right way. But they had the paper... As for myself, I do have a BSCS and in at least one place I tried to get into 25 years ago that wasn't enough. It was Hewlett-Packard and they wouldn't even interview me because I didn't have an MS. The funny thing is that I ended up working for an outfit that was doing graphics standards s/w and we had to port it to run on an HP graphics card. In my role as lead for the work I had to fly out to an HP facility to work with their engineers on problems that were being found. In the end I was able to demonstrate to them that they had problems in the ASICs on their card. As a result, the manager of the group came to me and asked me what it would take to have me sign on with them! :-) (note: I did not end up going over to work for them)
-
John C wrote:
I am so opposite: when I'm told I *have* to learn anything I'll learn what I have to and remember it for exactly as long as I need to and not a second beyond, I had no problem passing tests all my life but it's in one ear and out the other as quickly as possible.
Oh, don't get me wrong; there are classes I've had to take in my past that I was more or less the same about. I think that's true for everyone. If you don't see a personal benefit in remembering something you're forced to learn, it's very easy to quickly memorize only what you need, and not really learn it so it becomes part of your long-term memory. However, I would like to say I've spent enough time in the real world to see the personal benefit for most things I'm learning these days. I hope so, anyway!
On the other hand if I'm interested in something on my own I'll learn about it exhaustively, every last detail until there's no scrap of information left and will generally retain most of it that is in any way interesting.
If it's something I find fascinating, I agree. But what about the stuff that isn't so fascinating, necessarily, but it is useful if you would only learn it? That's more the stuff I'm talking about here. I am interested, but not fascinated to the point of being driven to spend that precious resource I have so little of to focus on it without some prodding. It's bad, I know - it shows my lack of self-discipline! But at least I do recognize the quality in myself!
Formalized education and myself are like fire and water.
I have a number of friends and colleagues who are the same (including my husband, really!). And that's absolutely fine; it's not like you are stubbornly refusing to learn, after all, and neither are they. You just know yourself well enough to know that your learning style is not suited to traditional constraints of many schools. I'd say it's good to know yourself that well!
Caffeine - it's what's for breakfast! (and lunch, and dinner, and...)
ResidentGeek wrote:
I have a number of friends and colleagues who are the same (including my husband, really!). And that's absolutely fine; it's not like you are stubbornly refusing to learn, after all, and neither are they. You just know yourself well enough to know that your learning style is not suited to traditional constraints of many schools. I'd say it's good to know yourself that well!
Maybe it's like the difference between read-the-manuals people and those that experiment until they figure out how it works. For my software I always encourage people to read the manuals but I never or at least very rarely would if it was me. We know so many do not read the manuals that we have a lot of the same information in FAQ's on our site and in videos showing how to do common tasks. Next up cartoons? (I seriously considered that more than once). My wife is a read the manual person and I'm not, she was a valedictorian and has a university degree, I don't. Tells you right there I guess. :)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.