A career question
-
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.
-
I don't have a degree and I haven't had any problem finding work - but I was lucky enough to get experience right at the start of the big boom in the computer fields, when there were far too few people with degrees to fill all the positions everyone was trying to fill. I have no problems getting gigs without that degree. However, I'm working on my BS in IT right now, and I plan to go on to take an MBA with an IT Management specialization as soon as I'm through. Why? Because I've come to a point where I realize I want positions that are more focused on project management, and a lot of THOSE positions are actually shopping for people with degrees. Plus, while I've done a lot of hands-on, down and dirty learning over the years, I know that I've also done *targeted* learning. By that I mean that I've focused on the stuff I really needed to know at the time, and on practical application, without really taking much time to study the big picture or to understand the theory thoroughly. By taking courses, I'm getting a chance to gain that broader stroke of knowledege, and indulge my love of learning. Ph.D.? Nah, highly unlikely for me! I'd be more likely to go back and get another masters in something else than to torture myself with a doctorate program! Plus, as many others have said, a doctorate tends to make you either over-qualified or look too much like an academic (I know, it's silly - if you still have tons of experience on the resume that show you have real-world applied skills, it shouldn't matter, but still....)
Caffeine - it's what's for breakfast! (and lunch, and dinner, and...)
I support your idea to go from a Bachelor's in IT to a Masters in Business Administration: that's what I'm doing, too. I noticed that, rather than technical people, more of the high-paying jobs are going to those perceived as business people with technical know-how. So, I figured I'd get my Bachelors in IT, with Business Administration as the minor. Then, my Master's in Business Administration, with Technology Management as the focus. You might be interested in one other thing. I personally know some top IT guys in a few major companies. My friend, Harold, supervises the 800-strong IT team at FedEx that keeps track of stray inventory. He's a technical guy that became adept at business, working his way up. I told him about my idea to mix IT and Business degrees, and asked for his opinion. He not only thought it could help, but said one of the top people at FedEx did that: a woman who went from B.It. to M.B.A. (accounting, in her case), and got a near-senior management position quicker than any credentialed person before her. She attributes her choice of degree programs as getting her foot in that particular door. So, maybe we are on the right track. Best of luck to both of us, huh!? :-D
-
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)
geoffs, Many thanks for your comment. Large companies have so many applications that they are sometimes forced to implement artificial sieves and so often fall back on a set of defined necessary qualifications. We feel that they are often the losers for the reason that you indicate. We lament the lack of effort from many applicants in their research before applying. We expect an interesting and informative letter to have been written that outlines what the applicant has to offer our company. And I do mean 'our company' - that means they will show that they have researched us in enough detail to know what they would be doing if they worked for us. Further, we would expect them to have some idea of what philosophy we are likely to have and so to show how they would fit in with the team. We expect lucid and coherent, well-written prose structured with well constructed paragraphs that show that the individual has a grasp of English along with a balanced analysis of their abilities and philosophy applied to what they have understood about our company. We put more weight on this document than a CV, which should be brief, concise, spelt correctly, grammatical and well-laid out without fanciful, unprovable subjective descriptions. Many applications that we receive are poorly executed and demonstrate that the, often well-qualified, individual has very little ability using Office applications. This makes us question their programming ability and their ability to handle small details accurately. A job is a partnership. One of the saddest things is to see someone who has worked hard at trying to look like the person that is required for a job, and then hated every minute of it once appointed because they were not the person they presented themselves as. Companies (or more precisely - their managers) are often also unrealistic in the way they represent themselves which aggravates the situation. Two entities who both are presenting a different image from that of their natural inclinations are not likely to work well in partnership. It is time we rejected the falseness that drives many aspects of our relationships today, I doubt we have the courage to do it :( . It's great to know that there are at least two of us 'in the fox-hole' sheltering from the world! :)
-
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
-
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:
MidwestLimey wrote:
Ph.Ds are handy if you're looking for a scientific or academic career
Exactly. :doh: But if you're going to apply for a common coder job with a PhD, you set off all sorts of alarm bells. Mostly, you couldn't find a job doing what you were trained for and will leave at the drop of a hat if something better comes along. Plus, he probably also had the stigma of wanting them to supply him with a green card on top of everything else.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Personally I think you should do what you want. I believe a higher education in a technical field is about as worthwhile as toilet paper when you get into the job market if you actually plan to do something rather than manage or teach or research something, wheras real world experience is priceless and will take you extremely far and the fundamentals can be learned in a much shorter period of time. Give me a stack of books and a couple of months and I could probably learn the equivalent of any masters degree, couple that with real world on the job experience and "Bob's your lobster" as they say. I'm sure many with degrees will vehemently disagree with me but I've found this to be true in the real world job market. If I'm hiring a programmer the one who has the real world experience gets the job *every* time over the one with the degree and no experience. In fact I wouldn't even consider the degreed programmer with no experience, I'd shred the resume and move on and even if they did have experience I'd be highly doubtful that they could ever fit in as a part of any team of people. All the people I know with degrees are far happier discussing things than actually getting the job done. But perhaps most importantly of all, if you are young it's a terrible mistake to go to university or college without getting some real world experience in...well in *anything* really. Take a few years to travel and or work at a variety of jobs, learn how to deal with people and be a well rounded human being then you will really appreciate higher learning and take full advantage of it and when you come out you will not be a socially retarded ivory tower git like some of the people that hang out here. ;)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
modified on Monday, March 3, 2008 2:24 AM
John C wrote:
I believe a higher education in a technical field is about as worthwhile as toilet paper
Yeah, I'd really love to ride in a plane that you designed. I think I'd much prefer one that was designed by someone who had a bit of an idea of what makes them fly. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
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 think all are the right ways. No matter which way you choose, you should try your best to gain more knowledge and experience. Everyone thinks differently, so they will have their own right way. Maybe no best way, no worst way either.
Good good study, day day up !
-
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:
In the country i living in... i dont think the employers want to hire a master degree or Ph.Ds without any experience. they will hire a diploma or undergraduate student for fresh workers coz it would be much more cheaper and they can be trained (like me) ;P now for me... maybe i need to get master degree in order for me to get more respect and have a better chance for promotion (also to show off ;P ) btw, the parents always ask their children to study higher till they get Ph.Ds... but really, i dont know wats the point of doing so if you cant even do the job properly... i agree that the academic qualification is only as a passport to enter working life... but to survive there, we need experience... well... thats wat happen in my country... ;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.
This question is a variation of The Fundamental Question: What the heck am I doing with my life?. From a salary perspective, nothing speaks louder than success. Top talent get to pick their jobs. It's pretty much universally agreed that the top talent in the field is 10 times more productive than the average to low talent. I just spoke with two people willing to pay 150k for developers that they can't find! And it's not b/c there aren't any developers around, it's just that they're looking for all-stars and most of the developers out looking for jobs aren't even good enough to start. My take, if you don't have a thesis picked out, then don't bother with an advanced degree in computing. Your Master's is either highly relevant or basically has zero value; experience is always relevant. If you can pick your thesis right now, then it's far more likely that your study will be relevant and profitable long-term. If you just want to "do a Masters" and haven't already picked a topic, then it probably doesn't matter what you do it's going to be irrelevant, go work instead.
-
John C wrote:
I believe a higher education in a technical field is about as worthwhile as toilet paper
Yeah, I'd really love to ride in a plane that you designed. I think I'd much prefer one that was designed by someone who had a bit of an idea of what makes them fly. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.